window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"lisapickoffwhite-2": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "199",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "199",
"found": true
},
"name": "Lisa Pickoff-White",
"firstName": "Lisa",
"lastName": "Pickoff-White",
"slug": "lisapickoffwhite-2",
"email": "lpickoffwhite@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Data Journalist, Senior Producer",
"bio": "Lisa Pickoff-White is KQED's data reporter. Lisa specializes in simplifying complex topics and bringing them to life through compelling visuals, including photography and data visualizations. She previously has worked at the Center for Investigative Reporting and other national outlets. Her work has been honored with awards from the Online News Association, Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists and SXSW Interactive. \u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "pickoffwhite",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": []
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Lisa Pickoff-White | KQED",
"description": "Data Journalist, Senior Producer",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lisapickoffwhite-2"
},
"davidweir": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "223",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"name": "David Weir",
"firstName": "David",
"lastName": "Weir",
"slug": "davidweir",
"email": "dweir@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "David Weir is KQED's senior editor for digital news. He previously worked at \u003cem>Rolling Stone,\u003c/em> Salon, Wired Digital, Excite@Home,\u003cem> Mother Jones,\u003c/em> and as a co-founder and executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting.\r\n\r\nOver the past 40 years, he and his teams have won dozens of awards, including a National Magazine Award, an IRE Award and a Webby. He has authored or co-authored four books, including (with Mark Schapiro) \u003cem>Circle of Poison.\u003c/em>\r\n\r\nHe has a ba\u003cspan class=\"example\">chelor's degree\u003c/span> in journalism from the University of Michigan, and has taught journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford and San Francisco State.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c6642c16c4d2d2de5e6f067edf92b9c8?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "David Weir | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c6642c16c4d2d2de5e6f067edf92b9c8?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c6642c16c4d2d2de5e6f067edf92b9c8?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/davidweir"
},
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"minakim": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "243",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "243",
"found": true
},
"name": "Mina Kim",
"firstName": "Mina",
"lastName": "Kim",
"slug": "minakim",
"email": "mkim@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Host, Forum",
"bio": "Mina Kim is host of the 10 a.m. statewide hour of Forum; a live daily talk show for curious Californians on issues that matter to the state and nation, with a particular emphasis on race and equity.\r\n\r\nBefore joining the Forum team, Mina was KQED’s evening news anchor, and health reporter for The California Report. Her award-winning work has included natural disasters in Napa and gun violence in Oakland. Mina grew up in St. John’s, Newfoundland.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/145ce657a2d08cb86d93686beb958982?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "mkimreporter",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Mina Kim | KQED",
"description": "Host, Forum",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/145ce657a2d08cb86d93686beb958982?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/145ce657a2d08cb86d93686beb958982?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/minakim"
},
"sdetrow": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "256",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "256",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Detrow",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Detrow",
"slug": "sdetrow",
"email": "sdetrow@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": "Sacramento bureau chief Scott Detrow covers state government, politics and policy for KQED News and its statewide news program, The California Report.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3271d0c151ba26452e3417f5ac251c30?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Detrow | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3271d0c151ba26452e3417f5ac251c30?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3271d0c151ba26452e3417f5ac251c30?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/sdetrow"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_category_law-and-justice": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"score": 13.561613
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Law and Justice",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 437
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?category=law-and-justice",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 437
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_101652": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101652",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101652",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372360321000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372360321,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California Same-Sex Couples Look Forward to Federal Benefits",
"title": "California Same-Sex Couples Look Forward to Federal Benefits",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101674\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/couples.jpg.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-101674 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/couples.jpg-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols, from San Francisco, outside City Hall.\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols, from San Francisco, outside City Hall. (Photo: Deb Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In 2011, more than 28,000 California same-sex couples reported being married, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That includes the 18,000 couples estimated to have been married in the brief time that same-sex marriage was legal in the state. Proposition 8 put an end to that, but now that Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision has effectively invalidated Prop. 8, many more same-sex marriages are sure to follow.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And another decision by the high court yesterday striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act could greatly benefit those couples financially. They can now look forward to more than 1,000 federal benefits enjoyed by their opposite-sex counterparts: tax breaks, pensions and immigration rights that are tied to marriage status.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>State Assemblywoman Toni Atkins married her partner during that brief window when same-sex marriages were legal. Yesterday Atkins said she's looking forward to the ability to file a joint federal tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I can stop checking on my state tax forms ‘married.’ And feeling like I’m lying to the federal government when I check ‘single.’ \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://business.time.com/2013/06/27/how-the-doma-ruling-will-affect-gay-couples-finances/\" target=\"_blank\">How the DOMA Ruling Will Affect Gay Couples' Finances\u003c/a> (TIME)\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>One big impact will be felt in immigration. For years, DOMA, which strictly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, has barred gay Americans from sponsoring their foreign-born partners for spousal visas. Now the high court ruling clears a path for the Obama administration to consider granting green cards to thousands of bi-national gay couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For San Jose couple Judy Rickard and her wife, Karin Bogliolo, they won't have to live under the threat of deportation. Bogliolo says she's been unable to visit her family in the United Kingdom for three years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"My son called from Scotland and said, 'The spare room's ready for you, you and Judy hurry on up over there.' And these are all the things that I can now seriously think about,\" Bogliolo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Immigration attorneys say a number of open questions remain about how the Obama administration will process green-card petitions. Some of the usual means of evaluating legitimate marriages have been unavailable to same-sex couples, like joint tax returns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Bolgiolo is optimistic. For the first time, she says, she's starting to believe in the U.S. government.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/26/us/100000002303232/defense-of-marriage-act-overturned.html\" target=\"_blank\">NY Times video\u003c/a>: Where same-sex couples live or even where they were married will determine whether they will now receive federal benefits\u003c/em> ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe src=\"http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html?videoId=100000002303232&playerType=embed\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"480\" height=\"373\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101652 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101652",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/27/california-married-couples-look-forward-to-federal-benefits/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 436,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 12
},
"modified": 1372369874,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In 2011, more than 28,000 California same-sex couples reported being married, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That includes the 18,000 couples estimated to have been married in the brief time that same-sex marriage was legal in the state. Proposition 8 put an end to that, but now that Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision has",
"title": "California Same-Sex Couples Look Forward to Federal Benefits | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Same-Sex Couples Look Forward to Federal Benefits",
"datePublished": "2013-06-27T12:12:01-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-27T14:51:14-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-married-couples-look-forward-to-federal-benefits",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/27/california_same_sex_benefits_doma/",
"path": "/news/101652/california-married-couples-look-forward-to-federal-benefits",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101674\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/couples.jpg.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-101674 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/couples.jpg-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols, from San Francisco, outside City Hall.\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols, from San Francisco, outside City Hall. (Photo: Deb Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In 2011, more than 28,000 California same-sex couples reported being married, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That includes the 18,000 couples estimated to have been married in the brief time that same-sex marriage was legal in the state. Proposition 8 put an end to that, but now that Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision has effectively invalidated Prop. 8, many more same-sex marriages are sure to follow.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And another decision by the high court yesterday striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act could greatly benefit those couples financially. They can now look forward to more than 1,000 federal benefits enjoyed by their opposite-sex counterparts: tax breaks, pensions and immigration rights that are tied to marriage status.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>State Assemblywoman Toni Atkins married her partner during that brief window when same-sex marriages were legal. Yesterday Atkins said she's looking forward to the ability to file a joint federal tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I can stop checking on my state tax forms ‘married.’ And feeling like I’m lying to the federal government when I check ‘single.’ \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://business.time.com/2013/06/27/how-the-doma-ruling-will-affect-gay-couples-finances/\" target=\"_blank\">How the DOMA Ruling Will Affect Gay Couples' Finances\u003c/a> (TIME)\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>One big impact will be felt in immigration. For years, DOMA, which strictly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, has barred gay Americans from sponsoring their foreign-born partners for spousal visas. Now the high court ruling clears a path for the Obama administration to consider granting green cards to thousands of bi-national gay couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For San Jose couple Judy Rickard and her wife, Karin Bogliolo, they won't have to live under the threat of deportation. Bogliolo says she's been unable to visit her family in the United Kingdom for three years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"My son called from Scotland and said, 'The spare room's ready for you, you and Judy hurry on up over there.' And these are all the things that I can now seriously think about,\" Bogliolo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Immigration attorneys say a number of open questions remain about how the Obama administration will process green-card petitions. Some of the usual means of evaluating legitimate marriages have been unavailable to same-sex couples, like joint tax returns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Bolgiolo is optimistic. For the first time, she says, she's starting to believe in the U.S. government.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/26/us/100000002303232/defense-of-marriage-act-overturned.html\" target=\"_blank\">NY Times video\u003c/a>: Where same-sex couples live or even where they were married will determine whether they will now receive federal benefits\u003c/em> ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe src=\"http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html?videoId=100000002303232&playerType=embed\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"480\" height=\"373\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101652/california-married-couples-look-forward-to-federal-benefits",
"authors": [
"243"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101360": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101360",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101360",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372316347000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372316347,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Decoding the Prop. 8 and DOMA Rulings and What's Next",
"title": "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Decoding the Prop. 8 and DOMA Rulings and What's Next",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101462\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 275px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101462\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/5312_transform.jpg\" alt=\"Thousands of people celebrated the Prop. 8 and DOMA rulings at San Francisco City Hall. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\" width=\"275\" height=\"400\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thousands of people celebrated the Prop. 8 and DOMA rulings at San Francisco City Hall. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>After years of waiting, we finally have two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the legality of same-sex marriage. But neither ruling was the type of clear-cut decision that advocates on both sides of the issue were hoping for. KQED spoke to several experts about the details of the cases and how this could all play out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court focused on the issue of standing in their ruling today on Prop. 8. In 2010, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado refused to defend Prop. 8, leaving Imperial County as the only government entity willing to defend the proposition. But in 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 8 proponents had standing to defend the measure, which allowed them to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Prop. 8 supporters did\u003cem> not\u003c/em> have standing to appeal, Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional currently stands.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So what's standing?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vik Amar explains:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Standing means that you're a party that belongs in court, and that we can trust that you'll represent the interests of one position in a way that allows the court to reach the merits. For example, if I voted against Prop. 8, and I thought it was a bad deal, I couldn't sue to challenge Prop. 8, even if it offended me, unless I'm a same-sex person, which I'm not. Standing makes sure we have the right parties in the case so that the courts aren't shooting their mouths off and making new rulings just in abstract context.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Usually we focus on whether the plaintiffs have standing. This was an unusual case because we were focusing on whether the defendants -- the proponents of Prop. 8 -- had standing, and the real question is whether the proponents are adequate representatives of the voters of the state of California. And the Supreme Court said that they are not. The Supreme Court said that they are private persons. They are not the same as public state officials.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If the Brown administration had appealed Judge Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit but said, 'By the way, we agree with the plaintiff, the challengers,' then the Supreme Court might have had a much harder time getting rid of this case. It might have had to reach the merits as it did in the Defense of Marriage Act case.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>When can same-sex marriages resume?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court gave the 9th Circuit Court 25 days before the appeals court has to lift the stay, or hold, on Walker's ruling. This period comes directly from Supreme Court rules -- whenever the high court makes a ruling, the loser has 25 days to file for a rehearing before anything can happen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California also has to decide how they are going to interpret the ruling. Gov. Jerry Brown ordered the Department of Public Health - which oversees marriage licenses, birth and death certificates, and other such documents - to advise the 58 counties of California to commence same-sex marriages as soon as the stay is lifted. Each county has to decide how they will prepare.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorney General Kamala Harris in a speech asked the court to lift the stay quickly: \"I am also calling on the 9th Circuit today to urge them in the strongest terms that they lift the stay and enforce the permanent injunction that Vaughn Walker outlined so that marriages can begin in California immediately.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Will the legal struggle continue in California?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's unclear whether the lawsuits will continue. Someone with standing would need to challenge Walker's ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar believes that only a county clerk could do so: \"The only scenario I envision is if a county clerk who feels that he should not be bound by Judge Walker's order, and that he is not controllable by the governor, from some conservative county wants to refuse to issue marriage licenses and goes to court and says he shouldn't be governed by any of this because he never had his day in court, he wasn't in San Francisco defending Prop 8. That's the only kind of individual or party left I could see to stand in the way.\"\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\nJane Schacter, professor of law at Stanford Law School, agrees that a county clerk refusal could restart the process: \"What I think will happen at that point, it would not surprise me if in some more culturally conservative part of the state, a local county clerk says, 'Well, I don’t think the governor had the power to order me to do this, I don’t think I’m bound by Judge Walker’s order, and therefore I’m not going to give you a license.' At that point, a same-sex couple may go to court to try to get that license and we may be off to the races with further litigation. Now, this really is a law professor’s dream. Will that be in state court? Will that be in federal court? Will it be about the scope of Walker’s decision? Will it be about the scope of the governor’s authority to decide what to do in these circumstances? Any number of questions, but I think there is no question that a lot of same-sex couples in short order are going to start marrying again in California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Schacter also says that, while unlikely, Walker's opinion could be open to interpretation: \"The question is does Judge Walker's opinion, which was issued not in a class action but a lawsuit involving two couples, does it bind and apply statewide to other couples who are not part of the litigation? I think the governor will aggressively take the position that the state was a party in the case, the state is not contesting the decision of Judge Walker, therefore Prop. 8 is no longer enforceable. But it wouldn't surprise me if there's further litigation in this. It might be that the proponents of Prop. 8 will try to get some clarification of what the scope is of Judge Walker's opinion, and that won't come from Judge Walker because he's retired, but it will come from a different district judge. More likely I think Gov. Brown has ordered that marriage licenses be issued immediately. Once that starts happening, and I don't see a constraint to it because there was a stay in place pending resolution of the Supreme Court's appeal, and I think in short order that will be dissolved.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>John Eastman, a lawyer for the National Organization for Marriage, argues that the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA should leave the decision up to the states: \"DOMA’s decision by the court, which specifically says that marriage policy is a core function of the states and that the federal government can’t interfere with that, strongly suggests that Judge Walker’s opinion in the Proposition 8 case, which is the last opinion standing in the Proposition 8 case right now, is invalid and has been superseded by that DOMA decision. Because what he did was strike down California’s effort that has its own merits policy, as reflected in Proposition 8. So I think we’ve got a lot of litigation still to go on whether that decision has to be overruled.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar says this is unlikely, though: \"A big question is whether anyone can validly raise this kind of argument in front of the 9th Circuit or the District Court. In light of today's Perry ruling, Prop. 8 proponents have no right to have the 9th Circuit take another look at what Judge Walker did, or at the scope of his remedy either. And the governor and attorney general certainly are not going to ask the 9th Circuit to do anything other than allow Judge Walker's order to go into effect. So unless the 9th Circuit decides, on its own, to re-examine Walker's ruling, or unless someone else, like a county clerk, successfully intervenes to defend Proposition 8, and both of these are unlikely. I think the same-sex marriage train will leave the station here in California pretty soon. I think, and have argued for years, that this is the right result. California will join the same-sex marriage column of states largely because of the decisions of accountable, elected officials - the governor and the attorney general - rather than because of 9th Circuit judges.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>So if same-sex marriage is legal, what happens to domestic partnerships?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is also unclear. David Levine, professor of law at UC Hastings College of the Law, says: \"Presumably it will effectively change over to a marriage. When we had the interim period under the California Supreme Court, in effect that was what was going to happen. So, I think probably it’ll, in effect, automatically happen. But again that’s something that we’re going to have to get some direction. The state officials in Sacramento will be issuing some directives to the appropriate county officials. So, we’ll see. But I think, as a practical matter, it will turn into a marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>What about federal areas, like immigration and taxes?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act covers changes to federal issues, such as immigration and taxes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court found that a portion of DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates equality principles by treating same-sex and heterosexual couples differently, even when states recognize same-sex couples and heterosexual couples the same, according to Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the Supreme Court can direct, it cannot legislate. Our experts agreed that the details will probably have to be handled by the Obama administration. Schacter says: \"If section 3, as I believe, of DOMA is now unconstitutional in any respect, then there won’t be any reason for the Obama administration – which I think is inclined to recognize same-sex marriages – not to do that in the context of immigration and beyond. So, they’re going to have to go agency by agency and issue some regulations and public directives explaining how same-sex couples can achieve recognition from the federal government in these different areas.\"\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101360 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101360",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/same-sex-marriage-in-california-decoding-the-prop-8-and-doma-rulings-and-whats-next/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1771,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1398733208,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "After years of waiting, we finally have two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the legality of same-sex marriage. But neither ruling was the type of clear-cut decision that advocates on both sides of the issue were hoping for. KQED spoke to several experts about the details of the cases and how this could all play",
"title": "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Decoding the Prop. 8 and DOMA Rulings and What's Next | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Decoding the Prop. 8 and DOMA Rulings and What's Next",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T23:59:07-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:08-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "same-sex-marriage-in-california-decoding-the-prop-8-and-doma-rulings-and-whats-next",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/what-the-doma-and-prop-8-rulings-mean-and-what-we-still-need-to-know/",
