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"
},
"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"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
},
"rmarcus": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "1430",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "1430",
"found": true
},
"name": "Rachael Bale",
"firstName": "Rachael",
"lastName": "Bale",
"slug": "rmarcus",
"email": "rmarcus@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": "\u003cspan style=\"color: #333333;\">Rachael Bale is researcher and reporter for The Center for Investigative Reporting and occasional contributor to KQED News and The California Report. A California native, she has a bachelor's degree in political science from Reed College and a master's degree in journalism from American University.\u003c/span>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Rachael Bale | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/rmarcus"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_proposition-8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"score": 9.302406
},
"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,
"title": "Proposition 8",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 4
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=proposition-8",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 4
}
},
{
"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_100852": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100852",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100852",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372106272000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372106272,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday",
"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\">Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 gather in front of the California Supreme Court in San Francisco after arguments were heard for and against the measure. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Tuesday, Jun 25\u003c/strong>: The court is \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">expected to issue rulings on both Proposition 8 and DOMA\u003c/a> tomorrow around 7 a.m. PT.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Previous posts\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 7:30 a.m. \u003c/strong>The wait continues. Five rulings were released today, none of which was one of the same-sex marriage cases. The court did, however, rule on \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/\" target=\"_blank\">Fisher\u003c/a>, the big affirmative action case, sending it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/supreme-court-affirmative-action/\" target=\"_blank\">back to the lower court\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also agreed to hear a challenge on recess appointments by the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTUS has added tomorrow, Tuesday, as an extra opinion-release day\u003c/strong>. Six undecided cases remain.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While you wait on tomorrow's action, here are four \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/what-happens-after-prop-8-ruling\" target=\"_blank\">possible legal scenarios around the Prop. 8 ruling\u003c/a>:\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 the 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>Legal analyst Vikram Amar \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer earlier this month\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog also has a good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/waiting-on-proposition-8-and-doma-decisions-in-plain-english/#more-165587\" target=\"_blank\">analysis\u003c/a> of both the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases.\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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100852 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100852",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 660,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1372180863,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Tuesday, Jun 25: The court is expected to issue rulings on both Proposition 8 and DOMA tomorrow around 7 a.m. PT. Previous posts Update 7:30 a.m. The wait continues. Five rulings were released today, none of which was one of the same-sex marriage cases. The court did, however, rule on Fisher, the big affirmative",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-24T13:37:52-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-25T10:21:03-07:00",
"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": "is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/23/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100852/is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt",
"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\">Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 gather in front of the California Supreme Court in San Francisco after arguments were heard for and against the measure. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Tuesday, Jun 25\u003c/strong>: The court is \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">expected to issue rulings on both Proposition 8 and DOMA\u003c/a> tomorrow around 7 a.m. PT.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Previous posts\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 7:30 a.m. \u003c/strong>The wait continues. Five rulings were released today, none of which was one of the same-sex marriage cases. The court did, however, rule on \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/\" target=\"_blank\">Fisher\u003c/a>, the big affirmative action case, sending it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/supreme-court-affirmative-action/\" target=\"_blank\">back to the lower court\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also agreed to hear a challenge on recess appointments by the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTUS has added tomorrow, Tuesday, as an extra opinion-release day\u003c/strong>. Six undecided cases remain.\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>While you wait on tomorrow's action, here are four \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/what-happens-after-prop-8-ruling\" target=\"_blank\">possible legal scenarios around the Prop. 8 ruling\u003c/a>:\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 the 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>Legal analyst Vikram Amar \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer earlier this month\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog also has a good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/waiting-on-proposition-8-and-doma-decisions-in-plain-english/#more-165587\" target=\"_blank\">analysis\u003c/a> of both the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases.\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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100852/is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100525": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100525",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100525",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371838504000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371838504,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down",
"title": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/01/04/news-pix-best-images-of-2012/photoweek130104prop8/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-84574\">\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-84574\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/01/PhotoWeek130104Prop8.jpg\" alt=\"PhotoWeek130104Prop8\" width=\"620\" height=\"450\">\u003c/a>The Supreme Court is expected to rule on \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a> next week. There are a number of possible outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(If you're confused about any of this, start by reading the summary of \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">what you need to know about Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\u003c/aside>\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 the 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. However, with public opinion on same-sex marriage shifting, \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=192523360\" target=\"_blank\">according to Pew\u003c/a>, it is likely that supporters of the issue would put a counteracting proposition on the ballot in the future.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The third of the four scenarios, in which the court rules that the proponents lacked legal standing to challenge Walker's decision, is believed to be the most likely. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with the 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> 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>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>If the court decides to rule on the issue of standing, then a number of other things could happen next.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court will likely include some guidance on how the ruling can be interpreted legally, if it applies statewide or just in the counties where the lawsuits were filed -- or even just to the defendants. While many believe that a ruling on standing would make same-sex marriage legal throughout California, others believe 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 Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, a department spokesperson told Shafer that they will, in turn, look to the governor's office for guidance -- creating a game of telephone in the wake of the ruling. Evan Westrup, a spokesperson 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. They only issued 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>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Prop. 8 is struck down, 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\">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 into city computers. Some will work as greeters, helping the betrothed navigate the winding matrimonial process.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100525 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100525",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/21/guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1112,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 24
},
"modified": 1371925507,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Proposition 8 next week. There are a number of possible outcomes. (If you're confused about any of this, start by reading the summary of what you need to know about Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court.) Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Prop. 8 at the",
