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": {
"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"
},
"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"
},
"lairdharrison": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "1367",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "1367",
"found": true
},
"name": "Laird Harrison",
"firstName": "Laird",
"lastName": "Harrison",
"slug": "lairdharrison",
"email": "laird_harrison@yahoo.com",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cd1a94b071427a71ecfcbc115c6b0efe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Laird Harrison | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cd1a94b071427a71ecfcbc115c6b0efe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cd1a94b071427a71ecfcbc115c6b0efe?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lairdharrison"
},
"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": 9.301819
},
"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": 5
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=proposition-8",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 5
}
},
{
"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_92552": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92552",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92552",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364346107000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364346107,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained",
"title": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92585\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/us-chief-justice-john-roberts-c-front-2/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92585\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92585\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/912367741-300x206.jpg\" alt=\"File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"206\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The \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> were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Only Justice Scalia seemed to ask questions that supported the standing of the sponsors. But Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan and Justice Roberts and then, at the end, Justice Kennedy, when he said there was a substantial question over standing. All of them intimated that this may not be an appropriate vehicle for federal courts to weigh in, because the sponsors don’t really have a direct tie to the people and voters of California as to be able to step in their shoes, and speak for the state, when the attorney general and the governor declined to defend.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is at least a very good chance that this case will get resolved on standing grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the liberal justices, as I said, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, asked a lot of questions that suggested that they were skeptical of the sponsor standing. That is a signal to me that they would rather let Prop. 8 die a California-specific death on standing grounds, because if there’s no standing, then basically the Ninth Circuit decision is wiped out, and the plaintiffs will win a narrow victory in the district court. But, not necessarily [a win] that spills over to affect people from any other state, and maybe not even other same-sex couples in California, at least not for the moment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. Maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chief Justice. Your Honor, the official proponents of Proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this Court as representatives of the people and the State of California to defend the validity of a measure that they brought forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\nMR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, the Court has not done that. But the Court has never had before it a clear expression from a unanimous State's high court that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: -- could -- could the State assign to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Justice Kagan, that would be a -- a very tough question. It's -- it's by no means the question before the Court, because -- because it isn't any citizen, it's -- it is the -- it is the official proponents that have a specific and -- and carefully detailed --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just -- if you would on the hypothetical: Could a State just assign to\u003cbr>\nanybody the ability to do this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I think it very well might. It very well might be able to decide that any citizen could step forward and represent the interests of the State and the people in that State...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you're -- you're doing so in a -- in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the State goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on -- on standing. I just wonder if -- if the case was properly granted.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Defining Marriage\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> When it comes to the merits, I think there was more of a full-throated rejection of the plaintiffs' challenge to Prop. 8 by the conservative justices, especially Justice Scalia, than there was a full-throated embrace of a national right to same sex-marriage by the liberals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s true that Justice Kagan asked (Yes on 8 Attorney) Chuck Cooper some difficult questions about regulation of people who are over 55 years of age and how does that relate to procreation, etc. But I didn’t hear the liberals kind of explain a national equal protection right, which they may embrace, but they didn’t use oral argument to put it out there the way Justice Scalia and other conservative justices kind of belittled the claim brought by the plaintiffs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of the things the arguments show -- this procreation defense of bans on same-sex marriage -- doesn’t really work that easily. It lends itself to a lot of easy, hypothetical rejoinders. And I think that the conservative justices who think that Prop. 8 is appropriate for the people of California to have passed, they in their questions, recast the issue focusing not just narrowly on procreation, but on caution more generally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? Look, you said that the problem is marriage; that it is an institution that furthers procreation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: And the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>- Laughter -\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Is Marriage a Fundamental Right?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> was a 1967 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. It kept coming up because the challengers to Prop. 8 have really evoked \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> and the interracial marriage setting as an analogy: That just as it was legitimate for the court to tell states that they could not ban marriages between races, so, too, it’s appropriate to tell states that they cannot ban marriages between gays and lesbians.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The people who oppose the challenge, the defenders of Prop. 8, Chuck Cooper, they really think that \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> is more a case about race than it was about marriage. They also would note that in 1967, when the Supreme Court decided \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em>, there were only about a dozen or so states that continued to prohibit interracial marriage. Whereas 40 states or so continue to prohibit same-sex marriage. So the backdrop against which the Supreme Court nationalized a right to interracial marriage in 1967 might be considered different than today’s backdrop. Something the court kind of hinted at a number of times when they talked about whether this issue should percolate a little in the states before the Supreme Court weighs in, in a definitive fashion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: The label \"marriage\" means something. Even our opponents --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're -- all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. You could have said in the \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> case, what -- you can't get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the -- marriage has a status, recognition, support, and you -- if you read the test, you know --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Why Now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I think the best defense of Prop. 8, if there is a good defense, is that states have the right to be cautious when they’re tampering with an institution that’s 2,000 or more years old. Justice Kennedy talked about how long marriage has remained the way it is. Justice Alito said, you know, same sex-marriage is a newer institution than cell phones or the Internet, and you’re telling us we have to nationalize it right now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: You want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on -- of same-sex marriage, the potential -- the effects of Proposition 8. But what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the -- the concept of -- of same-sex marriage. The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a -- a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>When Did Same-Sex Marriage Become Illegal?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> The rhetorical point Justice Scalia is trying to make is that if we would say that it did not violate the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage 50 years ago, and it does so today, isn’t it odd that the meaning of the Constitution, whose words haven’t changed since 1868, would evolve?