"path": "/news/101360/same-sex-marriage-in-california-decoding-the-prop-8-and-doma-rulings-and-whats-next",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101462\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 275px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101462\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/5312_transform.jpg\" alt=\"Thousands of people celebrated the Prop. 8 and DOMA rulings at San Francisco City Hall. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\" width=\"275\" height=\"400\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thousands of people celebrated the Prop. 8 and DOMA rulings at San Francisco City Hall. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>After years of waiting, we finally have two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the legality of same-sex marriage. But neither ruling was the type of clear-cut decision that advocates on both sides of the issue were hoping for. KQED spoke to several experts about the details of the cases and how this could all play out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court focused on the issue of standing in their ruling today on Prop. 8. In 2010, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado refused to defend Prop. 8, leaving Imperial County as the only government entity willing to defend the proposition. But in 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 8 proponents had standing to defend the measure, which allowed them to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Prop. 8 supporters did\u003cem> not\u003c/em> have standing to appeal, Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional currently stands.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So what's standing?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vik Amar explains:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Standing means that you're a party that belongs in court, and that we can trust that you'll represent the interests of one position in a way that allows the court to reach the merits. For example, if I voted against Prop. 8, and I thought it was a bad deal, I couldn't sue to challenge Prop. 8, even if it offended me, unless I'm a same-sex person, which I'm not. Standing makes sure we have the right parties in the case so that the courts aren't shooting their mouths off and making new rulings just in abstract context.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Usually we focus on whether the plaintiffs have standing. This was an unusual case because we were focusing on whether the defendants -- the proponents of Prop. 8 -- had standing, and the real question is whether the proponents are adequate representatives of the voters of the state of California. And the Supreme Court said that they are not. The Supreme Court said that they are private persons. They are not the same as public state officials.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If the Brown administration had appealed Judge Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit but said, 'By the way, we agree with the plaintiff, the challengers,' then the Supreme Court might have had a much harder time getting rid of this case. It might have had to reach the merits as it did in the Defense of Marriage Act case.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>When can same-sex marriages resume?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court gave the 9th Circuit Court 25 days before the appeals court has to lift the stay, or hold, on Walker's ruling. This period comes directly from Supreme Court rules -- whenever the high court makes a ruling, the loser has 25 days to file for a rehearing before anything can happen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California also has to decide how they are going to interpret the ruling. Gov. Jerry Brown ordered the Department of Public Health - which oversees marriage licenses, birth and death certificates, and other such documents - to advise the 58 counties of California to commence same-sex marriages as soon as the stay is lifted. Each county has to decide how they will prepare.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorney General Kamala Harris in a speech asked the court to lift the stay quickly: \"I am also calling on the 9th Circuit today to urge them in the strongest terms that they lift the stay and enforce the permanent injunction that Vaughn Walker outlined so that marriages can begin in California immediately.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Will the legal struggle continue in California?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's unclear whether the lawsuits will continue. Someone with standing would need to challenge Walker's ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar believes that only a county clerk could do so: \"The only scenario I envision is if a county clerk who feels that he should not be bound by Judge Walker's order, and that he is not controllable by the governor, from some conservative county wants to refuse to issue marriage licenses and goes to court and says he shouldn't be governed by any of this because he never had his day in court, he wasn't in San Francisco defending Prop 8. That's the only kind of individual or party left I could see to stand in the way.\"\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\nJane Schacter, professor of law at Stanford Law School, agrees that a county clerk refusal could restart the process: \"What I think will happen at that point, it would not surprise me if in some more culturally conservative part of the state, a local county clerk says, 'Well, I don’t think the governor had the power to order me to do this, I don’t think I’m bound by Judge Walker’s order, and therefore I’m not going to give you a license.' At that point, a same-sex couple may go to court to try to get that license and we may be off to the races with further litigation. Now, this really is a law professor’s dream. Will that be in state court? Will that be in federal court? Will it be about the scope of Walker’s decision? Will it be about the scope of the governor’s authority to decide what to do in these circumstances? Any number of questions, but I think there is no question that a lot of same-sex couples in short order are going to start marrying again in California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Schacter also says that, while unlikely, Walker's opinion could be open to interpretation: \"The question is does Judge Walker's opinion, which was issued not in a class action but a lawsuit involving two couples, does it bind and apply statewide to other couples who are not part of the litigation? I think the governor will aggressively take the position that the state was a party in the case, the state is not contesting the decision of Judge Walker, therefore Prop. 8 is no longer enforceable. But it wouldn't surprise me if there's further litigation in this. It might be that the proponents of Prop. 8 will try to get some clarification of what the scope is of Judge Walker's opinion, and that won't come from Judge Walker because he's retired, but it will come from a different district judge. More likely I think Gov. Brown has ordered that marriage licenses be issued immediately. Once that starts happening, and I don't see a constraint to it because there was a stay in place pending resolution of the Supreme Court's appeal, and I think in short order that will be dissolved.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>John Eastman, a lawyer for the National Organization for Marriage, argues that the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA should leave the decision up to the states: \"DOMA’s decision by the court, which specifically says that marriage policy is a core function of the states and that the federal government can’t interfere with that, strongly suggests that Judge Walker’s opinion in the Proposition 8 case, which is the last opinion standing in the Proposition 8 case right now, is invalid and has been superseded by that DOMA decision. Because what he did was strike down California’s effort that has its own merits policy, as reflected in Proposition 8. So I think we’ve got a lot of litigation still to go on whether that decision has to be overruled.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amar says this is unlikely, though: \"A big question is whether anyone can validly raise this kind of argument in front of the 9th Circuit or the District Court. In light of today's Perry ruling, Prop. 8 proponents have no right to have the 9th Circuit take another look at what Judge Walker did, or at the scope of his remedy either. And the governor and attorney general certainly are not going to ask the 9th Circuit to do anything other than allow Judge Walker's order to go into effect. So unless the 9th Circuit decides, on its own, to re-examine Walker's ruling, or unless someone else, like a county clerk, successfully intervenes to defend Proposition 8, and both of these are unlikely. I think the same-sex marriage train will leave the station here in California pretty soon. I think, and have argued for years, that this is the right result. California will join the same-sex marriage column of states largely because of the decisions of accountable, elected officials - the governor and the attorney general - rather than because of 9th Circuit judges.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>So if same-sex marriage is legal, what happens to domestic partnerships?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is also unclear. David Levine, professor of law at UC Hastings College of the Law, says: \"Presumably it will effectively change over to a marriage. When we had the interim period under the California Supreme Court, in effect that was what was going to happen. So, I think probably it’ll, in effect, automatically happen. But again that’s something that we’re going to have to get some direction. The state officials in Sacramento will be issuing some directives to the appropriate county officials. So, we’ll see. But I think, as a practical matter, it will turn into a marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>What about federal areas, like immigration and taxes?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act covers changes to federal issues, such as immigration and taxes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court found that a portion of DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates equality principles by treating same-sex and heterosexual couples differently, even when states recognize same-sex couples and heterosexual couples the same, according to Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the Supreme Court can direct, it cannot legislate. Our experts agreed that the details will probably have to be handled by the Obama administration. Schacter says: \"If section 3, as I believe, of DOMA is now unconstitutional in any respect, then there won’t be any reason for the Obama administration – which I think is inclined to recognize same-sex marriages – not to do that in the context of immigration and beyond. So, they’re going to have to go agency by agency and issue some regulations and public directives explaining how same-sex couples can achieve recognition from the federal government in these different areas.\"\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101360/same-sex-marriage-in-california-decoding-the-prop-8-and-doma-rulings-and-whats-next",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_1169",
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_548",
"news_3672",
"news_152",
"news_740",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_95",
"news_322",
"news_38"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101122": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101122",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101122",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372305637000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372305637,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Significant Victories For LGBT Rights in Prop 8, DOMA Rulings",
"headTitle": "Significant Victories For LGBT Rights in Prop 8, DOMA Rulings | KQED",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101284\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/prop8cityhall.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101284\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/prop8cityhall-300x200.jpg\" alt=\" A couple celebrates at San Francisco City Hall upon hearing the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on June 26, 2013. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A couple celebrates upon hearing the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act at City Hall June 26, 2013 in San Francisco, United States. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP and KQED) — In significant but incomplete victories for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney Gen. Kamala Harris \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/#brown\">said the ruling on Proposition 8, the state’s same-sex marriage ban, would apply statewide\u003c/a>, a directive that Prop. 8 supporters may challenge in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to advise county officials today that the district court’s injunction against Proposition 8 applies statewide and that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders must comply with it,” a statement from Brown’s office said.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/#updates\">\u003cstrong>Rolling Updates\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/what-the-doma-and-prop-8-rulings-mean-and-what-we-still-need-to-know/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u003cstrong>What happens next?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/full-text-supreme-court-proposition-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u003cstrong>Read the full Prop 8 decision\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/full-text-supreme-court-doma-decision/\">\u003cstrong>Read the full DOMA decision\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The two 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court came in its final session of the term. The decision on the Defense of Marriage Act wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health pension and other benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop. 8 decision was a technical legal ruling that said nothing at all about same-sex marriage, but left in place a trial court’s declaration that California’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. That outcome probably will allow state officials to order the resumption of same-sex weddings in the nation’s most populous state in about a month.The high court said nothing about the validity of gay marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/#ap\">Full AP story\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"updates\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center\">\u003cstrong>ROLLING UPDATES (Refresh page for more)\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Continuing Coverage on Morning Edition Begins at 3 AM PT Thursday\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We are signing off of our live blogging for tonight. Thanks for visiting!\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Party Atmosphere in the Castro\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Bryan Goebel reports: “The excitement and emotion in this crowd of thousands of people is overwhelming. They started closing Castro Street between Market and 19\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> streets around 5 o’clock, and the street quickly began filling up with people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is going to be one of the largest marriage equality celebrations in California today. They’ve got two stages set up – one at Castro and Market, the other at 19\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> and Castro – where there are DJs; they’re going to be playing music, and a variety of speakers. I see longtime activist Steve Jones about to take the microphone on stage. I talked to the police and this official party goes until 9 o’clock, but they’re going to keep the streets open here until the party dies down.”\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Bay Area Faith Leaders Speak Out\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A coalition of faith leaders representing 80 congregations gathered at Grace Cathedral to celebrate today’s rulings. Mitch Mayne is with Mormons for Marriage Quality: “The decisions that we heard today actually align with our Mormon faith as recorded in modern scripture, in that we believe it is unjust for a particular set of religious beliefs to be used to deny the civil rights of others.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Rev. Deborah Johnson is with Inner Light Ministries in Santa Cruz: “We no more choose our sex than the color of our skin. And no one should be prevented from participating in their constitutional freedoms by being denied access to the basic things, like voter registration (and) a marriage license.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Rev. Kamal Hassan is with the Sojourner Presbyterian Church in Richmond:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I am glad that DOMA was struck down. It did not defend marriage. It exclusivized it, and defended heterosexual privilege. it divided our communities and denied the right for everyone who wants to be married in our state to the person who they love.”\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>– Castro Prepares for Parties Tonight\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(BAY CITY NEWS) Members of the LGBT community and their supporters will gather in San Francisco’s Castro District this evening to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on Prop. 8 and on the Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Starting around 5 p.m., Castro Street will be closed between Market and 19th streets, and 18th Street will be shut down between Collingwood and Hartford streets, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The rally starts at 6:30 p.m. with a “victory stage” at Market and Castro streets, with performances on a second stage at 19th and Castro streets, said Marriage Equality USA national media director Stuart Gaffney.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Our community has been on pins and needles for weeks and weeks now. We woke up this morning to wonderful news but I think a lot of us are still taking it in,” Gaffney said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Volunteers wearing fluorescent orange vests will help patrol the Castro neighborhood, but given the nature of the ruling, security should be easy, he said. Security is expected to be stepped up for Pride celebrations this weekend. Invitations to tonight’s rally have also been sent to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, members of the Board of Supervisors and other civic leaders, Gaffney said.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>– Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yahoo and Google report that a number of search terms related to the Supreme Court rulings have been spiking. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">See which ones here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Around the Web …\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-question-answer-20130626,0,1793695.story\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">How soon can we get married? Plus 5 other questions\u003c/a> (LA Times)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/a-home-run-but-not-a-grand-slam-for-gay-marriage-advocates-in-plain-english/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A home run but not a grand slam for gay-marriage advocates: In Plain English\u003c/a> (SCOTUSblog)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/06/26/why-i-hope-scalia-is-right-on-same-sex-marriage/\">Why I hope Scalia is right on same-sex marriage\u003c/a> (Ruth Marcus, Washington Post)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23542953/mercury-news-editorial-prop-8-doma-fall-it\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Prop 8, DOMA fall: It is a great day\u003c/a> (SJ Mercury News)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.matthewshepard.org/home/our-reaction-on-the-prop-8-and-doma-rulings-from-the-supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew Shepard’s mother on today’s rulings\u003c/a> (Matthew Shephard Foundation)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Videos: \u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYXqH2RskII&feature=player_embedded\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">San Francisco celebrates\u003c/a> (Mother Jones) and \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/26/us/politics/100000002304144/a-conservative-reacts-to-courts-rulings.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Heritage Foundation reacts\u003c/a> (NY Times)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-DOMA: What will change, what won’t\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Where same-sex couples live or even where they were married will determine whether they will now receive federal benefits. Video from the NY Times …\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html?videoId=100000002303232&playerType=embed\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"480\" height=\"373\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>–\u003cstrong>\u003cem>Obama on DOMA\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The president said “I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Obama said he had “directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.” \u003ca href=\"http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/06/26/statement-from-president-obama-on-doma-decision/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Full text here\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Meanwhile, Obama today congratulated Prop. 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and also got invited to a gay wedding …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=tk_fapwm4hwmuem5gsmpmq&partner=yahoo&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hulu.com%2fwatch%2f505164\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"512\" height=\"288\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-It ain’t over till it’s over, says Prop 8 lawyer\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>John Eastman, professor with Chapman University’s School of Law and chair of the National Organization for Marriage, which filed a brief in support of Proposition 8, said on KQED Forum today that the court’s DOMA opinion would actually impact the Prop. 8 case in a way favorable to those who oppose same-sex marriage. His argument:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>DOMA’s decision by the court, which specifically says that marriage policy is a core function of the states and that the federal government can’t interfere with that, strongly suggests that Judge Walker’s opinion in the Proposition 8 case, which is the last opinion standing in the Proposition 8 case right now, is invalid and has been superseded by that DOMA decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because what he did was strike down California’s effort that has its own merits policy, as reflected in Proposition 8. So I think we’ve got a lot of litigation still to go on whether that decision has to be overruled …\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>We asked Vik Amar, one of SCOTUSblog’s legal analysts, what he thought of Eastman’s argument. Amar said that regardless of whether this was a valid legal avenue open to Prop. 8 supporters, it was unlikely to gain any traction. From Amar …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A big question is whether anyone can validly raise this kind of argument in front of the 9th Circuit or the District Court. In light of today’s Perry ruling, Prop. 8 proponents have no right to have the Ninth Circuit take another look at what Judge Walker did (or at the scope of his remedy either), and the governor and attorney general certainly are not going to ask the Ninth Circuit to do anything other than allow Judge Walker’s order to go into effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So unless the Ninth Circuit decides, on its own, to re-examine Walker’s ruling, or unless someone else (like a county clerk) successfully intervenes to defend Proposition 8 — and both of these are unlikely — I think the same-sex marriage train will leave the station here in California pretty soon.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Gay and lesbian California lawmakers react\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I can stop checking on my state tax forms, ‘married.’ And then turn around and doing my federal tax form and feeling like I’m lying to the federal government when I check, ‘single.’”\u003cbr>\n-Assemblywoman Toni Atkins\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Full equality feels absolutely amazing, honey. I mean it is – I’m beside myself.”\u003cbr>\n-State Sen. Ricardo Lara\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“With 38 states still denying equal marriage rights, with not a single federal protection in housing, employment, public accommodation, there is a lot of work to do.\u003cbr>\n-State Sen. Mark Leno\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is the first time in my life that I’ve felt that the law fully recognized me as being equal to everyone else. I don’t know how much more personal you can get than the concept of truly being seen as equal in the eyes of the law.”\u003cbr>\n–Assembly Speaker John Perez\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And Perez on the question of county clerks possibly taking it upon themselves to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples:\u003cstrong>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They’ll have hell to pay. Could I be clearer?”\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Sacramento County prepares …\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From News10 Sacramento, how Sacramento County is preparing for same-sex marriage…\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003cobject id=\"flashObj\" width=\"480\" height=\"270\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"flashVars\" value=\"videoId=2509860222001&playerID=1684488551001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lKhk~,ZvV6UsgbjjZzy5iAEyU8skbXMqWBZ-rJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true\">\u003cparam name=\"base\" value=\"http://admin.brightcove.com\">\u003cparam name=\"seamlesstabbing\" value=\"false\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"swLiveConnect\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowScriptAccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1\">\u003cparam name=\"flashvars\" value=\"videoId=2509860222001&playerID=1684488551001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lKhk~,ZvV6UsgbjjZzy5iAEyU8skbXMqWBZ-rJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"swliveconnect\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"pluginspage\" value=\"http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash\">\u003cembed width=\"480\" height=\"270\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" src=\"http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1\" flashvars=\"videoId=2509860222001&playerID=1684488551001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lKhk~,ZvV6UsgbjjZzy5iAEyU8skbXMqWBZ-rJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true\" base=\"http://admin.brightcove.com\" seamlesstabbing=\"false\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" swliveconnect=\"true\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\" pluginspage=\"http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\">\u003c/embed>\u003c/object>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Kamala Harris: Prop. 8 supporters are ‘bystanders’\u003cbr>\n\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California Attorney General Kamala Harrissaid today that …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>… today’s decision “means those people who want to deny same-sex couples the benefits of equal protection and due process under the United States Constitution cannot do so simply because they don’t like the notion. The United States Supreme Court essentially declared today that they are bystanders. They are sitting in the sidelines. They can have their freedom of expression but they cannot deny Americans, they cannot deny citizens of this country equal protection and due process under the law.”