"title": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Guide to What Happens Once Prop. 8 Ruling Comes Down",
"datePublished": "2013-06-21T11:15:04-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-22T11:25:07-07:00",
"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": "guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/19/what-happens-after-prop-8-ruling/",
"path": "/news/100525/guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/01/04/news-pix-best-images-of-2012/photoweek130104prop8/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-84574\">\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-84574\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/01/PhotoWeek130104Prop8.jpg\" alt=\"PhotoWeek130104Prop8\" width=\"620\" height=\"450\">\u003c/a>The Supreme Court is expected to rule on \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a> next week. There are a number of possible outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(If you're confused about any of this, start by reading the summary of \u003ca title=\"Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">what you need to know about Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\u003c/aside>\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 the 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. However, with public opinion on same-sex marriage shifting, \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=192523360\" target=\"_blank\">according to Pew\u003c/a>, it is likely that supporters of the issue would put a counteracting proposition on the ballot in the future.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The third of the four scenarios, in which the court rules that the proponents lacked legal standing to challenge Walker's decision, is believed to be the most likely. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with the 35 that now ban 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>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> 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>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>If the court decides to rule on the issue of standing, then a number of other things could happen next.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court will likely include some guidance on how the ruling can be interpreted legally, if it applies statewide or just in the counties where the lawsuits were filed -- or even just to the defendants. While many believe that a ruling on standing would make same-sex marriage legal throughout California, others believe 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 Shafer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, a department spokesperson told Shafer that they will, in turn, look to the governor's office for guidance -- creating a game of telephone in the wake of the ruling. Evan Westrup, a spokesperson 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. They only issued 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>\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>If Prop. 8 is struck down, 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\">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 into city computers. Some will work as greeters, helping the betrothed navigate the winding matrimonial process.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100525/guide-to-what-happens-once-prop-8-ruling-comes-down",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100595": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100595",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100595",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371738005000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371738005,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55200\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-55200\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\" alt=\"Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: The U.S. Supreme Court released three decisions today, none of which was one of the closely watched cases on same-sex marriage, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action in school admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court now has 11 cases still remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are only two scheduled decision-release days left, Monday and Thursday -- though it's possible the court will go even beyond that date in coming to grips with the potential landmark cases remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While you're waiting ... and waiting and waiting .... here's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">everything you ever wanted to know about the Prop. 8 case and then some\u003c/a>. The Reader's Digest version:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8 is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, 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.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Legal analyst Vikram Amar, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 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. On Wednesday, 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100595 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100595",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/20/prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 542,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 11
},
"modified": 1371763763,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update: The U.S. Supreme Court released three decisions today, none of which was one of the closely watched cases on same-sex marriage, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action in school admissions. The court now has 11 cases still remaining. There are only two scheduled decision-release days left, Monday and Thursday -- though it's possible",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Supreme Court Decision on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; Next Possibility is Monday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-20T07:20:05-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-20T14:29:23-07:00",
"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-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/20/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100595/prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55200\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-55200\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\" alt=\"Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the lawusit against Prop 8 (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: The U.S. Supreme Court released three decisions today, none of which was one of the closely watched cases on same-sex marriage, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action in school admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court now has 11 cases still remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are only two scheduled decision-release days left, Monday and Thursday -- though it's possible the court will go even beyond that date in coming to grips with the potential landmark cases remaining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While you're waiting ... and waiting and waiting .... here's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">everything you ever wanted to know about the Prop. 8 case and then some\u003c/a>. The Reader's Digest version:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8 is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, 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.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Legal analyst Vikram Amar, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. 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.\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 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. On Wednesday, 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100595/prop-8-supreme-court-watch-continues-todays-decisions-released-7-a-m",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100262": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100262",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100262",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371680436000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371680436,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the court could stretch the wait out beyond that date. Many SCOTUS observers believe the court will take as long as possible on the same-sex marriage cases, as it often does with potentially landmark decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As you await the decision, here is an updated reposting of our Prop. 8-at-SCOTUS primer, which we first published in March, when the case was heard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: A BRIEF HISTORY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The battle over same-sex marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to say: \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009 the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Judge Vaughn Walker in his 2010 ruling\u003cbr>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, same-sex marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled the county didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The federal court then sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether even Prop. 8's proponents had legal standing to sue, considering that the state's publicly elected officials had declined to do so. California's high court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents did, indeed, have the right to defend the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit then took up the case again, and in February 2012 it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It did, however, narrow the ruling considerably, applying it only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, other states have blazed their own trail on same-sex marriage. Currently, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are multiple possible outcomes of the Prop. 8 case. The court could potentially issue a sweeping ruling that overturns all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. However, what is more likely, according to many legal analysts, is that the justices will rule in such a way as to \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">restrict the impact of their ruling\u003c/a> to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide that Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That could leave the issue open to further appeals, with the ban's supporters arguing that the District Court ruling should not apply statewide\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.) DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case before the Supreme Court involves a widow who 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the president chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which means that even if Prop. 8 is upheld, we are likely to see another ballot, this one legalizing same-sex marriage in California, in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100262 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100262",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1266,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1371742225,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"datePublished": "2013-06-19T15:20:36-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-20T08:30:25-07:00",