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(Scalia) is what we call an originalist and textualist. He wants to interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by reference to what it meant in 1868. Not by reference to modern notions of social meaning and social science.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -- as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: Because the case that's before you --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: -- if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: -- in -- the case that's before you today, California decided -- the citizens of California decided, after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California, and then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So -- so your case -- your case would be different if Proposition 8 was enacted into law prior to the California Supreme Court decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: I would make -- I would make the -- also would make the -- that distinguishes it in one respect. But also -- also -- I would also make the argument, Mr. Chief Justice, that we are -- this -- marriage is a fundamental right and we are making a classification based upon a status of individuals, which this Court has repeatedly decided that gays and lesbians are defined by their status. There is no question about that.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92552 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92552",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 2366,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 57
},
"modified": 1398733230,
"excerpt": "After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92585\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/912367741-300x206.jpg\" alt=\"File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"206\" style=\"padding:10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nThe \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> were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\r\n\r\nThe questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe oral arguments were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\r\n\r\nThe questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\r\n\r\nStanding\r\n\r\nAmar: I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.",
"title": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained",
"datePublished": "2013-03-26T18:01:47-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:30-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92552/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92585\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/us-chief-justice-john-roberts-c-front-2/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92585\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92585\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/912367741-300x206.jpg\" alt=\"File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"206\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The \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> were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.\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>Only Justice Scalia seemed to ask questions that supported the standing of the sponsors. But Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan and Justice Roberts and then, at the end, Justice Kennedy, when he said there was a substantial question over standing. All of them intimated that this may not be an appropriate vehicle for federal courts to weigh in, because the sponsors don’t really have a direct tie to the people and voters of California as to be able to step in their shoes, and speak for the state, when the attorney general and the governor declined to defend.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is at least a very good chance that this case will get resolved on standing grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the liberal justices, as I said, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, asked a lot of questions that suggested that they were skeptical of the sponsor standing. That is a signal to me that they would rather let Prop. 8 die a California-specific death on standing grounds, because if there’s no standing, then basically the Ninth Circuit decision is wiped out, and the plaintiffs will win a narrow victory in the district court. But, not necessarily [a win] that spills over to affect people from any other state, and maybe not even other same-sex couples in California, at least not for the moment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. Maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chief Justice. Your Honor, the official proponents of Proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this Court as representatives of the people and the State of California to defend the validity of a measure that they brought forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\nMR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, the Court has not done that. But the Court has never had before it a clear expression from a unanimous State's high court that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: -- could -- could the State assign to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Justice Kagan, that would be a -- a very tough question. It's -- it's by no means the question before the Court, because -- because it isn't any citizen, it's -- it is the -- it is the official proponents that have a specific and -- and carefully detailed --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just -- if you would on the hypothetical: Could a State just assign to\u003cbr>\nanybody the ability to do this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I think it very well might. It very well might be able to decide that any citizen could step forward and represent the interests of the State and the people in that State...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you're -- you're doing so in a -- in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the State goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on -- on standing. I just wonder if -- if the case was properly granted.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Defining Marriage\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> When it comes to the merits, I think there was more of a full-throated rejection of the plaintiffs' challenge to Prop. 8 by the conservative justices, especially Justice Scalia, than there was a full-throated embrace of a national right to same sex-marriage by the liberals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s true that Justice Kagan asked (Yes on 8 Attorney) Chuck Cooper some difficult questions about regulation of people who are over 55 years of age and how does that relate to procreation, etc. But I didn’t hear the liberals kind of explain a national equal protection right, which they may embrace, but they didn’t use oral argument to put it out there the way Justice Scalia and other conservative justices kind of belittled the claim brought by the plaintiffs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of the things the arguments show -- this procreation defense of bans on same-sex marriage -- doesn’t really work that easily. It lends itself to a lot of easy, hypothetical rejoinders. And I think that the conservative justices who think that Prop. 8 is appropriate for the people of California to have passed, they in their questions, recast the issue focusing not just narrowly on procreation, but on caution more generally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? Look, you said that the problem is marriage; that it is an institution that furthers procreation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: And the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>- Laughter -\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Is Marriage a Fundamental Right?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> was a 1967 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. It kept coming up because the challengers to Prop. 8 have really evoked \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> and the interracial marriage setting as an analogy: That just as it was legitimate for the court to tell states that they could not ban marriages between races, so, too, it’s appropriate to tell states that they cannot ban marriages between gays and lesbians.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The people who oppose the challenge, the defenders of Prop. 8, Chuck Cooper, they really think that \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> is more a case about race than it was about marriage. They also would note that in 1967, when the Supreme Court decided \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em>, there were only about a dozen or so states that continued to prohibit interracial marriage. Whereas 40 states or so continue to prohibit same-sex marriage. So the backdrop against which the Supreme Court nationalized a right to interracial marriage in 1967 might be considered different than today’s backdrop. Something the court kind of hinted at a number of times when they talked about whether this issue should percolate a little in the states before the Supreme Court weighs in, in a definitive fashion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: The label \"marriage\" means something. Even our opponents --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're -- all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. You could have said in the \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> case, what -- you can't get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the -- marriage has a status, recognition, support, and you -- if you read the test, you know --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Why Now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I think the best defense of Prop. 8, if there is a good defense, is that states have the right to be cautious when they’re tampering with an institution that’s 2,000 or more years old. Justice Kennedy talked about how long marriage has remained the way it is. Justice Alito said, you know, same sex-marriage is a newer institution than cell phones or the Internet, and you’re telling us we have to nationalize it right now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: You want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on -- of same-sex marriage, the potential -- the effects of Proposition 8. But what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the -- the concept of -- of same-sex marriage. The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a -- a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>When Did Same-Sex Marriage Become Illegal?