\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Harris said she gave the governor legal advice that the “58 counties of the state of California must abide by the ruling of Vaughn Walker from the District Court when the stay is lifted and must commence marriage in California.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris also said she was calling on the 9th Circuit today to urge them on the strongest terms that they lift the stay and enforce the permanent injunction that Vaughn Walker outlined so that marriages can begin in California immediately …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here is the full press conference …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F98578487\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Tax filing for LGBT couples\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California Report’s Rachael Myrow explored in 2011 how tax filing for same-sex couples is \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/29/for-same-sex-couples-tax-filing-is-particularlycomplicated/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">particularly complicated\u003c/a> in light of DOMA. “You have to file as married at the state level and single at the federal level,” Santa Clara University Law Professor \u003ca href=\"http://law.scu.edu/faculty/profile/cain-patricia.cfm\">Patricia Cain\u003c/a> said. “So you have to file two single returns at the federal level. Then you have to fill out a mock joint return at the federal level in order to determine what your state liability is.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In May, Cain wrote a blog post called “\u003ca href=\"http://law.scu.edu/same-sex-tax/predicting-life-after-windsor/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Predicting Life After Windsor,\u003c/a>” in which she talked about a panel discussion on what might happen if the Supreme Court struck down the provision of DOMA that denies same-sex couples the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>[One participant] stressed the fact that we will need guidance from the IRS in the event the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. We are all hopeful that the Taxpayer Advocate will press IRS personnel to provide that guidance as quickly as possible…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>About the only sure prediction we had was that the decision would be handed down in very late June. But the discussion among the tax professionals in the room indicated that there are many that believe it is likely that the Court will strike DOMA down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That, of course, is only the first step in figuring out how the IRS will tax all same-sex couples in the future.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Report from city hall\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Spencer Michels, PBS NewsHour’s Bay Area correspondent, reports from San Francisco City Hall\u003c/em>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Six-thirty a.m. San Francisco’s center of government doesn’t even open until eight, but somehow hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters, dozens of reporters and cameramen, and every city official you can think of managed to crawl out of bed and show up in the ornate rotunda.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage and being against Proposition 8 are the mothers’ milk of politics in this town. And it was clear that nobody in politics wanted to be left out, even though there was a chance they would be disappointed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mayor Ed Lee said something and so did supervisors David Campos and Scott Wiener. But it was Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the man who defied state law and authorized same-sex weddings in 2004 when he was mayor, who got the biggest hand. By his side were former mayor Willie Brown, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and every other city supervisor and state legislator who could squeeze in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After about an hour the whole celebration and political exercise wound down –it wasn’t even 9 a.m. — and the celebrants probably went back to bed, to get ready for more partying in the evening. Because this is San Francisco.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/QRwEIfZf4Ro\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Same-sex binational couples celebrate\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Mina Kim reports today’s ruling striking down a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act means many of them will now be able to stay together. Under DOMA, gay Americans have not been able to sponsor their foreign partners for a spousal visa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Orinda couple Brian Willingham and Alfonso Garcia, that’s meant living under the threat of Garcia’s deportation for years. Garcia says he burst into tears when the high court ruling came down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I look at my husband and I was just like, oh my god we finally did it we’re married, we’re recognized by the government.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices decision today effectively clears the way for gay partners to apply for green cards. Garcia says he will travel to Mexico to see his grandmother’s resting place. She died while he was barred from traveling outside the US.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>–\u003cstrong>\u003cem>When will 9th Circuit act?\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has remanded the Proposition 8 case back to the 9th Circuit with instructions for that court to dismiss the appeal by the same-sex marriage ban’s backers, which would effectively reinstate Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Until the 9th acts on that, no same-sex marriages in California will occur.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when will that happen?\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\u003cp>9th Circuit spokesman leaves small window of quick lifting of \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Prop8&src=hash\">#Prop8\u003c/a> stay. Would not be normal. Likely would happen fast after 25 days tho\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>— Matthias Gafni (@mgafni) \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/mgafni/statuses/349958714540822528\">June 26, 2013\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-KQED Forum discussion\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Forum program today spent an hour parsing the details of the Supreme Court’s decisions, including surprises in how the justices voted, what questions remain unanswered and whether same-sex couples can take the time to plan a big wedding.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Twitter has another field day …\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\u003cp>The Supreme Court has made it harder for blacks to vote but easier for gays to marry! So Jason Collins must be confused as hell right now!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>— DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/RealDLHughley/statuses/349909075892514817\">June 26, 2013\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cblockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\u003cp>Gay or straight, now all that’s stopping you from marriage is your personality and that broken part of you that drives people away!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>— Kevin Seccia (@kevinseccia) \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/kevinseccia/statuses/349903635330760704\">June 26, 2013\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/gay-marriage-twitter-reaction-scotus-doma-prop8-155316576.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">More here\u003c/a>…\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-No same-sex marriages just quite yet … \u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the \u003ca href=\"http://gov.ca.gov/docs/Letter_to_County_Officials.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Dept. of Public Health’s letter to California county clerks and county recorders\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The effect of the district court’s injunction is that same-sex couples will once again be allowed to marry in California. But they will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit issues a further order dissolving a stay of the injunction that has been in place throughout the appeal process. We do not know when the Ninth Circuit will issue this order, but it could take a month or more. County clerks and recorders should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until this order is issued.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Who is left to fight for Prop. 8?\u003c/em> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Joshua Johnson this morning talked to UC Davis law professor Vik Amar about the Prop. 8 decision. From that conversation …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JOSHUA JOHNSON: I wonder who you think is left to fight for Prop 8? Will the fight continue in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>VIK AMAR: The only scenario I envision is if a county clerk who feels that he should not be bound by Judge Walker’s order and that he is not controllable by the governor, from some conservative county, wants to refuse to issue marriage licenses and goes to court and says he shouldn’t be governed by any of this because he never had his day in court, he wasn’t in San Francisco defending Prop 8. That’s the only kind of individual or party left I could see to stand in the way\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Did the court “punt” on Prop. 8?\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JOSHUA JOHNSON: I’m looking at a lot of coverage of Prop 8 from various news outlets and I keep seeing the word ‘punt’ come up. Is this just a punt?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>VIK AMAR: I’m not sure I would characterize it as a punt, if by punt we mean something negative. But I think that the court did not want to wade into this thicket any more than it had to. It wants to see how various states are going to evolve in this arena. Remember, this is a very fast-moving landscape. Just since the oral argument in the Perry case and the Windsor case a few months ago, three additional states have recognized same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Right now there are 38 states that don’t and 12 that do, although California will soon be in the column that does, but five, 10 years from now it could be 30 to 20 the other way and the court would rather decide the ultimate question against a backdrop that’s more stable than the one we have now.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-What is “standing”?\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop. 8 decision turned on the question of “standing.” Again from Vik Amar …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>VIK AMAR: Standing means you’re a party that belongs in court and that we can trust that you’ll represent the interests of one position in a way that allows the court to reach the merits. For example, if I voted against Prop. 8, and I thought it was a bad deal, I couldn’t sue to challenge Prop. 8 even if it offended me … Standing makes sure we have the right parties in the case so that the courts aren’t shooting their mouths off and making new rulings just in abstract context.\u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JOSHUA JOHNSON: It’s also a way, as I understand it, to make sure that the people who are arguing are arguing from a position of actually being injured or harmed in some way and not just, “oh I don’t like the way this turned out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>VIK AMAR:\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong> Yes, and usually we focus on whether the plaintiffs have standing. This was an unusual case because we were focusing on whether … the proponents of Prop 8 had standing, and the real question is whether the proponents are adequate representatives of the voters of the State of California and the Supreme Court said that they are not. The Supreme Court said that they are private persons, they are not the same as public state officials.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">More on standing here\u003c/a>, from Cornell Law.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Boxer, Newsom like it; NOM Doesn’t\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From Gavin Newsom, who was ahead of the curve on this issue when he \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_2004_same-sex_weddings\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">told San Francisco’s county clerks in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples\u003c/a>, said this today …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A city that has prided itself on being on the leading and cutting edge. Not a city of dreamers but a city of doers, of innovators and entrepreneurs. It’s a special place and I think everyone of you understands a core principle that defines our values in this city and in this state and for that matter, at our best, this nation: and that is we don’t just tolerate diversity, we celebrate our diversity each and every day.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And here’s the statement from California’s junior senator …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Today my spirits are soaring because the Supreme Court reaffirmed the promise of America by rejecting two blatantly unconstitutional measures that discriminated against millions of our families.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I was proud to have voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and it is so heartening to see that the federal government will now treat all marriages equally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because of the Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, millions of Californians will be able to marry the person they love – with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And from the \u003ca href=\"http://www.nomblog.com/35831\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">National Organization for Marriage\u003c/a>, which filed a brief in support of Prop. 8 in the case …\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv id=\"stcpDiv\">\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The Supreme Court’s holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It’s imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries.” \u003ca href=\"http://www.nomblog.com/35831\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Full statement\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-AFER celebrates\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the challenge to Prop. 8, held a press conference today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/fwPtP7pf5v0\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"420\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Brown, Harris: Ruling applies statewide\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From a statement from Brown’s office …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” said Governor Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The effect of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is that the 2010 federal district court’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is left intact and the law cannot be enforced.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In response, the Governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to advise county officials today that the district court’s injunction against Proposition 8 applies statewide and that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders must comply with it. However, same-sex Californians will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay of the injunction, which has been in place throughout the appeals process, is lifted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In preparation for this outcome, Governor Brown sought an opinion from California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris on whether the state, through the California Department of Public Health, can advise county clerks and registrar/recorders that they are bound by the federal district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Attorney General concluded that the California Department of Public Health “can and should” instruct county officials that they “must resume issuing marriage licenses to and recording the marriages of same-sex” couples. The Department will issue another letter to county officials as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay is lifted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AG_Letter.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Attorney General’s letter to Governor Brown can be found here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Boies speaks\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>David Boies, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said this on the courthouse step …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>We started out in this case. We said … we were going to prove that marriage was a fundamental right and the other side accepted that. We said … we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they loved seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children they were raising and even the opponents agreed with that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And third, we said that we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person they loved regardless of sexual orientation did not, could not harm anyone. And not only did the opponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today the United States Supreme Court said as much because they said the opponents have no concrete injury.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"next\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT’S NEXT?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer reports that the Prop. 8, decision means that same-sex marriage will indeed be legal once more in California, but a question remains as to whether it will be statewide or not. (Update: Gov. Jerry Brown said today it would, and that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders in the state must comply with the district court’s injunction against Prop. 8.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is likely to be more litigation by Prop. 8 supporters maintaining that for technical legal reasons the ruling should apply to a limited number of counties or even to only the two couples who were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8 defenders now have 25 days to ask for a rehearing. So at the soonest, we’ll see marriage in mid-to-late July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While many believed that a Prop. 8 ruling on standing would make same-sex marriage legal throughout California, others believed that it would apply only in the counties where the suits were filed (Alameda and Los Angeles), and in San Francisco, which intervened in the case. Because of these complications, most counties have said they will look to the state for direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Although county clerks are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in California, they will likely turn to the Department of Public Health Vital Records on how to proceed, said Cathy Darling Allen, president of the California State Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the clerk in Shasta County.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I believe we will receive some guidance,” Allen told KQED’s Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, a department spokesperson told Shafer that they will, in turn, look to the governor’s office for guidance. Evan Westrup, a spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, said the governor’s office wouldn’t deliberate on what guidance they will give until after the court’s ruling. “Lots of interesting scenarios, none of which we’d publicly comment or speculate on at this point,” Westrup said by email.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And some counties may challenge a statewide rule in any event. While same-sex marriages were legal in 2008, in the time between when the court struck down Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8, several counties, including Kern, Siskiyou and Butte, refused to perform civil ceremonies, only issuing the licenses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Allen, that resulted in many more couples from those counties rushing to Shasta County to have their ceremonies performed. Officials in Kern County have not said how they will proceed this time if Prop. 8 is struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the technical challenges to performing same-sex marriages — i.e., changing the license forms and naming conventions to be gender-neutral — were all addressed in 2008 when about 18,000 same-sex couples were married before Prop. 8 passed, said Allen. That means this time, they’ll be “ready to go,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials have said there could be a 25-day waiting period before marriages resume, meaning the earliest that ceremonies could be performed would be mid-July. However, even this is uncertain. Most cities and counties are preparing to be ready to issue a flood of licenses on Day One, should same-sex marriage be legalized. According to \u003ca href=\"http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Training-Volunteers-to-Administer-Marriage-Licenses-in-Preparation-for-Prop-8-Decision-211482311.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">NBC Bay Area\u003c/a>, San Francisco has even begun training volunteers to oversee impromptu weddings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>“We anticipate that it could be as much as 200 people who come down to City Hall,” said San Francisco County Administrator Naomi Kelly. “We just want to make sure that anyone who wants to get married on that day can.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare, the city is training dozens of volunteers to become deputy clerks. The volunteers are made up of mostly city employees giving up time to learn everything from how to administer vows to inputting legal data.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"ap\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Full AP story\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices issued two 5-4 rulings in their final session of the term. One decision wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other was a technical legal ruling that said nothing at all about same-sex marriage, but left in place a trial court’s declaration that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. That outcome probably will allow state officials to order the resumption of same-sex weddings in the nation’s most populous state in about a month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a sign that neither victory was complete, the high court said nothing about the validity of gay marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states. And a separate provision of the federal marriage law that allows a state to not recognize a same-sex union from elsewhere remains in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Barack Obama telephoned his congratulations to the plaintiffs in the California case from Air Force One en route to Africa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling in that case was not along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the 9th Circuit,” Roberts said, referring to the federal appeals court that also struck down Proposition 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the case involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court’s liberal justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” Kennedy said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some in the crowd outside the court hugged and others jumped up and down just after 10 a.m. EDT Wednesday when the DOMA decision was announced. Many people were on their cell phones monitoring Twitter, news sites and blogs for word of the decision. And there were cheers as runners came down the steps with the decision in hand and turned them over to reporters who quickly flipped through the decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chants of “Thank you” and “USA” came from the crowd as plaintiffs in the cases descended the court’s marbled steps. Most of those in the crowd appeared to support gay marriage, although there was at least one man who held a sign promoting marriage as between a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kennedy was joined in the DOMA decision by the court’s four liberal justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and Scalia dissented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage has been adopted by 12 states and the District of Columbia. Another 18,000 couples were married in California during a brief period when same-sex unions were legal there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The outcome is clear for people who were married and live in states that allow same-sex marriage. They now are eligible for federal benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The picture is more complicated for same-sex couples who traveled to another state to get married, or who have moved from a gay marriage state since being wed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Their eligibility depends on the benefits they are seeking. For instance, immigration law focuses on where people were married, not where they live. But eligibility for Social Security survivor benefits basically depends on where a couple is living when a spouse dies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The rulings came 10 years to the day after the court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down state bans on gay sex. In his dissent at the time, Scalia predicted the ruling would lead to same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": true,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 5762,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [
"http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html",
"http://www.hulu.com/embed.html"
],
"paragraphCount": 165
},
"modified": 1685487551,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "WASHINGTON (AP and KQED) — In significant but incomplete victories for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California. California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney Gen. Kamala Harris said",