"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-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100262/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the court could stretch the wait out beyond that date. Many SCOTUS observers believe the court will take as long as possible on the same-sex marriage cases, as it often does with potentially landmark decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As you await the decision, here is an updated reposting of our Prop. 8-at-SCOTUS primer, which we first published in March, when the case was heard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: A BRIEF HISTORY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The battle over same-sex marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to say: \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\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 the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009 the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Judge Vaughn Walker in his 2010 ruling\u003cbr>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, same-sex marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled the county didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The federal court then sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether even Prop. 8's proponents had legal standing to sue, considering that the state's publicly elected officials had declined to do so. California's high court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents did, indeed, have the right to defend the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit then took up the case again, and in February 2012 it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It did, however, narrow the ruling considerably, applying it only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, other states have blazed their own trail on same-sex marriage. Currently, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are multiple possible outcomes of the Prop. 8 case. The court could potentially issue a sweeping ruling that overturns all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. However, what is more likely, according to many legal analysts, is that the justices will rule in such a way as to \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">restrict the impact of their ruling\u003c/a> to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide that Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That could leave the issue open to further appeals, with the ban's supporters arguing that the District Court ruling should not apply statewide\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.) DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case before the Supreme Court involves a widow who 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the president chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\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>Which means that even if Prop. 8 is upheld, we are likely to see another ballot, this one legalizing same-sex marriage in California, in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100262/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100055": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100055",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100055",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371479738000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371479738,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday",
"title": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update: \u003c/strong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a> tells us five opinions were released, none related to the same-sex marriage cases. Decisions on major cases on affirmative action and voting rights were also not issued. The court did strike down an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote through a federal \"motor voter\" registration form.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Prop 8 at SCOTUS: What You Need to Know\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The court now has 14 outstanding cases to decide. Next scheduled release date is Thursday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So why is it taking so long? At least seven cases that already have been decided were argued after the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases, and the affirmative action case was heard way back in October. Here's an answer from one of the SCOTUSblog experts, lawyer Amy Howe:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think it's just all about when they have the opinions ready. These are big, historic cases that we're talking about, and there are likely to be multiple opinions. I was talking to someone who clerked at the court, and he said last year that even if health care had been argued on the first day of the term, it still would have gone to the last day.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We know there's intense interest in the impending Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, so we've been up tracking the court's release of its opinions each day that happens this month. Though, as inveterate court watchers have said throughout, the most likely scenario is SCOTUS drags these two out until the very end and releases them at the end of the month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>7 a.m. PT is when the court starts disseminating the day's opinions. As usual, we point you to \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, which is live blogging all the decisions released. Per SCOTUSblog, there are \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/\" target=\"_blank\">19 undecided cases\u003c/a> from this term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, 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.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> 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>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that the court overturns the 9th Circuit's decision and upholds Proposition 8 -- a substantial majority of Californians now support LGBT couples' right to marry, a political turnabout that is sure to lead to a proposition being put on the ballot to once again legalize same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100055 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100055",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 816,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 20
},
"modified": 1371675921,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update: SCOTUSblog tells us five opinions were released, none related to the same-sex marriage cases. Decisions on major cases on affirmative action and voting rights were also not issued. The court did strike down an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote through a federal "motor voter" registration form. Prop 8",
"title": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop. 8/DOMA Supreme Court Decisions -- Watch Continues on Thursday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-17T07:35:38-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-19T14:05:21-07:00",
"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": "todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/",
"path": "/news/100055/todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update: \u003c/strong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a> tells us five opinions were released, none related to the same-sex marriage cases. Decisions on major cases on affirmative action and voting rights were also not issued. The court did strike down an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote through a federal \"motor voter\" registration form.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Prop 8 at SCOTUS: What You Need to Know\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The court now has 14 outstanding cases to decide. Next scheduled release date is Thursday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So why is it taking so long? At least seven cases that already have been decided were argued after the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases, and the affirmative action case was heard way back in October. Here's an answer from one of the SCOTUSblog experts, lawyer Amy Howe:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think it's just all about when they have the opinions ready. These are big, historic cases that we're talking about, and there are likely to be multiple opinions. I was talking to someone who clerked at the court, and he said last year that even if health care had been argued on the first day of the term, it still would have gone to the last day.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\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>We know there's intense interest in the impending Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, so we've been up tracking the court's release of its opinions each day that happens this month. Though, as inveterate court watchers have said throughout, the most likely scenario is SCOTUS drags these two out until the very end and releases them at the end of the month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>7 a.m. PT is when the court starts disseminating the day's opinions. As usual, we point you to \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, which is live blogging all the decisions released. Per SCOTUSblog, there are \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/\" target=\"_blank\">19 undecided cases\u003c/a> from this term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, 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.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer last week\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Also from that report by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> 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>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that the court overturns the 9th Circuit's decision and upholds Proposition 8 -- a substantial majority of Californians now support LGBT couples' right to marry, a political turnabout that is sure to lead to a proposition being put on the ballot to once again legalize same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100055/todays-prop-8doma-supreme-court-watch",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99826": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99826",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99826",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371214831000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371214831,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> 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>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99826 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99826",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/14/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 686,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 19