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> The rhetorical point Justice Scalia is trying to make is that if we would say that it did not violate the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage 50 years ago, and it does so today, isn’t it odd that the meaning of the Constitution, whose words haven’t changed since 1868, would evolve?\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>(Scalia) is what we call an originalist and textualist. He wants to interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by reference to what it meant in 1868. Not by reference to modern notions of social meaning and social science.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -- as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: Because the case that's before you --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: -- if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: -- in -- the case that's before you today, California decided -- the citizens of California decided, after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California, and then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So -- so your case -- your case would be different if Proposition 8 was enacted into law prior to the California Supreme Court decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: I would make -- I would make the -- also would make the -- that distinguishes it in one respect. But also -- also -- I would also make the argument, Mr. Chief Justice, that we are -- this -- marriage is a fundamental right and we are making a classification based upon a status of individuals, which this Court has repeatedly decided that gays and lesbians are defined by their status. There is no question about that.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92552/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92453": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92453",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92453",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364317179000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364317179,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments",
"title": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Supreme Court justices set a challenging tone early during the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 Tuesday morning. The Justices questioned whether \u003ca href=\"#standing\">citizens have the right to defend a proposition\u003c/a> if the state will not, whether either side could \u003ca href=\"#harm\">prove legal harm\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"#when\">when same-sex marriage became illegal\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Listen\u003c/strong> to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85027489\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Read\u003c/strong> the transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132467543/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>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"\" target=\"_blank\">Learn more\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> about what some of the exchanges meant.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\">DOMA 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 the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92453 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92453",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 120,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1398733231,
"excerpt": "Listen to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court this morning.\r\n\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%2F85027489\">\u003c/iframe>\r\n\r\nRead the transcript:\r\n\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132467543/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Read\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Listen to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court this morning.\r\n\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 Proposition 8 Oral Arguments | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments",
"datePublished": "2013-03-26T09:59:39-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:31-07:00",
"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-proposition-8-oral-arguments",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92453/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Supreme Court justices set a challenging tone early during the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 Tuesday morning. The Justices questioned whether \u003ca href=\"#standing\">citizens have the right to defend a proposition\u003c/a> if the state will not, whether either side could \u003ca href=\"#harm\">prove legal harm\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"#when\">when same-sex marriage became illegal\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Listen\u003c/strong> to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85027489\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Read\u003c/strong> the transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132467543/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>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"\" target=\"_blank\">Learn more\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> about what some of the exchanges meant.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\">DOMA 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 the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92453/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92387": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92387",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92387",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364301652000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364301652,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Proposition 8: Follow the Action in D.C. Through Tweets and Photos",
"title": "Proposition 8: Follow the Action in D.C. Through Tweets and Photos",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/live-prop-8-and-doma-at-the-supreme-court\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you're on a mobile device, you can read the Prop. 8 live blog directly on \u003ca href=\"http://storify.com/kqednews/live-prop-8-and-doma-at-the-supreme-court\">Storify\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92387 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92387",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/prop-8-storify-follow-the-action-in-d-c-through-tweets-and-photos/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 33,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 3
},
"modified": 1398733232,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/prop-8-storify-follow-the-action-in-d-c-through-tweets-and-photos/storifyscreenshot/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92411\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-92411\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/Storifyscreenshot-300x126.jpg\" alt=\"Storifyscreenshot\" width=\"300\" height=\"126\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "",
"title": "Proposition 8: Follow the Action in D.C. Through Tweets and Photos | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 8: Follow the Action in D.C. Through Tweets and Photos",
"datePublished": "2013-03-26T05:40:52-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:32-07:00",
"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-storify-follow-the-action-in-d-c-through-tweets-and-photos",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92387/prop-8-storify-follow-the-action-in-d-c-through-tweets-and-photos",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/live-prop-8-and-doma-at-the-supreme-court\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If you're on a mobile device, you can read the Prop. 8 live blog directly on \u003ca href=\"http://storify.com/kqednews/live-prop-8-and-doma-at-the-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/92387/prop-8-storify-follow-the-action-in-d-c-through-tweets-and-photos",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1089",
"news_4126"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92269": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92269",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92269",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364245238000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364245238,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments",