"title": "Significant Victories For LGBT Rights in Prop 8, DOMA Rulings | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Significant Victories For LGBT Rights in Prop 8, DOMA Rulings",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T21:00:37-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T15:59:11-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "proposition-8-supreme-court-live-blog",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/101122/proposition-8-supreme-court-live-blog",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101284\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/prop8cityhall.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101284\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/prop8cityhall-300x200.jpg\" alt=\" A couple celebrates at San Francisco City Hall upon hearing the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on June 26, 2013. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A couple celebrates upon hearing the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act at City Hall June 26, 2013 in San Francisco, United States. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP and KQED) — In significant but incomplete victories for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney Gen. Kamala Harris \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/#brown\">said the ruling on Proposition 8, the state’s same-sex marriage ban, would apply statewide\u003c/a>, a directive that Prop. 8 supporters may challenge in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to advise county officials today that the district court’s injunction against Proposition 8 applies statewide and that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders must comply with it,” a statement from Brown’s office said.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/#updates\">\u003cstrong>Rolling Updates\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/what-the-doma-and-prop-8-rulings-mean-and-what-we-still-need-to-know/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u003cstrong>What happens next?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/full-text-supreme-court-proposition-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u003cstrong>Read the full Prop 8 decision\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/full-text-supreme-court-doma-decision/\">\u003cstrong>Read the full DOMA decision\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The two 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court came in its final session of the term. The decision on the Defense of Marriage Act wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health pension and other benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop. 8 decision was a technical legal ruling that said nothing at all about same-sex marriage, but left in place a trial court’s declaration that California’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. That outcome probably will allow state officials to order the resumption of same-sex weddings in the nation’s most populous state in about a month.The high court said nothing about the validity of gay marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/#ap\">Full AP story\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"updates\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center\">\u003cstrong>ROLLING UPDATES (Refresh page for more)\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Continuing Coverage on Morning Edition Begins at 3 AM PT Thursday\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We are signing off of our live blogging for tonight. Thanks for visiting!\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Party Atmosphere in the Castro\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Bryan Goebel reports: “The excitement and emotion in this crowd of thousands of people is overwhelming. They started closing Castro Street between Market and 19\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> streets around 5 o’clock, and the street quickly began filling up with people.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is going to be one of the largest marriage equality celebrations in California today. They’ve got two stages set up – one at Castro and Market, the other at 19\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> and Castro – where there are DJs; they’re going to be playing music, and a variety of speakers. I see longtime activist Steve Jones about to take the microphone on stage. I talked to the police and this official party goes until 9 o’clock, but they’re going to keep the streets open here until the party dies down.”\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Bay Area Faith Leaders Speak Out\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A coalition of faith leaders representing 80 congregations gathered at Grace Cathedral to celebrate today’s rulings. Mitch Mayne is with Mormons for Marriage Quality: “The decisions that we heard today actually align with our Mormon faith as recorded in modern scripture, in that we believe it is unjust for a particular set of religious beliefs to be used to deny the civil rights of others.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Rev. Deborah Johnson is with Inner Light Ministries in Santa Cruz: “We no more choose our sex than the color of our skin. And no one should be prevented from participating in their constitutional freedoms by being denied access to the basic things, like voter registration (and) a marriage license.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Rev. Kamal Hassan is with the Sojourner Presbyterian Church in Richmond:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I am glad that DOMA was struck down. It did not defend marriage. It exclusivized it, and defended heterosexual privilege. it divided our communities and denied the right for everyone who wants to be married in our state to the person who they love.”\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>– Castro Prepares for Parties Tonight\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(BAY CITY NEWS) Members of the LGBT community and their supporters will gather in San Francisco’s Castro District this evening to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on Prop. 8 and on the Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Starting around 5 p.m., Castro Street will be closed between Market and 19th streets, and 18th Street will be shut down between Collingwood and Hartford streets, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The rally starts at 6:30 p.m. with a “victory stage” at Market and Castro streets, with performances on a second stage at 19th and Castro streets, said Marriage Equality USA national media director Stuart Gaffney.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Our community has been on pins and needles for weeks and weeks now. We woke up this morning to wonderful news but I think a lot of us are still taking it in,” Gaffney said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Volunteers wearing fluorescent orange vests will help patrol the Castro neighborhood, but given the nature of the ruling, security should be easy, he said. Security is expected to be stepped up for Pride celebrations this weekend. Invitations to tonight’s rally have also been sent to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, members of the Board of Supervisors and other civic leaders, Gaffney said.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>– Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yahoo and Google report that a number of search terms related to the Supreme Court rulings have been spiking. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">See which ones here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Around the Web …\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-question-answer-20130626,0,1793695.story\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">How soon can we get married? Plus 5 other questions\u003c/a> (LA Times)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/a-home-run-but-not-a-grand-slam-for-gay-marriage-advocates-in-plain-english/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A home run but not a grand slam for gay-marriage advocates: In Plain English\u003c/a> (SCOTUSblog)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/06/26/why-i-hope-scalia-is-right-on-same-sex-marriage/\">Why I hope Scalia is right on same-sex marriage\u003c/a> (Ruth Marcus, Washington Post)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_23542953/mercury-news-editorial-prop-8-doma-fall-it\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Prop 8, DOMA fall: It is a great day\u003c/a> (SJ Mercury News)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.matthewshepard.org/home/our-reaction-on-the-prop-8-and-doma-rulings-from-the-supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew Shepard’s mother on today’s rulings\u003c/a> (Matthew Shephard Foundation)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Videos: \u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYXqH2RskII&feature=player_embedded\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">San Francisco celebrates\u003c/a> (Mother Jones) and \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/26/us/politics/100000002304144/a-conservative-reacts-to-courts-rulings.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Heritage Foundation reacts\u003c/a> (NY Times)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-DOMA: What will change, what won’t\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Where same-sex couples live or even where they were married will determine whether they will now receive federal benefits. Video from the NY Times …\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html?videoId=100000002303232&playerType=embed\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"480\" height=\"373\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>–\u003cstrong>\u003cem>Obama on DOMA\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The president said “I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Obama said he had “directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.” \u003ca href=\"http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/06/26/statement-from-president-obama-on-doma-decision/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Full text here\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Meanwhile, Obama today congratulated Prop. 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and also got invited to a gay wedding …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=tk_fapwm4hwmuem5gsmpmq&partner=yahoo&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hulu.com%2fwatch%2f505164\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"512\" height=\"288\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-It ain’t over till it’s over, says Prop 8 lawyer\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>John Eastman, professor with Chapman University’s School of Law and chair of the National Organization for Marriage, which filed a brief in support of Proposition 8, said on KQED Forum today that the court’s DOMA opinion would actually impact the Prop. 8 case in a way favorable to those who oppose same-sex marriage. His argument:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>DOMA’s decision by the court, which specifically says that marriage policy is a core function of the states and that the federal government can’t interfere with that, strongly suggests that Judge Walker’s opinion in the Proposition 8 case, which is the last opinion standing in the Proposition 8 case right now, is invalid and has been superseded by that DOMA decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because what he did was strike down California’s effort that has its own merits policy, as reflected in Proposition 8. So I think we’ve got a lot of litigation still to go on whether that decision has to be overruled …\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>We asked Vik Amar, one of SCOTUSblog’s legal analysts, what he thought of Eastman’s argument. Amar said that regardless of whether this was a valid legal avenue open to Prop. 8 supporters, it was unlikely to gain any traction. From Amar …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A big question is whether anyone can validly raise this kind of argument in front of the 9th Circuit or the District Court. In light of today’s Perry ruling, Prop. 8 proponents have no right to have the Ninth Circuit take another look at what Judge Walker did (or at the scope of his remedy either), and the governor and attorney general certainly are not going to ask the Ninth Circuit to do anything other than allow Judge Walker’s order to go into effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So unless the Ninth Circuit decides, on its own, to re-examine Walker’s ruling, or unless someone else (like a county clerk) successfully intervenes to defend Proposition 8 — and both of these are unlikely — I think the same-sex marriage train will leave the station here in California pretty soon.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Gay and lesbian California lawmakers react\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I can stop checking on my state tax forms, ‘married.’ And then turn around and doing my federal tax form and feeling like I’m lying to the federal government when I check, ‘single.’”\u003cbr>\n-Assemblywoman Toni Atkins\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Full equality feels absolutely amazing, honey. I mean it is – I’m beside myself.”\u003cbr>\n-State Sen. Ricardo Lara\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“With 38 states still denying equal marriage rights, with not a single federal protection in housing, employment, public accommodation, there is a lot of work to do.\u003cbr>\n-State Sen. Mark Leno\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is the first time in my life that I’ve felt that the law fully recognized me as being equal to everyone else. I don’t know how much more personal you can get than the concept of truly being seen as equal in the eyes of the law.”\u003cbr>\n–Assembly Speaker John Perez\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And Perez on the question of county clerks possibly taking it upon themselves to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples:\u003cstrong>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They’ll have hell to pay. Could I be clearer?”\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Sacramento County prepares …\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From News10 Sacramento, how Sacramento County is preparing for same-sex marriage…\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003cobject id=\"flashObj\" width=\"480\" height=\"270\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"flashVars\" value=\"videoId=2509860222001&playerID=1684488551001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lKhk~,ZvV6UsgbjjZzy5iAEyU8skbXMqWBZ-rJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true\">\u003cparam name=\"base\" value=\"http://admin.brightcove.com\">\u003cparam name=\"seamlesstabbing\" value=\"false\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"swLiveConnect\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowScriptAccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1\">\u003cparam name=\"flashvars\" value=\"videoId=2509860222001&playerID=1684488551001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lKhk~,ZvV6UsgbjjZzy5iAEyU8skbXMqWBZ-rJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"swliveconnect\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"pluginspage\" value=\"http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash\">\u003cembed width=\"480\" height=\"270\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" src=\"http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1\" flashvars=\"videoId=2509860222001&playerID=1684488551001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACC1lKhk~,ZvV6UsgbjjZzy5iAEyU8skbXMqWBZ-rJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true\" base=\"http://admin.brightcove.com\" seamlesstabbing=\"false\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" swliveconnect=\"true\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\" pluginspage=\"http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFFF\">\u003c/embed>\u003c/object>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Kamala Harris: Prop. 8 supporters are ‘bystanders’\u003cbr>\n\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California Attorney General Kamala Harrissaid today that …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>… today’s decision “means those people who want to deny same-sex couples the benefits of equal protection and due process under the United States Constitution cannot do so simply because they don’t like the notion. The United States Supreme Court essentially declared today that they are bystanders. They are sitting in the sidelines. They can have their freedom of expression but they cannot deny Americans, they cannot deny citizens of this country equal protection and due process under the law.”\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Harris said she gave the governor legal advice that the “58 counties of the state of California must abide by the ruling of Vaughn Walker from the District Court when the stay is lifted and must commence marriage in California.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris also said she was calling on the 9th Circuit today to urge them on the strongest terms that they lift the stay and enforce the permanent injunction that Vaughn Walker outlined so that marriages can begin in California immediately …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here is the full press conference …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F98578487\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Tax filing for LGBT couples\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California Report’s Rachael Myrow explored in 2011 how tax filing for same-sex couples is \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/29/for-same-sex-couples-tax-filing-is-particularlycomplicated/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">particularly complicated\u003c/a> in light of DOMA. “You have to file as married at the state level and single at the federal level,” Santa Clara University Law Professor \u003ca href=\"http://law.scu.edu/faculty/profile/cain-patricia.cfm\">Patricia Cain\u003c/a> said. “So you have to file two single returns at the federal level. Then you have to fill out a mock joint return at the federal level in order to determine what your state liability is.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In May, Cain wrote a blog post called “\u003ca href=\"http://law.scu.edu/same-sex-tax/predicting-life-after-windsor/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Predicting Life After Windsor,\u003c/a>” in which she talked about a panel discussion on what might happen if the Supreme Court struck down the provision of DOMA that denies same-sex couples the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>[One participant] stressed the fact that we will need guidance from the IRS in the event the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. We are all hopeful that the Taxpayer Advocate will press IRS personnel to provide that guidance as quickly as possible…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>About the only sure prediction we had was that the decision would be handed down in very late June. But the discussion among the tax professionals in the room indicated that there are many that believe it is likely that the Court will strike DOMA down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That, of course, is only the first step in figuring out how the IRS will tax all same-sex couples in the future.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Report from city hall\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Spencer Michels, PBS NewsHour’s Bay Area correspondent, reports from San Francisco City Hall\u003c/em>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Six-thirty a.m. San Francisco’s center of government doesn’t even open until eight, but somehow hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters, dozens of reporters and cameramen, and every city official you can think of managed to crawl out of bed and show up in the ornate rotunda.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage and being against Proposition 8 are the mothers’ milk of politics in this town. And it was clear that nobody in politics wanted to be left out, even though there was a chance they would be disappointed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mayor Ed Lee said something and so did supervisors David Campos and Scott Wiener. But it was Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the man who defied state law and authorized same-sex weddings in 2004 when he was mayor, who got the biggest hand. By his side were former mayor Willie Brown, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and every other city supervisor and state legislator who could squeeze in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After about an hour the whole celebration and political exercise wound down –it wasn’t even 9 a.m. — and the celebrants probably went back to bed, to get ready for more partying in the evening. Because this is San Francisco.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/QRwEIfZf4Ro\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Same-sex binational couples celebrate\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Mina Kim reports today’s ruling striking down a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act means many of them will now be able to stay together. Under DOMA, gay Americans have not been able to sponsor their foreign partners for a spousal visa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Orinda couple Brian Willingham and Alfonso Garcia, that’s meant living under the threat of Garcia’s deportation for years. Garcia says he burst into tears when the high court ruling came down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I look at my husband and I was just like, oh my god we finally did it we’re married, we’re recognized by the government.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices decision today effectively clears the way for gay partners to apply for green cards. Garcia says he will travel to Mexico to see his grandmother’s resting place. She died while he was barred from traveling outside the US.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>–\u003cstrong>\u003cem>When will 9th Circuit act?\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has remanded the Proposition 8 case back to the 9th Circuit with instructions for that court to dismiss the appeal by the same-sex marriage ban’s backers, which would effectively reinstate Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Until the 9th acts on that, no same-sex marriages in California will occur.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when will that happen?\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\u003cp>9th Circuit spokesman leaves small window of quick lifting of \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Prop8&src=hash\">#Prop8\u003c/a> stay. Would not be normal. Likely would happen fast after 25 days tho\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>— Matthias Gafni (@mgafni) \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/mgafni/statuses/349958714540822528\">June 26, 2013\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-KQED Forum discussion\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Forum program today spent an hour parsing the details of the Supreme Court’s decisions, including surprises in how the justices voted, what questions remain unanswered and whether same-sex couples can take the time to plan a big wedding.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Twitter has another field day …\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\u003cp>The Supreme Court has made it harder for blacks to vote but easier for gays to marry! So Jason Collins must be confused as hell right now!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>— DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/RealDLHughley/statuses/349909075892514817\">June 26, 2013\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cblockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\u003cp>Gay or straight, now all that’s stopping you from marriage is your personality and that broken part of you that drives people away!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>— Kevin Seccia (@kevinseccia) \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/kevinseccia/statuses/349903635330760704\">June 26, 2013\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/gay-marriage-twitter-reaction-scotus-doma-prop8-155316576.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">More here\u003c/a>…\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-No same-sex marriages just quite yet … \u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the \u003ca href=\"http://gov.ca.gov/docs/Letter_to_County_Officials.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Dept. of Public Health’s letter to California county clerks and county recorders\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The effect of the district court’s injunction is that same-sex couples will once again be allowed to marry in California. But they will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit issues a further order dissolving a stay of the injunction that has been in place throughout the appeal process. We do not know when the Ninth Circuit will issue this order, but it could take a month or more. County clerks and recorders should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until this order is issued.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Who is left to fight for Prop. 8?\u003c/em> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Joshua Johnson this morning talked to UC Davis law professor Vik Amar about the Prop. 8 decision. From that conversation …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JOSHUA JOHNSON: I wonder who you think is left to fight for Prop 8? Will the fight continue in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>VIK AMAR: The only scenario I envision is if a county clerk who feels that he should not be bound by Judge Walker’s order and that he is not controllable by the governor, from some conservative county, wants to refuse to issue marriage licenses and goes to court and says he shouldn’t be governed by any of this because he never had his day in court, he wasn’t in San Francisco defending Prop 8. That’s the only kind of individual or party left I could see to stand in the way\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Did the court “punt” on Prop. 8?\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JOSHUA JOHNSON: I’m looking at a lot of coverage of Prop 8 from various news outlets and I keep seeing the word ‘punt’ come up. Is this just a punt?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>VIK AMAR: I’m not sure I would characterize it as a punt, if by punt we mean something negative. But I think that the court did not want to wade into this thicket any more than it had to. It wants to see how various states are going to evolve in this arena. Remember, this is a very fast-moving landscape. Just since the oral argument in the Perry case and the Windsor case a few months ago, three additional states have recognized same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Right now there are 38 states that don’t and 12 that do, although California will soon be in the column that does, but five, 10 years from now it could be 30 to 20 the other way and the court would rather decide the ultimate question against a backdrop that’s more stable than the one we have now.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-What is “standing”?\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop. 8 decision turned on the question of “standing.” Again from Vik Amar …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>VIK AMAR: Standing means you’re a party that belongs in court and that we can trust that you’ll represent the interests of one position in a way that allows the court to reach the merits. For example, if I voted against Prop. 8, and I thought it was a bad deal, I couldn’t sue to challenge Prop. 8 even if it offended me … Standing makes sure we have the right parties in the case so that the courts aren’t shooting their mouths off and making new rulings just in abstract context.\u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JOSHUA JOHNSON: It’s also a way, as I understand it, to make sure that the people who are arguing are arguing from a position of actually being injured or harmed in some way and not just, “oh I don’t like the way this turned out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>VIK AMAR:\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong> Yes, and usually we focus on whether the plaintiffs have standing. This was an unusual case because we were focusing on whether … the proponents of Prop 8 had standing, and the real question is whether the proponents are adequate representatives of the voters of the State of California and the Supreme Court said that they are not. The Supreme Court said that they are private persons, they are not the same as public state officials.