},
"modified": 1398733213,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word? When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms. “The case",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2013-06-14T06:00:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:13-07:00",
"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": "analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/",
"path": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\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>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting 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.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> 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>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99713": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99713",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99713",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371131729000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371131729,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"title": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_68608\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-68608\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061-300x212.jpg\" alt=\"Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8.\" width=\"300\" height=\"212\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 17\u003c/strong>: And the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\" target=\"_blank\">wait continues\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(The court did issue a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/\">significant ruling on gene patenting\u003c/a>, with potentially big implications for the biotech industry.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will release its decisions on either Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, or both this morning, around 7 a.m. PDT. It's not very likely, according to inveterate SCOTUS watchers. But, on the other hand, people have made entire careers out of unsuccessfully trying to predict what the high court will do. So, here we are, monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog, which almost always is first in reporting the decisions, has begun \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">live blogging\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/\" target=\"_blank\">list from the site of all the cases that are still outstanding\u003c/a> from the October 2012 term. (There's a major decision on an \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345\" target=\"_blank\">affirmative action case\u003c/a> that could come down today.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, 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.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. There are many in-between possibilities as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99713 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99713",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 423,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1371491000,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Jun 17: And the wait continues... Update: Per SCOTUSblog, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch. (The court did issue a significant ruling on gene patenting, with",
"title": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-13T06:55:29-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-17T10:43:20-07:00",
"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": "waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/",
"path": "/news/99713/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_68608\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-68608\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061-300x212.jpg\" alt=\"Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8.\" width=\"300\" height=\"212\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 17\u003c/strong>: And the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\" target=\"_blank\">wait continues\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(The court did issue a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/\">significant ruling on gene patenting\u003c/a>, with potentially big implications for the biotech industry.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will release its decisions on either Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, or both this morning, around 7 a.m. PDT. It's not very likely, according to inveterate SCOTUS watchers. But, on the other hand, people have made entire careers out of unsuccessfully trying to predict what the high court will do. So, here we are, monitoring.\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>SCOTUSblog, which almost always is first in reporting the decisions, has begun \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">live blogging\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/\" target=\"_blank\">list from the site of all the cases that are still outstanding\u003c/a> from the October 2012 term. (There's a major decision on an \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345\" target=\"_blank\">affirmative action case\u003c/a> that could come down today.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, 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.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. There are many in-between possibilities as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\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\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99713/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99462": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99462",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99462",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371085233000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371085233,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99554\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-99554\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\" alt=\"Vaughn-Walker-Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, who wrote the 2010 decision invalidating Proposition 8\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues before a gathering of 25 or so criminal defense attorneys Monday night, how could I resist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the meeting, Walker outlined the history of homosexuality and the law. Born in 1944, Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive gay rights is something that “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.” For emphasis, he added that the shift has been “utterly unimaginable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recalling that day in 2009 when he first noticed a complaint in his “in box” titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was, he said, “my oh-shit moment.” He realized the importance of the case challenging Prop. 8, but said he never thought it would attract the media attention it has. The Prop. 8 case is, he said, “the gift that keeps on giving.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Walker, the most fascinating moment in the March 26 oral arguments at the Supreme Court was this exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the - outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision ... that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->It was, said Walker, “a remarkable exchange” highlighting the extent to which equal treatment for gays and lesbians has become embedded in our culture.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And why did Walker choose to hold a trial with witnesses, rather than just take briefs and make a ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive LGBT rights is something, “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.”\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Trials have a cleansing effect,” he said. “It’s not always a Perry Mason moment, but there’s nothing like putting someone on the witness stand” and making them answer questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the meeting, Walker and I strolled over to the Hyatt Regency, where we had a wide-ranging discussion about the Prop. 8 trial and the Supreme Court's pending decision. That was off the record, though I can say he drinks a Hendrick's gin martini up with two olives. And also: the judge says that unlike those of us in the media who are up early on SCOTUS decision days to catch first word of the ruling, he's a lot less obsessed with the case's final outcome.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But at his talk with attorneys, Walker paraphrased former civil rights leader John Lewis, saying, “The leaders are scrambling to keep up with the people. There goes America. The laws some day will catch up.”\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99462 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99462",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/12/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 559,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1371087707,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling. So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable' | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"datePublished": "2013-06-12T18:00:33-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-12T18:41:47-07:00",