"title": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>When Theodore Boutrous Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class-action case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked Boutrous, who goes by \"Ted,\" how many times he has argued in front of the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92270\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 195px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements/michael-jacksons/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92270\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92270 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/50997687-195x300.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Theodore Boutros, Media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing on June 25, 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"195\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Theodore Boutros, media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing in 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images) Supreme Court.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\"Twice,\" he said. \"And I’ve got 18 votes!\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record -- 18 votes mean all the justices ruled in his favor both times he appeared before them -- he emailed back, “It’s tempting!”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since the start of the Proposition 8 debate in federal court four years ago, \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\">Boutrous\u003c/a> has been overshadowed by a higher-profile Ted, colleague \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tolson\">Theodore Olson\u003c/a>. Both are partners at \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\" target=\"_blank\">Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\u003c/a> (Boutrous in Los Angeles, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Both are part of the high-powered No on 8 legal team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Preparing for the Big Day\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson will be the attorney arguing before the justices on behalf of the No on 8 team on Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare for oral arguments, the team has been doing simulations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We’ll have done four moot courts by Tuesday,\" Boutrous said, referring to the practice arguments. \"We’ve had a mix of experienced Supreme Court litigators from inside and outside the firm join us for the preparation.\"\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\"Ted [Olson] walks up to the podium,\" Boutrous said. \"The four or five lawyers playing the roles of justices stay in character during the hourlong session. They let him get off a few sentences, and then they just go at him.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"People like playing justices,\" Boutrous joked.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92284\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/behind-the-scenes-with-the-no-on-8-team/federal-appeals-court-holds-hearing-on-prop-8-6/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92284\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92284\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4279_107361311-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"No on 8 attorneys\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">No on 8 attorneys Ted Boutrous (R), Ted Olson (2nd R) David Boies (L) speak to reporters following a hearing at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The moot courts, he said, allow the No on 8 legal team to try out and edit their best arguments, to see where a particular argument will lead and to practice avoiding the creation of unnecessary issues that could bog down the argument or distract from the main points.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The No on 8 team will have 20 minutes to argue its case. The U.S. Solicitor General, also opposing Prop. 8, gets 10 minutes. The Yes on 8 team gets the other 30 minutes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reading the Justices\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Don’t get too happy or too depressed about the questions they ask during the arguments,\" Boutrous said. \"You just don’t know what the purpose of the question is. You have to stay even-keeled.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In fact, he noted, he was stunned to see he’d gotten Justice Elena Kagan’s vote in that recent 9-0 decision because her questions during oral arguments seemed so hostile to his side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Looking Sharp\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a lighter matter, I asked how they decide what to wear in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You always keep to dark colors,\" Boutrous said. \"I remember once I saw a lawyer came into court with a powder-blue jacket. I thought, 'This isn’t going to go well!'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>'Abstract Principles Versus Real People'\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Boutrous and the rest of team appear confident.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked what is the biggest hurdle his opponents face.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"They’ve never been able to prove that excluding gay people is necessary to anyone or anything,\" Boutrous said. \"They can’t point to any harm done by same-sex marriage. It’s their abstract principles versus real people and their children being harmed. They just want to be like everybody else.\"\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92269 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92269",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 683,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1398733234,
"excerpt": "When Theodore Boutrous, Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy. “We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!” He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class action case.\r\n\r\nI asked Boutrous, who goes by “Ted”, how many times he’s argued in front of the Supreme Court. “Twice, “ he said. “And I’ve got 18 votes!” When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record, he emailed back “It’s tempting!”\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92270\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/50997687-195x300.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Theodore Boutros, Media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing on June 25, 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"195\" height=\"300\" style=\"padding:10px 10px 10px 10 px\" align=\"right\" />\u003c/a> \r\nSince the start of the Prop. 8 debate in federal court four years ago, Boutrous has been overshadowed by his high profile colleague, attorney Theodore Olson. Both are partners at \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\" target=\"_blank\">Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\u003c/a> (Boutrous in the Los Angeles office, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\r\n\r\nBoutrous may not get the “ink” they get, but he’s been an integral part of the legal strategy against Prop. 8.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "When Theodore Boutrous, Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy. “We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!” He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class action case.\r\n\r\nI asked Boutrous, who goes by “Ted”, how many times he’s argued in front of the Supreme Court. “Twice, “ he said. “And I’ve got 18 votes!” When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record, he emailed back “It’s tempting!”\r\n\r\n \r\nSince the start of the Prop. 8 debate in federal court four years ago, Boutrous has been overshadowed by his high profile colleague, attorney Theodore Olson. Both are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Boutrous in the Los Angeles office, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\r\n\r\nBoutrous may not get the “ink” they get, but he’s been an integral part of the legal strategy against Prop. 8.",
"title": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T14:00:38-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92269/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>When Theodore Boutrous Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class-action case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked Boutrous, who goes by \"Ted,\" how many times he has argued in front of the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92270\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 195px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements/michael-jacksons/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92270\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92270 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/50997687-195x300.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Theodore Boutros, Media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing on June 25, 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"195\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Theodore Boutros, media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing in 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images) Supreme Court.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\"Twice,\" he said. \"And I’ve got 18 votes!\"\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>When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record -- 18 votes mean all the justices ruled in his favor both times he appeared before them -- he emailed back, “It’s tempting!”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since the start of the Proposition 8 debate in federal court four years ago, \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\">Boutrous\u003c/a> has been overshadowed by a higher-profile Ted, colleague \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tolson\">Theodore Olson\u003c/a>. Both are partners at \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\" target=\"_blank\">Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\u003c/a> (Boutrous in Los Angeles, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Both are part of the high-powered No on 8 legal team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Preparing for the Big Day\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson will be the attorney arguing before the justices on behalf of the No on 8 team on Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare for oral arguments, the team has been doing simulations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We’ll have done four moot courts by Tuesday,\" Boutrous said, referring to the practice arguments. \"We’ve had a mix of experienced Supreme Court litigators from inside and outside the firm join us for the preparation.