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">More on standing here\u003c/a>, from Cornell Law.\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Boxer, Newsom like it; NOM Doesn’t\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From Gavin Newsom, who was ahead of the curve on this issue when he \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_2004_same-sex_weddings\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">told San Francisco’s county clerks in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples\u003c/a>, said this today …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A city that has prided itself on being on the leading and cutting edge. Not a city of dreamers but a city of doers, of innovators and entrepreneurs. It’s a special place and I think everyone of you understands a core principle that defines our values in this city and in this state and for that matter, at our best, this nation: and that is we don’t just tolerate diversity, we celebrate our diversity each and every day.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And here’s the statement from California’s junior senator …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Today my spirits are soaring because the Supreme Court reaffirmed the promise of America by rejecting two blatantly unconstitutional measures that discriminated against millions of our families.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I was proud to have voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and it is so heartening to see that the federal government will now treat all marriages equally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because of the Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, millions of Californians will be able to marry the person they love – with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And from the \u003ca href=\"http://www.nomblog.com/35831\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">National Organization for Marriage\u003c/a>, which filed a brief in support of Prop. 8 in the case …\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv id=\"stcpDiv\">\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The Supreme Court’s holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It’s imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries.” \u003ca href=\"http://www.nomblog.com/35831\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Full statement\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-AFER celebrates\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the challenge to Prop. 8, held a press conference today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/fwPtP7pf5v0\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"420\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Brown, Harris: Ruling applies statewide\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From a statement from Brown’s office …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” said Governor Brown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The effect of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is that the 2010 federal district court’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is left intact and the law cannot be enforced.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In response, the Governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to advise county officials today that the district court’s injunction against Proposition 8 applies statewide and that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders must comply with it. However, same-sex Californians will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay of the injunction, which has been in place throughout the appeals process, is lifted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In preparation for this outcome, Governor Brown sought an opinion from California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris on whether the state, through the California Department of Public Health, can advise county clerks and registrar/recorders that they are bound by the federal district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Attorney General concluded that the California Department of Public Health “can and should” instruct county officials that they “must resume issuing marriage licenses to and recording the marriages of same-sex” couples. The Department will issue another letter to county officials as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay is lifted.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AG_Letter.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Attorney General’s letter to Governor Brown can be found here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>-Boies speaks\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>David Boies, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said this on the courthouse step …\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>We started out in this case. We said … we were going to prove that marriage was a fundamental right and the other side accepted that. We said … we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they loved seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children they were raising and even the opponents agreed with that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And third, we said that we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person they loved regardless of sexual orientation did not, could not harm anyone. And not only did the opponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today the United States Supreme Court said as much because they said the opponents have no concrete injury.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"next\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT’S NEXT?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer reports that the Prop. 8, decision means that same-sex marriage will indeed be legal once more in California, but a question remains as to whether it will be statewide or not. (Update: Gov. Jerry Brown said today it would, and that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders in the state must comply with the district court’s injunction against Prop. 8.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is likely to be more litigation by Prop. 8 supporters maintaining that for technical legal reasons the ruling should apply to a limited number of counties or even to only the two couples who were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8 defenders now have 25 days to ask for a rehearing. So at the soonest, we’ll see marriage in mid-to-late July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While many believed that a Prop. 8 ruling on standing would make same-sex marriage legal throughout California, others believed that it would apply only in the counties where the suits were filed (Alameda and Los Angeles), and in San Francisco, which intervened in the case. Because of these complications, most counties have said they will look to the state for direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Although county clerks are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in California, they will likely turn to the Department of Public Health Vital Records on how to proceed, said Cathy Darling Allen, president of the California State Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the clerk in Shasta County.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I believe we will receive some guidance,” Allen told KQED’s Scott Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, a department spokesperson told Shafer that they will, in turn, look to the governor’s office for guidance. Evan Westrup, a spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, said the governor’s office wouldn’t deliberate on what guidance they will give until after the court’s ruling. “Lots of interesting scenarios, none of which we’d publicly comment or speculate on at this point,” Westrup said by email.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And some counties may challenge a statewide rule in any event. While same-sex marriages were legal in 2008, in the time between when the court struck down Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8, several counties, including Kern, Siskiyou and Butte, refused to perform civil ceremonies, only issuing the licenses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Allen, that resulted in many more couples from those counties rushing to Shasta County to have their ceremonies performed. Officials in Kern County have not said how they will proceed this time if Prop. 8 is struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the technical challenges to performing same-sex marriages — i.e., changing the license forms and naming conventions to be gender-neutral — were all addressed in 2008 when about 18,000 same-sex couples were married before Prop. 8 passed, said Allen. That means this time, they’ll be “ready to go,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials have said there could be a 25-day waiting period before marriages resume, meaning the earliest that ceremonies could be performed would be mid-July. However, even this is uncertain. Most cities and counties are preparing to be ready to issue a flood of licenses on Day One, should same-sex marriage be legalized. According to \u003ca href=\"http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Training-Volunteers-to-Administer-Marriage-Licenses-in-Preparation-for-Prop-8-Decision-211482311.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">NBC Bay Area\u003c/a>, San Francisco has even begun training volunteers to oversee impromptu weddings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>“We anticipate that it could be as much as 200 people who come down to City Hall,” said San Francisco County Administrator Naomi Kelly. “We just want to make sure that anyone who wants to get married on that day can.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare, the city is training dozens of volunteers to become deputy clerks. The volunteers are made up of mostly city employees giving up time to learn everything from how to administer vows to inputting legal data.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"ap\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Full AP story\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices issued two 5-4 rulings in their final session of the term. One decision wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other was a technical legal ruling that said nothing at all about same-sex marriage, but left in place a trial court’s declaration that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. That outcome probably will allow state officials to order the resumption of same-sex weddings in the nation’s most populous state in about a month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a sign that neither victory was complete, the high court said nothing about the validity of gay marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states. And a separate provision of the federal marriage law that allows a state to not recognize a same-sex union from elsewhere remains in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Barack Obama telephoned his congratulations to the plaintiffs in the California case from Air Force One en route to Africa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling in that case was not along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the 9th Circuit,” Roberts said, referring to the federal appeals court that also struck down Proposition 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the case involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court’s liberal justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” Kennedy said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some in the crowd outside the court hugged and others jumped up and down just after 10 a.m. EDT Wednesday when the DOMA decision was announced. Many people were on their cell phones monitoring Twitter, news sites and blogs for word of the decision. And there were cheers as runners came down the steps with the decision in hand and turned them over to reporters who quickly flipped through the decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chants of “Thank you” and “USA” came from the crowd as plaintiffs in the cases descended the court’s marbled steps. Most of those in the crowd appeared to support gay marriage, although there was at least one man who held a sign promoting marriage as between a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kennedy was joined in the DOMA decision by the court’s four liberal justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and Scalia dissented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage has been adopted by 12 states and the District of Columbia. Another 18,000 couples were married in California during a brief period when same-sex unions were legal there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The outcome is clear for people who were married and live in states that allow same-sex marriage. They now are eligible for federal benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The picture is more complicated for same-sex couples who traveled to another state to get married, or who have moved from a gay marriage state since being wed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Their eligibility depends on the benefits they are seeking. For instance, immigration law focuses on where people were married, not where they live. But eligibility for Social Security survivor benefits basically depends on where a couple is living when a spouse dies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The rulings came 10 years to the day after the court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down state bans on gay sex. In his dissent at the time, Scalia predicted the ruling would lead to same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101122/proposition-8-supreme-court-live-blog",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101574": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101574",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101574",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372304677000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372304677,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Scalia in DOMA Dissent: Majority Supports Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right",
"title": "Scalia in DOMA Dissent: Majority Supports Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101577\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 540px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/cal/sf-city-hall/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101577\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101577 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/SF-City-Hall.jpg\" alt=\"San Francisco City Hall(KQED/Deborah Svoboda)\" width=\"540\" height=\"360\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco City Hall\u003cbr>(KQED/Deborah Svoboda)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In Justice Antonin Scalia’s \u003ca href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html\">blistering dissent\u003c/a> on the DOMA ruling, he states that majority of justices is now willing to declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101574 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101574",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/scalia-in-doma-dissent-majority-supports-same-sex-marriage-as-a-constitutional-right/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 135,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 4
},
"modified": 1372304677,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In Justice Antonin Scalia’s blistering dissent on the DOMA ruling, he states that majority of justices is now willing to declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right: “It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is",
"title": "Scalia in DOMA Dissent: Majority Supports Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Scalia in DOMA Dissent: Majority Supports Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T20:44:37-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-26T20:44:37-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "scalia-in-doma-dissent-majority-supports-same-sex-marriage-as-a-constitutional-right",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/cal/",
"path": "/news/101574/scalia-in-doma-dissent-majority-supports-same-sex-marriage-as-a-constitutional-right",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101577\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 540px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/cal/sf-city-hall/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101577\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101577 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/SF-City-Hall.jpg\" alt=\"San Francisco City Hall(KQED/Deborah Svoboda)\" width=\"540\" height=\"360\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco City Hall\u003cbr>(KQED/Deborah Svoboda)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In Justice Antonin Scalia’s \u003ca href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html\">blistering dissent\u003c/a> on the DOMA ruling, he states that majority of justices is now willing to declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101574/scalia-in-doma-dissent-majority-supports-same-sex-marriage-as-a-constitutional-right",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101515": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101515",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101515",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372294160000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372294160,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Interview: Bay Area Couple Reacts to DOMA Decision",
"title": "Interview: Bay Area Couple Reacts to DOMA Decision",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>KQED's STEPHANIE MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Today's Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 paves the way for same-sex weddings to resume in California, while the ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act makes married gay couples eligible for federal benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101516\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 288px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/jaybryan.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\" wp-image-101516 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/jaybryan.jpg\" alt=\"(Left to right) Bryan and Jay Leffew walk with their daughter in San Francisco.\" width=\"288\" height=\"288\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">(Left to right) Bryan and Jay Leffew walk with their daughter in San Francisco.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Santa Rosa residents Jay and Bryan Leffew are really looking forward to those benefits. They married in 2008 -- just before voters passed the Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryan, I'll start with you first. How do you think the court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act will change your life?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BRYAN LEFFEW\u003c/strong>: For starters, it takes away a lot of the uncertainty for the future. There are 1,138 rights and benefits that are conferred federally upon married couples that now gay couples will have access to, and that includes things like social security benefits. So now, for instance if, God forbid, my husband were to pass away in the line of his job as a deputy sheriff, I would be entitled to his social security, his pension -- all things that would help me be able to keep our family afloat.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c!--more-->MARTIN\u003c/strong>: OK, you can pass it over to Jay. Jay, when it comes to the kids, what changes for them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY LEFFEW\u003c/strong>: I think the protection that our marriage gives them is a protection that all kids should have. We're guaranteeing them that they're going to have a safe future in a loving home and that one of us isn't just going to run off someday when we get tired of the drama.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: We should say you have two kids, correct?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: Correct, we have a son and a daughter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: And how old are they?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: My son is 12 years old and my daughter is 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: So Bryan, Jay told me earlier today that he's the more optimistic one when it comes to these court rulings and that you view things a bit more cautiously. What concerns do you still have?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_2qvXfA85c]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BRYAN\u003c/strong>: My concerns are that as fantastic as today's DOMA ruling is, it still left it up to a state-by-state fight, which means that states that already have marriage equality are now granted federal recognition. But all the states that don't have marriage equality now, those individuals that live within those states are going to have to start their own ballot initiatives or find some other route to create marriage equality within their state in order for the federal government to then recognize it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that's just going to create multiple court battles and make this a real terrible mess to have to clean up. But that's just a part of the longstanding battle we've been on, and we know that it's not over and we have much more work to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Jay, we should mention that a lot of people may recognize you and Bryan and your two kids as YouTube stars. Tell me a bit about those videos you've been making over the years and what message you've been trying to send.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: Well we started making the YouTube videos back when Prop. 8 was actually on the ballot here in California. And we were sitting around at the dinner table one night, and I was complaining that all the commercials on TV were showing our allies and family members talking about why gay marriage or marriage equality is important to gay couples. And they refused to show any LGBT families or couples and I got really frustrated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So we went to YouTube and we looked to see if there was any other families that were making videos about their lives and we didn't find any. So we decided that we would create our own channel called \"Gay Family Values\" and start documenting our day-to-day lives. And it has become an amazing journey for not only my family, but for the 26,000 people that have joined the ride with us. We've got a pretty good subscriber base and a lot of support and a lot of love.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Now I understand because of your activism, you and the kids are all invited to all kinds of Bay Area celebrations this evening, but you're going to have to put those off for something else tonight, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: Yeah, you know it's the most inconvenient day possible for the ruling to come out because Justin Bieber is in town, and my daughter is adamant about seeing him in concert. So we've had to make plans to go actually see him, so we're not going to be involved in any of the celebrations in the Castro, which we're extremely disappointed about, but kids come first.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Okay, first thing's first, definitely. Jay and Bryan Leffew, thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: No, thank you. Thank you for having us. It was a pleasure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BRYAN\u003c/strong>: Thank you very much.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Jay and Bryan Leffew live in Santa Rosa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Listen to the full story:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F98613001\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101515 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101515",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/doma-decision-gives-married-gay-couples-access-to-over-1000-rights-and-benefits/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 869,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1398733209,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "KQED's STEPHANIE MARTIN: Today's Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 paves the way for same-sex weddings to resume in California, while the ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act makes married gay couples eligible for federal benefits. Santa Rosa residents Jay and Bryan Leffew are really looking forward to those benefits. They married in 2008",
"title": "Interview: Bay Area Couple Reacts to DOMA Decision | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Interview: Bay Area Couple Reacts to DOMA Decision",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T17:49:20-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:09-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "doma-decision-gives-married-gay-couples-access-to-over-1000-rights-and-benefits",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/two-way-doma/",