"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": "vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/11/vaughn-walker/",
"path": "/news/99462/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99554\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-99554\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\" alt=\"Vaughn-Walker-Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, who wrote the 2010 decision invalidating Proposition 8\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues before a gathering of 25 or so criminal defense attorneys Monday night, how could I resist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the meeting, Walker outlined the history of homosexuality and the law. Born in 1944, Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive gay rights is something that “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.” For emphasis, he added that the shift has been “utterly unimaginable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recalling that day in 2009 when he first noticed a complaint in his “in box” titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was, he said, “my oh-shit moment.” He realized the importance of the case challenging Prop. 8, but said he never thought it would attract the media attention it has. The Prop. 8 case is, he said, “the gift that keeps on giving.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Walker, the most fascinating moment in the March 26 oral arguments at the Supreme Court was this exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the - outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision ... that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->It was, said Walker, “a remarkable exchange” highlighting the extent to which equal treatment for gays and lesbians has become embedded in our culture.\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>And why did Walker choose to hold a trial with witnesses, rather than just take briefs and make a ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive LGBT rights is something, “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.”\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Trials have a cleansing effect,” he said. “It’s not always a Perry Mason moment, but there’s nothing like putting someone on the witness stand” and making them answer questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the meeting, Walker and I strolled over to the Hyatt Regency, where we had a wide-ranging discussion about the Prop. 8 trial and the Supreme Court's pending decision. That was off the record, though I can say he drinks a Hendrick's gin martini up with two olives. And also: the judge says that unlike those of us in the media who are up early on SCOTUS decision days to catch first word of the ruling, he's a lot less obsessed with the case's final outcome.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But at his talk with attorneys, Walker paraphrased former civil rights leader John Lewis, saying, “The leaders are scrambling to keep up with the people. There goes America. The laws some day will catch up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99462/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1196"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99173": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99173",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99173",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1370870491000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1370870491,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"title": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Thursday Jun 13:\u003c/strong> We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">See that post here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a possibility the decisions could come on Thursday, though most court watchers think that's unlikely, and that the opinions won't be released until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55730\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM.gif\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55730\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM-300x200.gif\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">FILE PHOTO: Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There's a chance the Supreme Court will release its Proposition 8 and/or Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings today, around 7 a.m. If that's the case, we'll be live blogging right here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If that's not the case, we'll head back to bed and keep an eye out on Thursday, the next day the court will be issuing opinions. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/faqs-opinion-announcement-days/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog FAQ\u003c/a> about how the court issues opinions. SCOTUSblog, the gold standard in high court watching, thinks the same-sex marriage opinions won't be issued until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Vaughn Walker: Getting Prop 8 Case 'My Oh S*** Moment'\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Prop 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California within a month, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as only between 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\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99173 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99173",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 419,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1371130266,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Thursday Jun 13: We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. See that post here. Update: Per SCOTUSblog, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a",
"title": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"datePublished": "2013-06-10T06:21:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-13T06:31:06-07:00",
"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"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/",
"path": "/news/99173/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Thursday Jun 13:\u003c/strong> We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">See that post here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a possibility the decisions could come on Thursday, though most court watchers think that's unlikely, and that the opinions won't be released until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55730\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM.gif\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55730\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM-300x200.gif\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">FILE PHOTO: Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There's a chance the Supreme Court will release its Proposition 8 and/or Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings today, around 7 a.m. If that's the case, we'll be live blogging right here.\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 that's not the case, we'll head back to bed and keep an eye out on Thursday, the next day the court will be issuing opinions. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/faqs-opinion-announcement-days/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog FAQ\u003c/a> about how the court issues opinions. SCOTUSblog, the gold standard in high court watching, thinks the same-sex marriage opinions won't be issued until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Vaughn Walker: Getting Prop 8 Case 'My Oh S*** Moment'\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Prop 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California within a month, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as only between 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\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99173/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92727": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92727",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92727",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364431990000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364431990,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained",
"title": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments for almost two hours on the federal Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday morning. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions centered around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92735\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/visitors-an-employees-arrive-at-the-us-s/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92735\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92735\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images) \u003ccite>(Paul J. Richards/AFP-Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big takeaway from this has always been: The court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[At question is] whether [BLAG] is an appropriate representative of the Congress that passed the DOMA. Let’s say that the House of Representatives had not stepped in to defend DOMA, say some conservative pro-marriage group did. Now, it is Windsor against the United States, the United States is not defending, the House, the Senate, no one in the government is defending. But someone who likes the DOMA steps in and says, \"I’ll defend it.\" We clearly would not allow a court to resolve that case on the merits because we would not have confidence that that outside group that wants to defend DOMA would do the right kind of job, given that they are not a valid representative of the people and the Congress that passed the DOMA.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Can you tell me where the authorization is here? I know that there is a statute that gives the Senate specifically authorization to intervene and that there was consideration of extending that right to the House. But the appointment of BLAG is strange to me, because it's not in a statute, it's in a House rule.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So where -- how does that constitute anything other than a private agreement among some Senators, the House leadership? And where -- from where do they derive the right, the statutory right, to take on the power of representing the House in items outside of the House? I know they control the procedures within the House, but that's a very different step from saying that they can decide who or to create standing in some way, prudential or otherwise, Article III or otherwise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Sotomayor, I can point you to two places. One is the House rules that are pursuant to the rulemaking authority and approved by the institution. They're approved in every Congress. Rule 2.8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What other House Rule creates the power of the majority leaders to represent the House outside of the functions of the House?