\"\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\"Ted [Olson] walks up to the podium,\" Boutrous said. \"The four or five lawyers playing the roles of justices stay in character during the hourlong session. They let him get off a few sentences, and then they just go at him.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"People like playing justices,\" Boutrous joked.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92284\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/behind-the-scenes-with-the-no-on-8-team/federal-appeals-court-holds-hearing-on-prop-8-6/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92284\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92284\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4279_107361311-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"No on 8 attorneys\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">No on 8 attorneys Ted Boutrous (R), Ted Olson (2nd R) David Boies (L) speak to reporters following a hearing at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The moot courts, he said, allow the No on 8 legal team to try out and edit their best arguments, to see where a particular argument will lead and to practice avoiding the creation of unnecessary issues that could bog down the argument or distract from the main points.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The No on 8 team will have 20 minutes to argue its case. The U.S. Solicitor General, also opposing Prop. 8, gets 10 minutes. The Yes on 8 team gets the other 30 minutes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reading the Justices\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Don’t get too happy or too depressed about the questions they ask during the arguments,\" Boutrous said. \"You just don’t know what the purpose of the question is. You have to stay even-keeled.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In fact, he noted, he was stunned to see he’d gotten Justice Elena Kagan’s vote in that recent 9-0 decision because her questions during oral arguments seemed so hostile to his side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Looking Sharp\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a lighter matter, I asked how they decide what to wear in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You always keep to dark colors,\" Boutrous said. \"I remember once I saw a lawyer came into court with a powder-blue jacket. I thought, 'This isn’t going to go well!'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>'Abstract Principles Versus Real People'\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Boutrous and the rest of team appear confident.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked what is the biggest hurdle his opponents face.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"They’ve never been able to prove that excluding gay people is necessary to anyone or anything,\" Boutrous said. \"They can’t point to any harm done by same-sex marriage. It’s their abstract principles versus real people and their children being harmed. They just want to be like everybody else.\"\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92269/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_3877",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92229": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92229",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92229",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364234439000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364234439,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism",
"title": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pugno discussed with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of the team's legal argument, as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate,\" Pugno said. \"I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Indeed, it appears that one of the pro-Prop. 8 team's core arguments is that the proposition passed into law through a valid democratic process and that any judge's attempt to invalidate it would be akin to judicial activism, Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is also the issue of states' rights:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It really would be unfortunate to have same-sex marriage imposed -- marriage redefined -- for all 50 states by the intervention of the federal courts,\" Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If the Supreme Court decides there is a hidden, invisible right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, that would spell the end for Proposition 8 in California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOi3MEz6MWs]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This interview and more coverage aired on KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" Friday, March 22, at 7:30 p.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch an interview \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage/\">here\u003c/a> with California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who, for one month, oversaw the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco in 2004.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92229 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92229",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 300,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 13
},
"modified": 1398733234,
"excerpt": "Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\r\n\r\nPugno discusses with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of their legal argument as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\r\n\r\nEven though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public is becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\r\n\r\n\"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate,\" Pugno said. \"I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law.\"\r\n\r\n[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOi3MEz6MWs]",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\r\n\r\nPugno discusses with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of their legal argument as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\r\n\r\nEven though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public is becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\r\n\r\n"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate," Pugno said. "I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law."\r\n\r\n",
"title": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T11:00:39-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92229/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pugno discussed with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of the team's legal argument, as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate,\" Pugno said. \"I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Indeed, it appears that one of the pro-Prop. 8 team's core arguments is that the proposition passed into law through a valid democratic process and that any judge's attempt to invalidate it would be akin to judicial activism, Pugno said.\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>There is also the issue of states' rights:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It really would be unfortunate to have same-sex marriage imposed -- marriage redefined -- for all 50 states by the intervention of the federal courts,\" Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If the Supreme Court decides there is a hidden, invisible right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, that would spell the end for Proposition 8 in California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/VOi3MEz6MWs'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/VOi3MEz6MWs'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This interview and more coverage aired on KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" Friday, March 22, at 7:30 p.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch an interview \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage/\">here\u003c/a> with California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who, for one month, oversaw the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco in 2004.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92229/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_4118",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92081": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92081",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92081",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364231427000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364231427,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Same-Sex Marriage: 5 Possible Outcomes From the Supreme Court Hearings",