"path": "/news/101515/doma-decision-gives-married-gay-couples-access-to-over-1000-rights-and-benefits",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>KQED's STEPHANIE MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Today's Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 paves the way for same-sex weddings to resume in California, while the ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act makes married gay couples eligible for federal benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101516\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 288px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/jaybryan.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\" wp-image-101516 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/jaybryan.jpg\" alt=\"(Left to right) Bryan and Jay Leffew walk with their daughter in San Francisco.\" width=\"288\" height=\"288\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">(Left to right) Bryan and Jay Leffew walk with their daughter in San Francisco.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Santa Rosa residents Jay and Bryan Leffew are really looking forward to those benefits. They married in 2008 -- just before voters passed the Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryan, I'll start with you first. How do you think the court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act will change your life?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BRYAN LEFFEW\u003c/strong>: For starters, it takes away a lot of the uncertainty for the future. There are 1,138 rights and benefits that are conferred federally upon married couples that now gay couples will have access to, and that includes things like social security benefits. So now, for instance if, God forbid, my husband were to pass away in the line of his job as a deputy sheriff, I would be entitled to his social security, his pension -- all things that would help me be able to keep our family afloat.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c!--more-->MARTIN\u003c/strong>: OK, you can pass it over to Jay. Jay, when it comes to the kids, what changes for them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY LEFFEW\u003c/strong>: I think the protection that our marriage gives them is a protection that all kids should have. We're guaranteeing them that they're going to have a safe future in a loving home and that one of us isn't just going to run off someday when we get tired of the drama.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: We should say you have two kids, correct?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: Correct, we have a son and a daughter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: And how old are they?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: My son is 12 years old and my daughter is 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: So Bryan, Jay told me earlier today that he's the more optimistic one when it comes to these court rulings and that you view things a bit more cautiously. What concerns do you still have?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/3_2qvXfA85c'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/3_2qvXfA85c'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BRYAN\u003c/strong>: My concerns are that as fantastic as today's DOMA ruling is, it still left it up to a state-by-state fight, which means that states that already have marriage equality are now granted federal recognition. But all the states that don't have marriage equality now, those individuals that live within those states are going to have to start their own ballot initiatives or find some other route to create marriage equality within their state in order for the federal government to then recognize it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that's just going to create multiple court battles and make this a real terrible mess to have to clean up. But that's just a part of the longstanding battle we've been on, and we know that it's not over and we have much more work to do.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Jay, we should mention that a lot of people may recognize you and Bryan and your two kids as YouTube stars. Tell me a bit about those videos you've been making over the years and what message you've been trying to send.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: Well we started making the YouTube videos back when Prop. 8 was actually on the ballot here in California. And we were sitting around at the dinner table one night, and I was complaining that all the commercials on TV were showing our allies and family members talking about why gay marriage or marriage equality is important to gay couples. And they refused to show any LGBT families or couples and I got really frustrated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So we went to YouTube and we looked to see if there was any other families that were making videos about their lives and we didn't find any. So we decided that we would create our own channel called \"Gay Family Values\" and start documenting our day-to-day lives. And it has become an amazing journey for not only my family, but for the 26,000 people that have joined the ride with us. We've got a pretty good subscriber base and a lot of support and a lot of love.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Now I understand because of your activism, you and the kids are all invited to all kinds of Bay Area celebrations this evening, but you're going to have to put those off for something else tonight, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: Yeah, you know it's the most inconvenient day possible for the ruling to come out because Justin Bieber is in town, and my daughter is adamant about seeing him in concert. So we've had to make plans to go actually see him, so we're not going to be involved in any of the celebrations in the Castro, which we're extremely disappointed about, but kids come first.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Okay, first thing's first, definitely. Jay and Bryan Leffew, thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JAY\u003c/strong>: No, thank you. Thank you for having us. It was a pleasure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BRYAN\u003c/strong>: Thank you very much.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>MARTIN\u003c/strong>: Jay and Bryan Leffew live in Santa Rosa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Listen to the full story:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F98613001\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101515/doma-decision-gives-married-gay-couples-access-to-over-1000-rights-and-benefits",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_851",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100957": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100957",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100957",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372293970000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "bryan-stow",
"title": "Bryan Stow Situation Shows Limits of Long-term Rehab Care",
"publishDate": 1372293970,
"format": "aside",
"headTitle": "Bryan Stow Situation Shows Limits of Long-term Rehab Care | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_44935\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 162px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/bryanstow1.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-44935\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/bryanstow1.jpg\" alt=\"Bryan Stow family photo\" width=\"162\" height=\"241\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bryan Stow family photo\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Bryan Stow incident is one of those things that whenever it comes up, even years later, has you sort of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/04/06/the-incredible-attack-on-giants-fan-bryan-stow/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">shaking your head\u003c/a> and muttering to yourself about the abject tribalism that often governs human relations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Guy goes to opening day, probably basking like everyone else in the shopworn connotations of renewal and hope, and winds up severely beaten with brain damage. All because he rooted for the wrong team. The two men who have been accused of attacking Stow, Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood, are still awaiting trial, and the Stow family has sued the Dodgers, claiming the organization’s negligence in stadium security contributed to the attack. That trial is set to begin on Aug. 27.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Stow, 43, has made remarkable progress since he emerged from a coma two years ago. But two weeks ago, in an update on its \u003ca href=\"http://support4bryanstow.com/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Support4BryanStow\u003c/a> website, his family said that he had been forced to return home from the live-in facility where he had been rehabbing because Stow’s insurance company would no longer pay for that level of care. The family said Stow’s condition has declined somewhat since then.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last week, I talked to Bryan’s sister, Bonnie, about this latest development. Stow has been living at his parents’ home in Capitola for about seven weeks now. His two children, who used to live with him part time, now live exclusively with their mother. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Edited transcript …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: What sort of care is the insurance company still paying for?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Outpatient therapy, but it’s been cut to 30 hours of physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy each for the entire calendar year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Can you tell me who the insurance company is?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Well, we got a lot of responses from people who were not happy with the insurance company and we don’t want to make the situation worse by people contacting them directly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Are you in negotiations?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: We haven’t gotten to that point yet. We’ve never dealt with this, so we don’t know what avenue we should take.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: What was the reason you were given for the company no longer paying for the facility?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: We were told insurance companies will only continue to pay as long as there are signs of improvement and progress. And the second a patient starts to plateau, they’ll stop paying. But now he’s gotten to the point where he’s taken a big step back.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: How has he declined?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Even transferring from his wheelchair to his bed is painful. His body stiffens up if he’s not continually moved, which is why we’re trying to stand him every hour for two minutes. But with the lack of therapy, he’s gaining weight, which makes it harder for us to do that. At the live-in facility, he was also getting psychological therapy, which he doesn’t get now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: So who is taking care of Bryan at your parents’ home?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: My parents hired someone for three hours in the morning to get him up and showered, and three hours in the evening. My mom feeds him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Is that covered by insurance?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: No. It’s $25 per hour.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: So that’s $150 per day, or about $55,000 per year. Have the donations you were receiving after the attack slowed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Yeah, but I don’t want to take away from the donations we are getting. Of course they help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Are the Giants helping out?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Tim Lincecum donated to his fund in the beginning and Barry Bonds donated money for the kids’ education. We get texts from the Giants to make sure we’re doing OK. Tim Flannery did a couple of fundraisers. They treated us to the World Series game. They’ve been supportive in making us feel like part of their family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: How is Bryan doing in terms of his overall recovery?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Well, he lived. That’s big progress. His memory is pretty good. He has moments he doesn’t remember what he had for breakfast. He’ll sometimes use a word that’s not what he meant to say, and it doesn’t make sense. But he’s doing really well when you look at him. His body just needs to catch up. And, in order to do that, he needs his therapies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: And how well is the family coping now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: I feel like this is a different chapter. We’re all in Santa Cruz County, so we’re all here and we’re able to help, so we have the support of each other. We’re coping in the sense that we’re together and we’re doing it as a family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>A Common Situation\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is a situation no one ever plans for, of course. I asked Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation who specializes in private health insurance, how often someone who is seriously injured gets sent home from a live-in facility. Stow is still covered by his employer through COBRA, and Pollitz said job-based insurance limitations on coverage for rehab services are common.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“One common limit is on days or rehab visits a plan will cover in a year or relative to a particular accident or injury. The second (is that) plans will only cover care that’s medically necessary, and the definition of that with respect to rehab may have something to do with whether you’re still on a trajectory to return to the level of health and function prior to the injury or accident.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But, Pollitz said, there is no definition of what’s “medically necessary.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This has been a long-running discussion,” she said. “What should be the standard for covering medically necessary rehab services that are required over the long term? Is it that you’re eventually going to get better, eventually achieve a certain level of improvement, or is it to prevent further deterioration?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked Pollitz whether the Affordable Care Act, which goes into full effect in 2014, could help Stow. It won’t, she said. The 30 hours per year for different rehabilitative services that his family says Stow is now approved for is similar to the standard that plans offered through California’s health exchange will operate under. So, even though people like Stow, who have a long-term injury, will be able to buy insurance, they would still run into the same limits on rehab services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So what do you do when an unthinkable tragedy like this strikes? The Stow family is fortunate — if you want to call it that — in the respect that the attack received so much publicity that donations were able to help defray the cost of his recovery. And of course, they may or may not receive money from the Dodgers through their lawsuit. But not everyone gets a fundraising \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/02/video-barry-bonds-asks-for-help-for-bryan-stow-kids-college-fund/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">video made on their behalf by Barry Bonds.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pollitz said the best option for people in Stow’s situation who can’t afford long-term care may be Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California), which has no limits in getting rehabilitative services at a live-in facility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“One of the huge differences between Medi-Cal coverage and private insurance coverage is that (Medi-Cal) doesn’t limit these services, either for medically necessary reasons or dollar limits. This distinction between (what’s) care to improve or care to maintain … that gets blown away under Medicaid. It’s all covered.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That might, however, require “spending down” — reducing your assets in order to qualify for the program.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ll check in with the Stow family as events develop. For now, here’s a video they posted that documents Bryan’s recovery …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Nfgxj6xG4]\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1726009746,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 42,
"wordCount": 1407
},
"headData": {
"title": "Bryan Stow Situation Shows Limits of Long-term Rehab Care | KQED",
"description": "The Bryan Stow incident is one of those things that whenever it comes up, even years later, has you sort of shaking your head and muttering to yourself about the abject tribalism that often governs human relations. Guy goes to opening day, probably basking like everyone else in the shopworn connotations of renewal and hope, and winds up severely beaten with brain damage. All because he rooted for the wrong team. The two men who have been accused of attacking Stow, Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood, are still awaiting trial, and the Stow family has sued the Dodgers, claiming the",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Bryan Stow Situation Shows Limits of Long-term Rehab Care",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T17:46:10-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-09-10T16:09:06-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"customPermalink": "2013/06/24/bryan-stow/",
"path": "/news/100957/bryan-stow",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_44935\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 162px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/bryanstow1.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-44935\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/10/bryanstow1.jpg\" alt=\"Bryan Stow family photo\" width=\"162\" height=\"241\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bryan Stow family photo\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Bryan Stow incident is one of those things that whenever it comes up, even years later, has you sort of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/04/06/the-incredible-attack-on-giants-fan-bryan-stow/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">shaking your head\u003c/a> and muttering to yourself about the abject tribalism that often governs human relations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Guy goes to opening day, probably basking like everyone else in the shopworn connotations of renewal and hope, and winds up severely beaten with brain damage. All because he rooted for the wrong team. The two men who have been accused of attacking Stow, Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood, are still awaiting trial, and the Stow family has sued the Dodgers, claiming the organization’s negligence in stadium security contributed to the attack. That trial is set to begin on Aug. 27.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Stow, 43, has made remarkable progress since he emerged from a coma two years ago. But two weeks ago, in an update on its \u003ca href=\"http://support4bryanstow.com/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Support4BryanStow\u003c/a> website, his family said that he had been forced to return home from the live-in facility where he had been rehabbing because Stow’s insurance company would no longer pay for that level of care. The family said Stow’s condition has declined somewhat since then.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last week, I talked to Bryan’s sister, Bonnie, about this latest development. Stow has been living at his parents’ home in Capitola for about seven weeks now. His two children, who used to live with him part time, now live exclusively with their mother. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Edited transcript …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: What sort of care is the insurance company still paying for?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Outpatient therapy, but it’s been cut to 30 hours of physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy each for the entire calendar year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Can you tell me who the insurance company is?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Well, we got a lot of responses from people who were not happy with the insurance company and we don’t want to make the situation worse by people contacting them directly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Are you in negotiations?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: We haven’t gotten to that point yet. We’ve never dealt with this, so we don’t know what avenue we should take.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: What was the reason you were given for the company no longer paying for the facility?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: We were told insurance companies will only continue to pay as long as there are signs of improvement and progress. And the second a patient starts to plateau, they’ll stop paying. But now he’s gotten to the point where he’s taken a big step back.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: How has he declined?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Even transferring from his wheelchair to his bed is painful. His body stiffens up if he’s not continually moved, which is why we’re trying to stand him every hour for two minutes. But with the lack of therapy, he’s gaining weight, which makes it harder for us to do that. At the live-in facility, he was also getting psychological therapy, which he doesn’t get now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: So who is taking care of Bryan at your parents’ home?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: My parents hired someone for three hours in the morning to get him up and showered, and three hours in the evening. My mom feeds him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Is that covered by insurance?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: No. It’s $25 per hour.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: So that’s $150 per day, or about $55,000 per year. Have the donations you were receiving after the attack slowed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Yeah, but I don’t want to take away from the donations we are getting. Of course they help.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: Are the Giants helping out?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Tim Lincecum donated to his fund in the beginning and Barry Bonds donated money for the kids’ education. We get texts from the Giants to make sure we’re doing OK. Tim Flannery did a couple of fundraisers. They treated us to the World Series game. They’ve been supportive in making us feel like part of their family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: How is Bryan doing in terms of his overall recovery?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: Well, he lived. That’s big progress. His memory is pretty good. He has moments he doesn’t remember what he had for breakfast. He’ll sometimes use a word that’s not what he meant to say, and it doesn’t make sense. But he’s doing really well when you look at him. His body just needs to catch up. And, in order to do that, he needs his therapies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>JON BROOKS\u003c/strong>: And how well is the family coping now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>BONNIE STOW\u003c/strong>: I feel like this is a different chapter. We’re all in Santa Cruz County, so we’re all here and we’re able to help, so we have the support of each other. We’re coping in the sense that we’re together and we’re doing it as a family.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003chr>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>A Common Situation\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is a situation no one ever plans for, of course. I asked Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation who specializes in private health insurance, how often someone who is seriously injured gets sent home from a live-in facility. Stow is still covered by his employer through COBRA, and Pollitz said job-based insurance limitations on coverage for rehab services are common.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“One common limit is on days or rehab visits a plan will cover in a year or relative to a particular accident or injury. The second (is that) plans will only cover care that’s medically necessary, and the definition of that with respect to rehab may have something to do with whether you’re still on a trajectory to return to the level of health and function prior to the injury or accident.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But, Pollitz said, there is no definition of what’s “medically necessary.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This has been a long-running discussion,” she said. “What should be the standard for covering medically necessary rehab services that are required over the long term? Is it that you’re eventually going to get better, eventually achieve a certain level of improvement, or is it to prevent further deterioration?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked Pollitz whether the Affordable Care Act, which goes into full effect in 2014, could help Stow. It won’t, she said. The 30 hours per year for different rehabilitative services that his family says Stow is now approved for is similar to the standard that plans offered through California’s health exchange will operate under. So, even though people like Stow, who have a long-term injury, will be able to buy insurance, they would still run into the same limits on rehab services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So what do you do when an unthinkable tragedy like this strikes? The Stow family is fortunate — if you want to call it that — in the respect that the attack received so much publicity that donations were able to help defray the cost of his recovery. And of course, they may or may not receive money from the Dodgers through their lawsuit. But not everyone gets a fundraising \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/02/video-barry-bonds-asks-for-help-for-bryan-stow-kids-college-fund/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">video made on their behalf by Barry Bonds.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pollitz said the best option for people in Stow’s situation who can’t afford long-term care may be Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California), which has no limits in getting rehabilitative services at a live-in facility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“One of the huge differences between Medi-Cal coverage and private insurance coverage is that (Medi-Cal) doesn’t limit these services, either for medically necessary reasons or dollar limits. This distinction between (what’s) care to improve or care to maintain … that gets blown away under Medicaid. It’s all covered.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That might, however, require “spending down” — reducing your assets in order to qualify for the program.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ll check in with the Stow family as events develop. For now, here’s a video they posted that documents Bryan’s recovery …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/F0Nfgxj6xG4'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/F0Nfgxj6xG4'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100957/bryan-stow",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_457",
"news_6188",
"news_10"
],
"tags": [
"news_1206",
"news_27",
"news_18543"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101441": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101441",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101441",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372288061000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372288061,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down",