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Can the President Choose Not to Uphold the Law?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Historically [how it works for] the president and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., is that when a law is passed by Congress, even over a presidential veto, and is later challenged in court as being unconstitutional, that the executive branch of the United States views it as its job to defend what Congress has done and it will provide a vigorous defense in court. Unless the law is patently unconstitutional and no reasonable person could think there is a defense. So the president over the years has personally defended all sorts of laws he thinks are unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Obama did not follow that general historical practice here, and hasn’t fully explained why this is an appropriate exception. That’s what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia were frustrated by, because then a statute can die on the vine simply because the President is not enforcing it and yet no court has ever weighed in to invalidate it because there’s no case in which a case could do so. That gives a lot of power and discretion to the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> is a case in which Congress passed a law that basically limited the president’s authority and enhanced Congress’s authority. Congress used that authority to deport a man named Mr. Chadha. He objected to this law on the ground that it … was a usurpation of authority by Congress. So, Chadha sued the federal government, the INS who was going to deport him and the president, through the attorney general, agreed with Mr. Chadha…So when the case was litigated you have the same situation you have in Prop. 8 and the DOMA, you have the executive branch on the side of the challenger rather than on the side of defending the legislative enactment. So the question is whether if \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> was a case that was appropriate for Supreme Court resolution, why shouldn’t the DOMA case be similar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But there are some important distinctions, so if it wants to [the court] can get rid of the case on standing grounds, and dooesn't have to overrule the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> case, it just has to limit the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, it's not just - it's not unusual. It's totally unprecedented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: Well, it's totally unprecedented in one respect, Your Honor. If you look at Chadha -- okay, the second point I'd make. Let me make one point at the outset, though, which is that whether it's totally unusual or largely unusual, I grant you that it doesn't happen. But the reason it doesn't happen is because -- I wouldn't confuse a numerator with a denominator. This set of circumstances just doesn't arise very often.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, it's true that when this set of circumstances -\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: It has not arisen very often in the past, because in the past, when I was at the Office of Legal Counsel, there was an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel which says that the Attorney General will defend the laws of the United States, except in two circumstances: Number one, where the basis for the alleged unconstitutionality has to do with presidential powers. When the presidential powers are involved, he's the lawyer for the President. So he can say, we think the statute's unconstitutional, I won't defend it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The second situation is where no possible rational argument could be made in defense of it. Now, neither of those situations exists here. And I'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the Attorney General can simply decide, yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it's not so unconstitutional that I'm not willing to enforce it, if we're in this new world, I -- I don't want these cases like this to come before this Court all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I think they will come all the time if that's -- if that's -- if that's the new regime in the Justice Department that we're dealing with.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I would have thought your answer would be that the Executive's obligation to execute the law includes the obligation to execute the law consistent with the Constitution. And if he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how are you aggrieved? \"Aggrieved\" means that you are deprived of your legal rights. And you don't think that you've been deprived of your legal rights because your rights -- your obligations under the Constitution supercede DOMA, and you haven't been deprived of anything that you're entitled to under the Constitution. So how are you aggrieved?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: I guess we'd -- I'd subscribe to the aggrievement analysis that the Court made in Chadha at pages 929 to 931 of its opinion. And what the Court said is this: \"When an agency of the United States is a party to a case in which an act of Congress that it administers is held unconstitutional, it is an aggrieved party. The agency's status as an aggrieved party is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.\" That description is on all fours with the circumstances of this case.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Federalism\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Would the federal government be stepping on the toes of the states by treating same-sex couples as married, even when those couples were not treated as married in that state? Those are the kinds of questions that really probe this federalism rationale. How much is marriage an exclusive domain of the states? And is the federal government really out of its arena? To say that the federal government always has to defer to the states, or generally defer to the states in these marital arenas would be a big step, but at least is a step that does not resolve the meta-question here about whether the 40-odd states that ban same-sex marriage would have to change what they’re doing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think -- I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, it applies to over what, 1,100 Federal laws, I think we are saying. So it's not -- it's -- it's -- I think there is quite a bit to your argument that if the tax deduction case, which is specific, whether or not if Congress has the power it can exercise it for the reason that it wants, that it likes some marriage it does like, I suppose it can do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the Federal Government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You're saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Equal Protection\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar\u003c/strong>: The equal protection idea in the Constitution, and it’s in the 14\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Amendment and it’s also in the Fifth Amendment, is not a command that government always treat everybody identically, because that would make no sense. Every law that government passes treats some persons or things than other persons or things. Every law does that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question is what kind of basis for differentiating people is valid. It’s certainly OK to treat criminals differently than non-criminals; the former go to jail, the latter do not. It’s also certainly not OK to treat ethnic minorities differently than whites without a really strong justification. So why is it OK to treat criminals different than non-criminals, but not OK to treat blacks differently than whites?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Those are the big questions in equal protection and how do they apply to a group like gays and lesbians. Are they more like racial minorities or are they more properly analogous to other groups in society that don’t benefit from any special judicial protection? So the equal protection idea requires the courts figure out which kinds of groups should not be treated differently based on some group characteristic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp> GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, with respect to Section 3 of DOMA, the problem is an equal protection problem from the point of view of the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes, but, General, surely the question of what the Federal interests are and whether those Federal interests should take account of the historic State prerogatives in this area is relevant to the equal protection inquiry?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: It's central to the inquiry, Justice Kagan. I completely agree with that point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Oh, so it would be central to the inquiry if Congress went the other way, too?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, the difference is what Section 3 does is impose this exclusion from Federal benefits on a class that has undeniably been subject to a history of terrible discrimination on the basis of –\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that. That's your equal protection argument. It's not very responsive to my concern I'm trying to get an answer to. You don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this, right?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92727 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92727",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 2424,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 47
},
"modified": 1398733227,