"title": "Same-Sex Marriage: 5 Possible Outcomes From the Supreme Court Hearings",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>To us non-lawyers it looks pretty simple: Either gay people can legally marry each other or they can't.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court will hear arguments on the case Tuesday, with a decision expected in June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To start with, the court isn't just taking on Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. It's also tackling the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that denies the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The court will hear arguments on the act Wednesday. And the two decisions are intertwined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In this video, KQED's Scott Shafer discusses the legal possibilities of the Supreme Court hearing with law professors Vik Amar of the UC Davis and Jane Schacter of Stanford University.\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n\u003cobject width=\"560\" height=\"315\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/l3FfWDT97ug?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\">[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FfWDT97ug&hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0]\u003c/object>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here are the decisions the court could reach as outlined by Georgetown University law Professor Marty Lederman writing in Bloomberg's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=16021\">Blog\u003c/a>, with further analysis by UC Davis law Professor Vik Amar:\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>1) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.\u003c/strong> If the Supreme Court makes this ruling, bans on same-sex marriage can continue in the \u003ca href=\"http://gaymarriage.procon.org/\">37\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160210\">41\u003c/a> states (depending on how you count them) where they are now in force, including California. Individual states would still have the option to legalize same-sex marriage. Public opinion has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage \u003ca href=\"http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/\">around the country\u003c/a>, and particularly \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">in California\u003c/a>. So it's likely that advocates would soon mount initiatives to change the laws.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.\u003c/strong> This ruling would mean that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples. Every state in the union would have to grant marriage to same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>3)\u003cstrong> States cannot deny the label of marriage once the privileges of marriage are already granted. \u003c/strong>Some states, including California, already have granted the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through domestic partner or similar legislation. But these states still won't officially recognize same-sex couples as married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court could reason that these states already have accepted the legitimacy of same-sex unions, so denying these couples the status of marriage has no purpose except stigmatization. Such stigmatization is unconstitutional. Those states with bans on same-sex marriage and no benefits for same-sex couples could keep these laws in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Exactly how many states would be affected is not clear. Lederman counts California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. But Amar said California's law might have gone farther in granting privileges, so it could take further litigation to sort out exactly which states were affected.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I personally don't expect the court to go that route,\" Amar said. \"It punishes states that move toward equality. And it doesn't jibe with the court's other equality rulings.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>4) \u003cstrong>A state that grants same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage and also has previously granted them the right to the official status of marriage can't revoke that right. \u003c/strong>This was the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision\u003c/a> on the Prop. 8 case in 2012.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California granted same-sex couples the right to marry in May 2008 when the state Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, an initiative in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage. In November 2008, Prop. 8 passed, trumping the California Supreme Court decision by putting the ban in the state Constitution. So, same-sex marriage was legal in California for half a year. California is the only state where the privilege existed before being revoked, so the decision would affect only California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"That's an unlikely basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on because it would discourage states from experimenting with equality,\" Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>5) \u003cstrong>The people defending Prop. 8 before the court don't have the right to defend it.\u003c/strong> Normally the governor and attorney general of a state would defend a state law before the U.S. Supreme Court. But in this case, California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have declined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, sponsors of the initiative hired their own lawyers to defend it. They claim California law grants them such standing, but there are good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=15809\">arguments on both sides\u003c/a>, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court denies the Prop. 8 defenders' standing, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision would be voided, and the case would revert back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which struck down Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision would be a default ruling against the state because it declined to defend Prop. 8 -- sort of like a forfeit when one soccer team doesn't show up for a scheduled match. It might change only the status of the two couples who filed the\u003ca href=\"http://centerforhumanrights.org/perry%20v.%20brown.pdf\"> original lawsuit\u003c/a>, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Los Angeles. It is possible that only they would be allowed to marry, but no one else would, said Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Under that scenario, same-sex marriage advocates would have to file a new class-action lawsuit in which all same-sex couples are plaintiffs, he said. He estimates this would likely proceed through the court in a matter of months, extending the district court's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional to all same-sex couples in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs themselves have argued that other same-sex couples should gain the right to marriage even if the court ruled in this way, because the two couples would be harmed by being \"stigmatized\" if they are the only same-sex couples who can marry, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>A final wild card is the court's separate ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. \u003c/strong>\"If they reject the DOMA,\" said Amar, \"then — depending on the reasons they give — it's going to be hard to say that states can continue to deny rights to same-sex marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the past, the court has generally ruled that federal law trumps state law. For example, the federal government is continuing to enforce laws against marijuana use, even though some states now allow it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's still possible, though, that the high court will break with this precedent and strike down the DOMA but decide to defer to each state on its same-sex marriage laws. This would leave bans on same-sex marriage intact. This would mean that married same-sex couples could qualify for benefits under federal law. But it would not allow same-sex couples to get married in states that prohibit these marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the court could uphold the DOMA and rely on one of the lines of reasoning to strike down Prop. 8 in a way that affects only California, leaving a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws around the country. Ambiguity would linger.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92081 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92081",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1213,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1398475086,
"excerpt": "To us non lawyers it looks pretty simple: either gay people can legally marry each other or they can't.\r\n\r\nBut as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.\r\n\r\nThe high court will hear arguments on the case on Tuesday, with a decision expected in June.\r\n\r\nTo start with, the court isn't just taking on Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. It's also tackling the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that denies federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The court will hear arguments on the DOMA on Wednesday. And the two decisions are intertwined.\r\n\r\n\u003cobject width=\"560\" height=\"315\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\" />\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\" />\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/l3FfWDT97ug?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0\" />\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\" />[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FfWDT97ug&hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0]\u003c/object>\r\n\r\n",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.",
"title": "The Supreme Court has Many Options in Deciding California's Proposition 8",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Same-Sex Marriage: 5 Possible Outcomes From the Supreme Court Hearings",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T10:10:27-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:18:06-07:00",