"title": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101442\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 540px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/rs5301_124-sfi/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101442\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101442 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5301_124-sfi.jpg\" alt=\"RS5301_124-sfi\" width=\"540\" height=\"360\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Crispin Hollings proposes marriage to Luis Casillas, who accepts, at San Francisco City Hall today, where people gathered to watch the decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA come in. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Carolyn Clark, Senior Communications Manager at Yahoo, reports that a number of search terms have been spiking at the giant portal related to the Supreme Court rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Searches past 7 days ending June 25\u003c/strong> (breakout refers to a term that is gaining interest and had little to no interest during the previous time period):\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Gay marriage up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>SCOTUS up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 decision 2013 (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage license up 9 percent, Marriage certificate 18 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Liberals Supreme Court (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality sign (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Save Your Marriage (breakout)\u003c!--more-->\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Most searched Justices in the past 7 days:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003col start=\"1\">\n\u003cli>Clarence Thomas\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Antonin Scalia\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>John Roberts\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Sonia Sotomayor\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ol>\n\u003cp>The gender breakdown on those searching about DOMA on Yahoo over the past seven days, is 49 percent female and 51 percent male.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The following specific search terms are among those spiking today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[Scotus]\u003cbr>\n[Prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[proposition 8 california]\u003cbr>\n[prop 8 dissents]\u003cbr>\n[Scotus ruling on prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[scotusblog]\u003cbr>\n[same-sex marriage]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality symbol]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[supreme court decision doma prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[justice samuel alito]\u003cbr>\n[benefits of married couples]\u003cbr>\n[scotus acronym]\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101491\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/googlescreen-640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101491\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101491 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/googlescreen-640.jpg\" alt=\"googlescreen-640\" width=\"640\" height=\"400\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Search terms related to same sex rmarriage trending on Google today. (Google)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meanwhile, at Google, spokesperson Roya Soleimani reports that the following search terms were trending between 9:30 a.m. – 2:30 pm ET today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Supreme Court gay marriage\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>5th Ammendment\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>What is DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage Equality\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Edith Windsor\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>US Supreme Court Ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>HRC\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On Google+, the hashtags #equalrights and #EQUALITYFORALL are trending right now on G+,\"Soleimani added.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101441 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101441",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 297,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1372288229,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Carolyn Clark, Senior Communications Manager at Yahoo, reports that a number of search terms have been spiking at the giant portal related to the Supreme Court rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA Searches past 7 days ending June 25 (breakout refers to a term that is gaining interest and had little to no interest during",
"title": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T16:07:41-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-26T16:10:29-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/101441/",
"path": "/news/101441/yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101442\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 540px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/rs5301_124-sfi/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101442\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101442 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5301_124-sfi.jpg\" alt=\"RS5301_124-sfi\" width=\"540\" height=\"360\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Crispin Hollings proposes marriage to Luis Casillas, who accepts, at San Francisco City Hall today, where people gathered to watch the decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA come in. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Carolyn Clark, Senior Communications Manager at Yahoo, reports that a number of search terms have been spiking at the giant portal related to the Supreme Court rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Searches past 7 days ending June 25\u003c/strong> (breakout refers to a term that is gaining interest and had little to no interest during the previous time period):\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Gay marriage up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>SCOTUS up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 decision 2013 (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage license up 9 percent, Marriage certificate 18 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Liberals Supreme Court (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality sign (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Save Your Marriage (breakout)\u003c!--more-->\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Most searched Justices in the past 7 days:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003col start=\"1\">\n\u003cli>Clarence Thomas\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Antonin Scalia\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>John Roberts\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Sonia Sotomayor\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ol>\n\u003cp>The gender breakdown on those searching about DOMA on Yahoo over the past seven days, is 49 percent female and 51 percent male.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The following specific search terms are among those spiking today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[Scotus]\u003cbr>\n[Prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[proposition 8 california]\u003cbr>\n[prop 8 dissents]\u003cbr>\n[Scotus ruling on prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[scotusblog]\u003cbr>\n[same-sex marriage]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality symbol]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[supreme court decision doma prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[justice samuel alito]\u003cbr>\n[benefits of married couples]\u003cbr>\n[scotus acronym]\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101491\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/googlescreen-640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101491\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101491 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/googlescreen-640.jpg\" alt=\"googlescreen-640\" width=\"640\" height=\"400\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Search terms related to same sex rmarriage trending on Google today. (Google)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meanwhile, at Google, spokesperson Roya Soleimani reports that the following search terms were trending between 9:30 a.m. – 2:30 pm ET today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Supreme Court gay marriage\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>5th Ammendment\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>What is DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage Equality\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Edith Windsor\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>US Supreme Court Ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>HRC\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On Google+, the hashtags #equalrights and #EQUALITYFORALL are trending right now on G+,\"Soleimani added.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101441/yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down",
"authors": [
"223"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101301": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101301",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101301",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372264414000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372264414,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"headTitle": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101342\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101342\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/5290_transform-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco's CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco’s CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Thousands of people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Francisco City Hall and in homes nationwide for long-awaited rulings on same-sex marriage this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While many people celebrated the Supreme Court overturning a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act and paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, others called it a travesty. Now, Californians are waiting to find out when same-sex marriages will resume.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-in-marriage\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 109,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 4
},
"modified": 1685487560,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Thousands of people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Francisco City Hall and in homes nationwide for long-awaited rulings on same-sex marriage this morning. While many people celebrated the Supreme Court overturning a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act and paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California,",
"title": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T09:33:34-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T15:59:20-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-ca/",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/101301/cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101342\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101342\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/5290_transform-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco's CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco’s CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Thousands of people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Francisco City Hall and in homes nationwide for long-awaited rulings on same-sex marriage this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While many people celebrated the Supreme Court overturning a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act and paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, others called it a travesty. Now, Californians are waiting to find out when same-sex marriages will resume.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-in-marriage\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101301/cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_38",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101221": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101221",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101221",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372257454000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372257454,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Full Text Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision",
"title": "Full Text Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/150140647/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101221 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101221",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/full-text-supreme-court-proposition-8-decision/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 2,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 3
},
"modified": 1372257454,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "",
"title": "Full Text Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Full Text Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T07:37:34-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-26T07:37:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "full-text-supreme-court-proposition-8-decision",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/101221/full-text-supreme-court-proposition-8-decision",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/150140647/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101221/full-text-supreme-court-proposition-8-decision",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101159": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101159",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101159",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372253439000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "ca-corrections-chief-new-medical-center-proves-federal-judges-wrong",
"title": "CA Corrections Chief: New Medical Center Proves Federal Judges Wrong",
"publishDate": 1372253439,
"format": "aside",
"headTitle": "CA Corrections Chief: New Medical Center Proves Federal Judges Wrong | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>The head of California’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Department said a brand-new $840 million medical center is proof that federal judges are wrong about health care in the state’s crowded prison system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101166\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101166\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/beard-stockton-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"CA Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard tours the new California Health Care Facility in Stockton (Scott Detrow / KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">CA Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard tours the new California Health Care Facility in Stockton. (Scott Detrow / KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Dedicating the California Health Care Facility in Stockton Tuesday morning, Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard said the 1,700-bed complex will provide state-of-the-art care for California’s sickest inmates. “Yet the federal courts question California’s commitment to providing quality care to inmates,” Beard told a 200-person audience. “I ask you this: Does what you see behind me today – is that deliberate indifference?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The dedication comes less than a week after \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/20/california-prisons-lawsuit/\">a panel of federal judges issued its latest order \u003c/a>demanding California release 9,600 prisoners by the end of the year in order to comply with a mandatory population cap.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201306210850/a\">The 51-page ruling read like an exasperated rebuke\u003c/a>. The judges wrote the Brown administration has “directly defied this court’s orders,” used “tortured logic” to argue against their rulings,” and shown “repeated failure” to comply. That’s because the panel of judges has been ordering California to reduce its prison population to under 110,000 since 2009. The judges say the health care in the overcrowded prisons is so poor it violates the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California’s most recent compliance plan falls more than 4,000 inmates short of achieving that goal by the court’s Dec. 31 deadline.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Brown and Beard have repeatedly argued that the judges’ focus on population totals misses the point. Walking through the yard of the Stockton facility, Beard said he had invited the three judges to attend the ceremony. “And certainly any time they would want to come and take a tour, we’d be happy to take them,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The sickest prisoners in California’s prison system will soon be treated at the Stockton complex. “That means we take them out of other institutions in this state,” Beard told reporters. “Who no longer have those high-acuity people to treat. So that means they can actually have more inmates in that facility, and still handle the medical and mental health needs. Because we have consolidated those needs here at the Stockton facility.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brown is vowing to appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, \u003ca href=\"http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ff-brown-prisons-20130625,0,6754881.story\">but he has also submitted a plan to lawmakers to reach those benchmarks.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another setback for California’s prison system: \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_23531486/judge-california-must-move-inmates-two-prisons-because\">on Monday, a federal judge ordered the state to move thousands of inmates out of two Central Valley prisons\u003c/a>, due to the high risk of contracting the fungal infection called valley fever.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Beard said he’s worried the latest ruling could “destabilize” the state’s attempts to reduce the prison population.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1738782830,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 12,
"wordCount": 515
},
"headData": {
"title": "CA Corrections Chief: New Medical Center Proves Federal Judges Wrong | KQED",
"description": "The head of California’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Department said a brand-new $840 million medical center is proof that federal judges are wrong about health care in the state’s crowded prison system. Dedicating the California Health Care Facility in Stockton Tuesday morning, Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard said the 1,700-bed complex will provide state-of-the-art care for California’s sickest inmates. “Yet the federal courts question California’s commitment to providing quality care to inmates,” Beard told a 200-person audience. “I ask you this: Does what you see behind me today – is that deliberate indifference?” The dedication comes less than a week after a",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "CA Corrections Chief: New Medical Center Proves Federal Judges Wrong",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T06:30:39-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-02-05T11:13:50-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"customPermalink": "2013/06/25/ca-corrections-chief-new-medical-center-proves-federal-judges-wrong/",
"path": "/news/101159/ca-corrections-chief-new-medical-center-proves-federal-judges-wrong",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The head of California’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Department said a brand-new $840 million medical center is proof that federal judges are wrong about health care in the state’s crowded prison system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101166\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101166\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/beard-stockton-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"CA Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard tours the new California Health Care Facility in Stockton (Scott Detrow / KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">CA Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard tours the new California Health Care Facility in Stockton. (Scott Detrow / KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Dedicating the California Health Care Facility in Stockton Tuesday morning, Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard said the 1,700-bed complex will provide state-of-the-art care for California’s sickest inmates. “Yet the federal courts question California’s commitment to providing quality care to inmates,” Beard told a 200-person audience. “I ask you this: Does what you see behind me today – is that deliberate indifference?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The dedication comes less than a week after \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/20/california-prisons-lawsuit/\">a panel of federal judges issued its latest order \u003c/a>demanding California release 9,600 prisoners by the end of the year in order to comply with a mandatory population cap.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201306210850/a\">The 51-page ruling read like an exasperated rebuke\u003c/a>. The judges wrote the Brown administration has “directly defied this court’s orders,” used “tortured logic” to argue against their rulings,” and shown “repeated failure” to comply. That’s because the panel of judges has been ordering California to reduce its prison population to under 110,000 since 2009. The judges say the health care in the overcrowded prisons is so poor it violates the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California’s most recent compliance plan falls more than 4,000 inmates short of achieving that goal by the court’s Dec. 31 deadline.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Brown and Beard have repeatedly argued that the judges’ focus on population totals misses the point. Walking through the yard of the Stockton facility, Beard said he had invited the three judges to attend the ceremony. “And certainly any time they would want to come and take a tour, we’d be happy to take them,” he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The sickest prisoners in California’s prison system will soon be treated at the Stockton complex. “That means we take them out of other institutions in this state,” Beard told reporters. “Who no longer have those high-acuity people to treat. So that means they can actually have more inmates in that facility, and still handle the medical and mental health needs. Because we have consolidated those needs here at the Stockton facility.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brown is vowing to appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, \u003ca href=\"http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ff-brown-prisons-20130625,0,6754881.story\">but he has also submitted a plan to lawmakers to reach those benchmarks.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another setback for California’s prison system: \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_23531486/judge-california-must-move-inmates-two-prisons-because\">on Monday, a federal judge ordered the state to move thousands of inmates out of two Central Valley prisons\u003c/a>, due to the high risk of contracting the fungal infection called valley fever.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Beard said he’s worried the latest ruling could “destabilize” the state’s attempts to reduce the prison population.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101159/ca-corrections-chief-new-medical-center-proves-federal-judges-wrong",
"authors": [
"256"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_3149",
"news_3840",
"news_1471"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101023": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101023",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101023",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372177270000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372177270,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court's Prop. 8/DOMA Decisions Expected Tomorrow",
"title": "Supreme Court's Prop. 8/DOMA Decisions Expected Tomorrow",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92121\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-92121 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\" alt=\"People rally in front of the California Supreme Court Building after arguments were heard for and against Proposition 8 March 5, 2009 in San Francisco. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People rally in front of the California Supreme Court building after arguments were heard for and against Proposition 8 on March 5, 2009 in San Francisco. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Wednesday\u003c/strong>: \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">We're live blogging today's decisions here\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court did not release rulings on either Proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act today. The court said it will convene again tomorrow at 7 a.m. for the last time this term to issue its remaining decisions. Presumably, those will include rulings on the same-sex marriage cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>\u003c/em>While you wait, here are some possible outcomes regarding the Prop. 8 case, in which the issue before the court is whether California's 2008 voter-approved same-sex marriage ban is as unconstitutional as two lower courts said it is ....\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court could affirm the 9th Circuit decision that invalidated Prop. 8's constitutionality.\u003c/strong> Such a ruling would legalize same-sex marriage in California. It could potentially go beyond California and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could dismiss the case by ruling that the petition for review should never have been granted.\u003c/strong> This would leave the 9th Circuit Court's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as the final binding decision. This ruling, however, was narrowly defined and would likely pertain solely to California.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could hold that the Prop. 8 backers lack standing under federal law to appeal.\u003c/strong> This would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision, leaving \u003ca title=\"Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\">U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>'s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as final, making same-sex marriage legal in California. However, this would leave open the possibility that Prop. 8 supporters could challenge whether that ruling applies statewide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could reverse the 9th Circuit, upholding Prop. 8 as valid.\u003c/strong> This would mean that same-sex marriage would continue to be illegal in California, unless another state proposition overturns Prop. 8.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many legal analysts do not think the court is likely to create a broad right to same-sex marriage in its ruling. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” UC Davis law professor and SCOTUSblog analyst Vik Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer earlier this month. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage. And as Shafer wrote, \"at oral arguments in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court does strike down Proposition 8, for whatever reasons, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid-to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that polls have shown a remarkable swing in favor of same-sex marriage since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008. So, even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that California's ban is upheld -- a ballot initiative in 2014 could well overturn the law. Last week state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Calif-may-act-if-court-upholds-Prop-8-4611357.php\" target=\"_blank\">Senate may act to place a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot \u003c/a>should same-sex marriages remain illegal in the state. Such a measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for it to be placed before voters. LGBT advocates could also place a measure on the ballot. \u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau said that \u003ca href=\"https://www.baycitizen.org/news/census-2010/census-28000-gay-couples-california/\" target=\"_blank\">more than 28,000 California same-sex couples reported being married\u003c/a>. From June to November 2008, in between the time the state Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, and the passage of Prop. 8, about 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses were issued in California. The state Supreme Court later ruled that these marriages were not invalidated by Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101023 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101023",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 796,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 12
},
"modified": 1372253969,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Wednesday: We're live blogging today's decisions here. The U.S. Supreme Court did not release rulings on either Proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act today. The court said it will convene again tomorrow at 7 a.m. for the last time this term to issue its remaining decisions. Presumably, those will include rulings on",