"excerpt": "For almost two hours Supreme Court justices heard arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions were around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92735\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\" style=\"padding:10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nThe justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\r\n\u003ch3>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\u003c/h3>\r\n\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big take-away from this has always been, the court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\r\n\r\nThe basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "For almost two hours Supreme Court justices heard arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions were around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\r\nUC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\r\nStanding\r\n\r\nAmar: If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big take-away from this has always been, the court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\r\n\r\nThe basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.",
"title": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained",
"datePublished": "2013-03-27T17:53:10-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:27-07:00",
"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-oral-arguments-explained",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92727/doma-oral-arguments-explained",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments for almost two hours on the federal Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday morning. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions centered around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92735\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/visitors-an-employees-arrive-at-the-us-s/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92735\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92735\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images) \u003ccite>(Paul J. Richards/AFP-Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big takeaway from this has always been: The court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\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 basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[At question is] whether [BLAG] is an appropriate representative of the Congress that passed the DOMA. Let’s say that the House of Representatives had not stepped in to defend DOMA, say some conservative pro-marriage group did. Now, it is Windsor against the United States, the United States is not defending, the House, the Senate, no one in the government is defending. But someone who likes the DOMA steps in and says, \"I’ll defend it.\" We clearly would not allow a court to resolve that case on the merits because we would not have confidence that that outside group that wants to defend DOMA would do the right kind of job, given that they are not a valid representative of the people and the Congress that passed the DOMA.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Can you tell me where the authorization is here? I know that there is a statute that gives the Senate specifically authorization to intervene and that there was consideration of extending that right to the House. But the appointment of BLAG is strange to me, because it's not in a statute, it's in a House rule.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So where -- how does that constitute anything other than a private agreement among some Senators, the House leadership? And where -- from where do they derive the right, the statutory right, to take on the power of representing the House in items outside of the House? I know they control the procedures within the House, but that's a very different step from saying that they can decide who or to create standing in some way, prudential or otherwise, Article III or otherwise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Sotomayor, I can point you to two places. One is the House rules that are pursuant to the rulemaking authority and approved by the institution. They're approved in every Congress. Rule 2.8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What other House Rule creates the power of the majority leaders to represent the House outside of the functions of the House?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Can the President Choose Not to Uphold the Law?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Historically [how it works for] the president and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., is that when a law is passed by Congress, even over a presidential veto, and is later challenged in court as being unconstitutional, that the executive branch of the United States views it as its job to defend what Congress has done and it will provide a vigorous defense in court. Unless the law is patently unconstitutional and no reasonable person could think there is a defense. So the president over the years has personally defended all sorts of laws he thinks are unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Obama did not follow that general historical practice here, and hasn’t fully explained why this is an appropriate exception. That’s what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia were frustrated by, because then a statute can die on the vine simply because the President is not enforcing it and yet no court has ever weighed in to invalidate it because there’s no case in which a case could do so. That gives a lot of power and discretion to the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> is a case in which Congress passed a law that basically limited the president’s authority and enhanced Congress’s authority. Congress used that authority to deport a man named Mr. Chadha. He objected to this law on the ground that it … was a usurpation of authority by Congress. So, Chadha sued the federal government, the INS who was going to deport him and the president, through the attorney general, agreed with Mr. Chadha…So when the case was litigated you have the same situation you have in Prop. 8 and the DOMA, you have the executive branch on the side of the challenger rather than on the side of defending the legislative enactment. So the question is whether if \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> was a case that was appropriate for Supreme Court resolution, why shouldn’t the DOMA case be similar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But there are some important distinctions, so if it wants to [the court] can get rid of the case on standing grounds, and dooesn't have to overrule the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> case, it just has to limit the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, it's not just - it's not unusual. It's totally unprecedented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: Well, it's totally unprecedented in one respect, Your Honor. If you look at Chadha -- okay, the second point I'd make. Let me make one point at the outset, though, which is that whether it's totally unusual or largely unusual, I grant you that it doesn't happen. But the reason it doesn't happen is because -- I wouldn't confuse a numerator with a denominator. This set of circumstances just doesn't arise very often.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, it's true that when this set of circumstances -\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: It has not arisen very often in the past, because in the past, when I was at the Office of Legal Counsel, there was an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel which says that the Attorney General will defend the laws of the United States, except in two circumstances: Number one, where the basis for the alleged unconstitutionality has to do with presidential powers. When the presidential powers are involved, he's the lawyer for the President. So he can say, we think the statute's unconstitutional, I won't defend it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The second situation is where no possible rational argument could be made in defense of it. Now, neither of those situations exists here. And I'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the Attorney General can simply decide, yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it's not so unconstitutional that I'm not willing to enforce it, if we're in this new world, I -- I don't want these cases like this to come before this Court all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I think they will come all the time if that's -- if that's -- if that's the new regime in the Justice Department that we're dealing with.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I would have thought your answer would be that the Executive's obligation to execute the law includes the obligation to execute the law consistent with the Constitution. And if he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how are you aggrieved? \"Aggrieved\" means that you are deprived of your legal rights. And you don't think that you've been deprived of your legal rights because your rights -- your obligations under the Constitution supercede DOMA, and you haven't been deprived of anything that you're entitled to under the Constitution. So how are you aggrieved?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: I guess we'd -- I'd subscribe to the aggrievement analysis that the Court made in Chadha at pages 929 to 931 of its opinion. And what the Court said is this: \"When an agency of the United States is a party to a case in which an act of Congress that it administers is held unconstitutional, it is an aggrieved party. The agency's status as an aggrieved party is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.\" That description is on all fours with the circumstances of this case.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Federalism\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Would the federal government be stepping on the toes of the states by treating same-sex couples as married, even when those couples were not treated as married in that state? Those are the kinds of questions that really probe this federalism rationale. How much is marriage an exclusive domain of the states? And is the federal government really out of its arena? To say that the federal government always has to defer to the states, or generally defer to the states in these marital arenas would be a big step, but at least is a step that does not resolve the meta-question here about whether the 40-odd states that ban same-sex marriage would have to change what they’re doing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think -- I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, it applies to over what, 1,100 Federal laws, I think we are saying. So it's not -- it's -- it's -- I think there is quite a bit to your argument that if the tax deduction case, which is specific, whether or not if Congress has the power it can exercise it for the reason that it wants, that it likes some marriage it does like, I suppose it can do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the Federal Government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You're saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Equal Protection\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar\u003c/strong>: The equal protection idea in the Constitution, and it’s in the 14\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Amendment and it’s also in the Fifth Amendment, is not a command that government always treat everybody identically, because that would make no sense. Every law that government passes treats some persons or things than other persons or things. Every law does that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question is what kind of basis for differentiating people is valid. It’s certainly OK to treat criminals differently than non-criminals; the former go to jail, the latter do not. It’s also certainly not OK to treat ethnic minorities differently than whites without a really strong justification. So why is it OK to treat criminals different than non-criminals, but not OK to treat blacks differently than whites?\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>Those are the big questions in equal protection and how do they apply to a group like gays and lesbians. Are they more like racial minorities or are they more properly analogous to other groups in society that don’t benefit from any special judicial protection? So the equal protection idea requires the courts figure out which kinds of groups should not be treated differently based on some group characteristic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp> GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, with respect to Section 3 of DOMA, the problem is an equal protection problem from the point of view of the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes, but, General, surely the question of what the Federal interests are and whether those Federal interests should take account of the historic State prerogatives in this area is relevant to the equal protection inquiry?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: It's central to the inquiry, Justice Kagan. I completely agree with that point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Oh, so it would be central to the inquiry if Congress went the other way, too?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, the difference is what Section 3 does is impose this exclusion from Federal benefits on a class that has undeniably been subject to a history of terrible discrimination on the basis of –\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that. That's your equal protection argument. It's not very responsive to my concern I'm trying to get an answer to. You don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this, right?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92727/doma-oral-arguments-explained",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_2725",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92649": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92649",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92649",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364406859000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364406859,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court DOMA Oral Arguments",
"title": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court DOMA Oral Arguments",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>On Wednesday morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/supreme-court-doma-oral\">Listen\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> to the hearing:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85193343\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/132670145/DOMA-Oral-Arguments-at-the-Supreme-Court\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> the transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132670145/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\">Proposition 8 Supreme Court Hearing Audio, Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> all of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92649 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92649",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 49,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 9
},
"modified": 1398733228,
"excerpt": "On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/supreme-court-doma-oral\">Listen\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> to the hearing:\r\n\u003ciframe width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85193343\">\u003c/iframe>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/132670145/DOMA-Oral-Arguments-at-the-Supreme-Court\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> the transcript:\r\n\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132670145/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.\r\n\r\nListen to the hearing:\r\n\r\n\r\nRead the transcript:\r\n\r\n\r\nRead all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.",
"title": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court DOMA Oral Arguments | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court DOMA Oral Arguments",
"datePublished": "2013-03-27T10:54:19-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:28-07:00",
"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": "audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92649/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>On Wednesday morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/supreme-court-doma-oral\">Listen\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> to the hearing:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85193343\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/132670145/DOMA-Oral-Arguments-at-the-Supreme-Court\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> the transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132670145/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" 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>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\">Proposition 8 Supreme Court Hearing Audio, Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> all of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92649/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92469": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92469",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92469",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364389218000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364389218,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "DOMA Live Blog: Follow the Action in Tweets and Photos",
"title": "DOMA Live Blog: Follow the Action in Tweets and Photos",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/live-doma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you're on a mobile device, you can read the DOMA live blog directly on \u003ca href=\"http://storify.com/kqednews/live-doma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court\">Storify\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92469 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92469",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-live-blog-follow-the-action-in-tweets-and-photos/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 32,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 3
},
"modified": 1398733229,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-live-blog-follow-the-action-in-tweets-and-photos/domastorify/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92685\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-92685\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/DOMAstorify-300x114.png\" alt=\"Doma storify\" width=\"300\" height=\"114\" />\u003c/a>",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "",
"title": "DOMA Live Blog: Follow the Action in Tweets and Photos | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "DOMA Live Blog: Follow the Action in Tweets and Photos",
"datePublished": "2013-03-27T06:00:18-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:29-07:00",
"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": "doma-live-blog-follow-the-action-in-tweets-and-photos",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92469/doma-live-blog-follow-the-action-in-tweets-and-photos",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/live-doma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you're on a mobile device, you can read the DOMA live blog directly on \u003ca href=\"http://storify.com/kqednews/live-doma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court\">Storify\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>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92469/doma-live-blog-follow-the-action-in-tweets-and-photos",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"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": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=proposition-8": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 36,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 134,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_100852",
"news_100525",
"news_100595",
"news_100262",
"news_100055",
"news_99826",
"news_99713",
"news_99462",
"news_99173",
"news_92727",
"news_92649",
"news_92469"
],
"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_tag_proposition-8": {
"isLoading": true
},
"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_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_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_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_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_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_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_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_323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 331,
"slug": "perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger"
},
"news_1196": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1196",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1196",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn R. Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn R. Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1208,
"slug": "vaughn-r-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-r-walker"
},
"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_2725": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2725",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2725",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2743,
"slug": "same-sex",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex"
},
"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"
}
},
"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
}
}