"title": "Supreme Court's Prop. 8/DOMA Decisions Expected Tomorrow | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court's Prop. 8/DOMA Decisions Expected Tomorrow",
"datePublished": "2013-06-25T09:21:10-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-26T06:39:29-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-supreme-court",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/24/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/101023/prop-8-supreme-court",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92121\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-92121 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\" alt=\"People rally in front of the California Supreme Court Building after arguments were heard for and against Proposition 8 March 5, 2009 in San Francisco. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People rally in front of the California Supreme Court building after arguments were heard for and against Proposition 8 on March 5, 2009 in San Francisco. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Wednesday\u003c/strong>: \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">We're live blogging today's decisions here\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court did not release rulings on either Proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act today. The court said it will convene again tomorrow at 7 a.m. for the last time this term to issue its remaining decisions. Presumably, those will include rulings on the same-sex marriage cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>\u003c/em>While you wait, here are some possible outcomes regarding the Prop. 8 case, in which the issue before the court is whether California's 2008 voter-approved same-sex marriage ban is as unconstitutional as two lower courts said it is ....\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court could affirm the 9th Circuit decision that invalidated Prop. 8's constitutionality.\u003c/strong> Such a ruling would legalize same-sex marriage in California. It could potentially go beyond California and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could dismiss the case by ruling that the petition for review should never have been granted.\u003c/strong> This would leave the 9th Circuit Court's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as the final binding decision. This ruling, however, was narrowly defined and would likely pertain solely to California.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could hold that the Prop. 8 backers lack standing under federal law to appeal.\u003c/strong> This would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision, leaving \u003ca title=\"Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\">U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>'s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as final, making same-sex marriage legal in California. However, this would leave open the possibility that Prop. 8 supporters could challenge whether that ruling applies statewide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could reverse the 9th Circuit, upholding Prop. 8 as valid.\u003c/strong> This would mean that same-sex marriage would continue to be illegal in California, unless another state proposition overturns Prop. 8.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many legal analysts do not think the court is likely to create a broad right to same-sex marriage in its ruling. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” UC Davis law professor and SCOTUSblog analyst Vik Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer earlier this month. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage. And as Shafer wrote, \"at oral arguments in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court does strike down Proposition 8, for whatever reasons, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid-to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that polls have shown a remarkable swing in favor of same-sex marriage since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008. So, even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that California's ban is upheld -- a ballot initiative in 2014 could well overturn the law. Last week state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Calif-may-act-if-court-upholds-Prop-8-4611357.php\" target=\"_blank\">Senate may act to place a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot \u003c/a>should same-sex marriages remain illegal in the state. Such a measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for it to be placed before voters. LGBT advocates could also place a measure on the ballot. \u003cstrong>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau said that \u003ca href=\"https://www.baycitizen.org/news/census-2010/census-28000-gay-couples-california/\" target=\"_blank\">more than 28,000 California same-sex couples reported being married\u003c/a>. From June to November 2008, in between the time the state Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, and the passage of Prop. 8, about 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses were issued in California. The state Supreme Court later ruled that these marriages were not invalidated by Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101023/prop-8-supreme-court",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101035": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101035",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101035",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372170004000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372170004,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court Voids Key Part of Voting Rights Act",
"title": "Supreme Court Voids Key Part of Voting Rights Act",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 360px\">\u003cimg src=\"http://u.s.kqed.net/2013/06/25/NAACPVotingRightsActSCOTUS360.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"360\" height=\"237\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Field Director Charles White of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2013. The court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which aimed at protecting minority voters, is unconstitutional. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with an up-to-date formula for deciding which states and localities still need federal monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington's approval, in advance, for election changes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chief Justice John Roberts said for the conservative majority that Congress \"may draft another formula based on current conditions.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That task eluded Congress in 2006 when lawmakers overwhelmingly renewed the advance approval requirement with no changes in which states and local jurisdictions were covered, and Congress did nothing in response to a high court ruling in a similar challenge in 2009 in which the justices raised many of the same concerns. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs,\" Roberts said.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Read the opinion\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/article_9170a368-33af-5c9c-a3f9-ecdea957de36.html\" target=\"_blank\">Op-Ed: Voting Rights Act repeal would have serious consequences in Monterey County\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-still-punished-under-voting-rights-act/article_cb8df624-e8d3-11e1-8efd-001a4bcf887a.html\">Kings County still punished under Voting Rights Act\u003c/a> (Hanford Sentinel, 2012)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The decision means that a host of state and local laws that have not received Justice Department approval or have not yet been submitted will be able to take effect. Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Going forward, the outcome alters the calculus of passing election-related legislation in the affected states and local jurisdictions. The threat of an objection from Washington has hung over election-related proposals for nearly a half century. At least until Congress acts, that deterrent now is gone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That prospect has worried civil rights groups which especially worry that changes on the local level might not get the same scrutiny as the actions of state legislatures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by her three liberal colleagues, dissented from Tuesday's ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ginsburg said no one doubts that voting discrimination still exists. \"But the court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination,\" she said in a dissent that she read aloud in the packed courtroom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Clarence Thomas was part of the majority, but wrote separately to say again that he would have struck down the advance approval requirement itself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision comes five months after President Barack Obama, the nation's first black chief executive, started his second term in the White House, re-elected by a diverse coalition of voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court is in the midst of a broad re-examination of the ongoing necessity of laws and programs aimed at giving racial minorities access to major areas of American life from which they once were systematically excluded. The justices issued a modest ruling Monday that preserved affirmative action in higher education and will take on cases dealing with anti-discrimination sections of a federal housing law and another affirmative action case from Michigan next term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at that time, but Congress did nothing to address the issues the court raised. The law's opponents, sensing its vulnerability, filed several new lawsuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a Birmingham suburb.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit acknowledged that the measure's strong medicine was appropriate and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee of the vote for black Americans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it asked whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states' rights to conduct elections, an issue the court's conservative justices also explored at the argument in February. It was considered an emergency response when first enacted in 1965.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The county noted that the 25-year extension approved in 2006 would keep some places under Washington's oversight until 2031 and seemed not to account for changes that include the elimination of racial disparity in voter registration and turnout or the existence of allegations of race-based discrimination in voting in areas of the country that are not subject to the provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration and civil rights groups said there is a continuing need for it and pointed to the Justice Department's efforts to block voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas last year, as well as a redistricting plan in Texas that a federal court found discriminated against the state's large and growing Hispanic population.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Advance approval was put into the law to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The provision was a huge success because it shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent extension was overwhelmingly approved by a Republican-led Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Towns in New Hampshire that had been covered by the law were freed from the advance approval requirement in March. Supporters of the provision pointed to the ability to bail out of the prior approval provision to argue that the law was flexible enough to accommodate change and that the court should leave the Voting Rights Act intact.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Monday, the Justice Department announced an agreement that would allow Hanover County, Va., to bail out.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101035 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101035",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/supreme-court-voids-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1119,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1398475398,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with an up-to-date formula for deciding which states and localities still need federal monitoring. The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies",
"title": "Supreme Court Voids Key Part of Voting Rights Act | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Voids Key Part of Voting Rights Act",
"datePublished": "2013-06-25T07:20:04-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:23:18-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-voids-key-part-of-voting-rights-act",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-2/",
"path": "/news/101035/supreme-court-voids-key-part-of-voting-rights-act",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 360px\">\u003cimg src=\"http://u.s.kqed.net/2013/06/25/NAACPVotingRightsActSCOTUS360.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"360\" height=\"237\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Field Director Charles White of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2013. The court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which aimed at protecting minority voters, is unconstitutional. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with an up-to-date formula for deciding which states and localities still need federal monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington's approval, in advance, for election changes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chief Justice John Roberts said for the conservative majority that Congress \"may draft another formula based on current conditions.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That task eluded Congress in 2006 when lawmakers overwhelmingly renewed the advance approval requirement with no changes in which states and local jurisdictions were covered, and Congress did nothing in response to a high court ruling in a similar challenge in 2009 in which the justices raised many of the same concerns. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs,\" Roberts said.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Read the opinion\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/article_9170a368-33af-5c9c-a3f9-ecdea957de36.html\" target=\"_blank\">Op-Ed: Voting Rights Act repeal would have serious consequences in Monterey County\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-still-punished-under-voting-rights-act/article_cb8df624-e8d3-11e1-8efd-001a4bcf887a.html\">Kings County still punished under Voting Rights Act\u003c/a> (Hanford Sentinel, 2012)\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The decision means that a host of state and local laws that have not received Justice Department approval or have not yet been submitted will be able to take effect. Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Going forward, the outcome alters the calculus of passing election-related legislation in the affected states and local jurisdictions. The threat of an objection from Washington has hung over election-related proposals for nearly a half century. At least until Congress acts, that deterrent now is gone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That prospect has worried civil rights groups which especially worry that changes on the local level might not get the same scrutiny as the actions of state legislatures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by her three liberal colleagues, dissented from Tuesday's ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ginsburg said no one doubts that voting discrimination still exists. \"But the court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination,\" she said in a dissent that she read aloud in the packed courtroom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Clarence Thomas was part of the majority, but wrote separately to say again that he would have struck down the advance approval requirement itself.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision comes five months after President Barack Obama, the nation's first black chief executive, started his second term in the White House, re-elected by a diverse coalition of voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court is in the midst of a broad re-examination of the ongoing necessity of laws and programs aimed at giving racial minorities access to major areas of American life from which they once were systematically excluded. The justices issued a modest ruling Monday that preserved affirmative action in higher education and will take on cases dealing with anti-discrimination sections of a federal housing law and another affirmative action case from Michigan next term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at that time, but Congress did nothing to address the issues the court raised. The law's opponents, sensing its vulnerability, filed several new lawsuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a Birmingham suburb.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit acknowledged that the measure's strong medicine was appropriate and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee of the vote for black Americans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it asked whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states' rights to conduct elections, an issue the court's conservative justices also explored at the argument in February. It was considered an emergency response when first enacted in 1965.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The county noted that the 25-year extension approved in 2006 would keep some places under Washington's oversight until 2031 and seemed not to account for changes that include the elimination of racial disparity in voter registration and turnout or the existence of allegations of race-based discrimination in voting in areas of the country that are not subject to the provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration and civil rights groups said there is a continuing need for it and pointed to the Justice Department's efforts to block voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas last year, as well as a redistricting plan in Texas that a federal court found discriminated against the state's large and growing Hispanic population.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Advance approval was put into the law to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The provision was a huge success because it shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent extension was overwhelmingly approved by a Republican-led Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Towns in New Hampshire that had been covered by the law were freed from the advance approval requirement in March. Supporters of the provision pointed to the ability to bail out of the prior approval provision to argue that the law was flexible enough to accommodate change and that the court should leave the Voting Rights Act intact.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Monday, the Justice Department announced an agreement that would allow Hanover County, Va., to bail out.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101035/supreme-court-voids-key-part-of-voting-rights-act",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_2162",
"news_4711"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026PresidentialReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?category=law-and-justice": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 5232,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 6265,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_101652",
"news_101360",
"news_101122",
"news_101574",
"news_101515",
"news_100957",
"news_101441",
"news_101301",
"news_101221",
"news_101159",
"news_101023",
"news_101035"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_category_law-and-justice": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_3672": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3672",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3672",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "DOMA",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "DOMA Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3690,
"slug": "doma",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/doma"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_1169": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1169",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1169",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Immigration",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Immigration Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1180,
"slug": "immigration",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/immigration"
},
"news_548": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_548",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "548",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 557,
"slug": "california-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-supreme-court"
},
"news_152": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_152",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "152",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Government",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Government Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 159,
"slug": "government",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/government"
},
"news_740": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_740",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "740",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "International",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "International Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 749,
"slug": "international",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/international"
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_95": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_95",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "95",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sacramento",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sacramento Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 411,
"slug": "sacramento",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/sacramento"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_38": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_38",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "38",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 58,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco"
},
"news_1172": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1183,
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-supreme-court"
},
"news_851": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_851",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "851",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gender Issues",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gender Issues Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 861,
"slug": "gender-issues",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gender-issues"
},
"news_457": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_457",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "457",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 16998,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/health"
},
"news_10": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_10",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sports",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sports Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 10,
"slug": "sports",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/sports"
},
"news_1206": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1206",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1206",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bryan Stow",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bryan Stow Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1218,
"slug": "bryan-stow",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/bryan-stow"
},
"news_27": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_27",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "27",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Giants",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Giants Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 27,
"slug": "giants",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/giants"
},
"news_18543": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18543",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18543",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 466,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/health"
},
"news_201": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_201",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "201",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "SCOTUS",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "SCOTUS Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 209,
"slug": "scotus",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/scotus"
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_3149": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3149",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3149",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California State Prison",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California State Prison Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3167,
"slug": "california-state-prison",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-state-prison"
},
"news_3840": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3840",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3840",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Jeffrey Beard",
"slug": "jeffrey-beard",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Jeffrey Beard | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 3859,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/jeffrey-beard"
},
"news_1471": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1471",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1471",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "prisons",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "prisons Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1483,
"slug": "prisons",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/prisons"
},
"news_2162": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2162",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2162",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Racial Issues",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Racial Issues Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2177,
"slug": "racial-issues",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/racial-issues"
},
"news_4711": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4711",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4711",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Voting Rights Act",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Voting Rights Act Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4730,
"slug": "voting-rights-act",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/voting-rights-act"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"requestOutcomesReducer": {
"notFound": []
},
"navPromosReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": true,
"promos": {
"news": {
"name": "2026 Voter Guide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"imageURL": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Nav-News-Nov2026ElectionCoverage@2x-7bd4aad4.png",
"description": "Get informed in minutes with our Voter Guide for California’s November 3 election."
},
"podcasts-radio": {},
"video-tv": {},
"events": {},
"support": {}
}
}
}