"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": "what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92081/what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>To us non-lawyers it looks pretty simple: Either gay people can legally marry each other or they can't.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court will hear arguments on the case Tuesday, with a decision expected in June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To start with, the court isn't just taking on Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. It's also tackling the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that denies the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The court will hear arguments on the act Wednesday. And the two decisions are intertwined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In this video, KQED's Scott Shafer discusses the legal possibilities of the Supreme Court hearing with law professors Vik Amar of the UC Davis and Jane Schacter of Stanford University.\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n\u003cobject width=\"560\" height=\"315\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/l3FfWDT97ug?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\">\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/l3FfWDT97ug'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/l3FfWDT97ug'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/object>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here are the decisions the court could reach as outlined by Georgetown University law Professor Marty Lederman writing in Bloomberg's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=16021\">Blog\u003c/a>, with further analysis by UC Davis law Professor Vik Amar:\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>1) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.\u003c/strong> If the Supreme Court makes this ruling, bans on same-sex marriage can continue in the \u003ca href=\"http://gaymarriage.procon.org/\">37\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160210\">41\u003c/a> states (depending on how you count them) where they are now in force, including California. Individual states would still have the option to legalize same-sex marriage. Public opinion has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage \u003ca href=\"http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/\">around the country\u003c/a>, and particularly \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">in California\u003c/a>. So it's likely that advocates would soon mount initiatives to change the laws.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.\u003c/strong> This ruling would mean that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples. Every state in the union would have to grant marriage to same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>3)\u003cstrong> States cannot deny the label of marriage once the privileges of marriage are already granted. \u003c/strong>Some states, including California, already have granted the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through domestic partner or similar legislation. But these states still won't officially recognize same-sex couples as married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court could reason that these states already have accepted the legitimacy of same-sex unions, so denying these couples the status of marriage has no purpose except stigmatization. Such stigmatization is unconstitutional. Those states with bans on same-sex marriage and no benefits for same-sex couples could keep these laws in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Exactly how many states would be affected is not clear. Lederman counts California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. But Amar said California's law might have gone farther in granting privileges, so it could take further litigation to sort out exactly which states were affected.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I personally don't expect the court to go that route,\" Amar said. \"It punishes states that move toward equality. And it doesn't jibe with the court's other equality rulings.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>4) \u003cstrong>A state that grants same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage and also has previously granted them the right to the official status of marriage can't revoke that right. \u003c/strong>This was the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision\u003c/a> on the Prop. 8 case in 2012.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California granted same-sex couples the right to marry in May 2008 when the state Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, an initiative in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage. In November 2008, Prop. 8 passed, trumping the California Supreme Court decision by putting the ban in the state Constitution. So, same-sex marriage was legal in California for half a year. California is the only state where the privilege existed before being revoked, so the decision would affect only California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"That's an unlikely basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on because it would discourage states from experimenting with equality,\" Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>5) \u003cstrong>The people defending Prop. 8 before the court don't have the right to defend it.\u003c/strong> Normally the governor and attorney general of a state would defend a state law before the U.S. Supreme Court. But in this case, California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have declined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, sponsors of the initiative hired their own lawyers to defend it. They claim California law grants them such standing, but there are good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=15809\">arguments on both sides\u003c/a>, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court denies the Prop. 8 defenders' standing, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision would be voided, and the case would revert back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which struck down Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision would be a default ruling against the state because it declined to defend Prop. 8 -- sort of like a forfeit when one soccer team doesn't show up for a scheduled match. It might change only the status of the two couples who filed the\u003ca href=\"http://centerforhumanrights.org/perry%20v.%20brown.pdf\"> original lawsuit\u003c/a>, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Los Angeles. It is possible that only they would be allowed to marry, but no one else would, said Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Under that scenario, same-sex marriage advocates would have to file a new class-action lawsuit in which all same-sex couples are plaintiffs, he said. He estimates this would likely proceed through the court in a matter of months, extending the district court's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional to all same-sex couples in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs themselves have argued that other same-sex couples should gain the right to marriage even if the court ruled in this way, because the two couples would be harmed by being \"stigmatized\" if they are the only same-sex couples who can marry, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>A final wild card is the court's separate ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. \u003c/strong>\"If they reject the DOMA,\" said Amar, \"then — depending on the reasons they give — it's going to be hard to say that states can continue to deny rights to same-sex marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the past, the court has generally ruled that federal law trumps state law. For example, the federal government is continuing to enforce laws against marijuana use, even though some states now allow it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's still possible, though, that the high court will break with this precedent and strike down the DOMA but decide to defer to each state on its same-sex marriage laws. This would leave bans on same-sex marriage intact. This would mean that married same-sex couples could qualify for benefits under federal law. But it would not allow same-sex couples to get married in states that prohibit these marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the court could uphold the DOMA and rely on one of the lines of reasoning to strike down Prop. 8 in a way that affects only California, leaving a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws around the country. Ambiguity would linger.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92081/what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_2626",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_2725",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92244": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92244",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92244",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364214617000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364214617,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What's at Stake",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What's at Stake",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>On Valentine's Day last month, about a dozen gay and lesbian couples showed up at San Francisco City Hall. They wanted something they knew they couldn't have: A marriage license.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92248\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake/same-sex-couples-appear-at-city-hall-in-protest-to-request-marriage-licenses-on-valentines-day/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92248\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92248\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/161705242-300x211.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex couple Frank Capley (L) and Joe Alfano (R) look on before staging a sit-in protest after same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses from the San Francisco county clerk on Valentine's Day. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"211\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex couple Frank Capley (L) and Joe Alfano (R) look on before staging a sit-in protest at the San Francisco county clerk on Valentine's Day. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The protest, organized by Marriage Equality USA, happens every year. And every year the couples are turned away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thom Watson from Daly City came with his partner.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You're really never fully prepared for what it's going to feel like yet again to be turned down for something that you want so badly and that other people take for granted,\" Watson said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The right to get that legal document from a county clerk is what Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing is all about: whether California's Proposition 8 -- a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman -- violates equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Supporters: What's at Stake\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To the sponsors of Prop. 8, like Protect Marriage.com attorney Andrew Pugno, California voters had a good reason for limiting marriage to one man and one woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We'd be in a very different world if a small minority can choose a new lifestyle,” Pugno said, “and then insist on a constitutional right to have government uphold that choice as an ideal.”\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, Pugno's legal team argues the rationale for Prop. 8 is that marriage is the institution that links biological parents with their children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"And if the parents are not encouraged to bind themselves together for the benefit of the children,” he said, “then ultimately it's the children that suffer.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Opponents: What's at Stake\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But don't tell that to Kris Perry. She and her partner Sandy Stier sued in federal court to have Prop. 8 overturned. Perry is the namesake of the case before the Supreme Court Tuesday – Hollingsworth v. Perry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Perry says their children are the exact reason they want to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We've been together for more than 13 years,\" Perry said. \"We've raised four boys. There is nothing that would make that more real and permanent than the right to be married.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two federal courts have already ruled that preventing gay and lesbian couples from getting married serves no rational purpose and is based on prejudice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>What Could Happen\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The fate of Prop. 8 may hinge on how the justices view the motivations behind banning gay marriage, according to Stanford Law School professor Jane Schacter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"On this fundamental question – what is the government's reason for doing this – if it's no more than prejudice or animosity toward the disadvantaged group, then Prop. 8 is not going to stand,\" Schacter said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Prop. 8 is struck down, gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But those marriages still won't be recognized by the federal government for things like filing joint taxes, Social Security benefits or inheritance taxes, unless the Supreme Court also strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That issue will be heard Wednesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>'Frustrated, Complicated and Galling'\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And no one will be watching more carefully San Francisco resident Karen Golinski. She and her partner got married in California when it was legal -- but then she couldn't add her wife to her health plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I'm tired of my life being so much harder than everybody else's,\" Golinski said. \"I just want it to be the same. I'm not asking for special benefits or special privileges. I just want to be treated equally like all my neighbors.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Golinski is raising a 10-year-old son with her spouse Amy Cunninghis, who said the unequal treatment takes a financial and emotional toll on them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It is frustrating, complicated and galling to be legally married and then not have that marriage recognized by everyone,\" Cunninghis said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>How the Court Could Rule\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama Administration has weighed in on both cases, urging the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has many options when it comes to deciding Prop. 8, said UC Davis Law School Professor Vik Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It could rule very broadly in either direction,” Amar said. “It could strike down all bans on same-sex marriage. It could uphold all regulation or prohibition on same-sex marriage. Or it could rule like the 9th Circuit to do something in between.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That \"something in between\" would mean striking down Prop. 8 on narrow grounds that apply only in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Growing Support\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, support for gay marriage has gradually grown. Just this month a statewide poll found that 61 percent of California voters now support allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Fortune 500 companies and prominent Republicans have filed legal briefs opposing Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But will the court be influenced by shifting attitudes? Or will it just allow each state to decide for itself?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ryan Anderson, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., frames it this way: \"Will the Supreme Court allow citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy, or will the Supreme Court cut democratic deliberations short, create another Roe v. Wade and another 40-year culture war?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Stier, the wait has gone on long enough.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We have no idea when marriage will be legal in California,\" she said. \"But what we do know is when it is legal in California, we'll be the first in line.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Stier and Perry will be in the courtroom tomorrow morning with their twin sons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices will issue their rulings on both Prop. 8 and DOMA by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92244 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92244",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 989,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 41
},
"modified": 1398733235,
"excerpt": "On Valentine's Day last month, about a dozen gay and lesbian couples showed up at San Francisco City Hall. They wanted something they knew they couldn't have: A marriage license.\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92248\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/161705242-300x211.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex couple Frank Capley (L) and Joe Alfano (R) look on before staging a sit-in protest after same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses from the San Francisco county clerk on Valentine's Day. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"211\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nThe protest, organized by Marriage Equality USA, happens every year. And every year the couples are turned away.\r\n\r\nThom Watson from Daly City came with his partner.\r\n\r\n\"You're really never fully prepared for what it's going to feel like yet again to be turned down for something that you want so badly and that other people take for granted,\" Watson said.\r\n\r\nThe right to get that legal document from a county clerk is what Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing is all about: whether California's Proposition 8 -- a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman -- violates equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.\r\n",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "On Valentine's Day last month, about a dozen gay and lesbian couples showed up at San Francisco City Hall. They wanted something they knew they couldn't have: A marriage license.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe protest, organized by Marriage Equality USA, happens every year. And every year the couples are turned away.\r\n\r\nThom Watson from Daly City came with his partner.\r\n\r\n"You're really never fully prepared for what it's going to feel like yet again to be turned down for something that you want so badly and that other people take for granted," Watson said.\r\n\r\nThe right to get that legal document from a county clerk is what Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing is all about: whether California's Proposition 8 -- a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman -- violates equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.\r\n",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What's at Stake | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What's at Stake",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T05:30:17-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:35-07:00",
"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-whats-at-stake",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92244/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>On Valentine's Day last month, about a dozen gay and lesbian couples showed up at San Francisco City Hall. They wanted something they knew they couldn't have: A marriage license.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92248\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake/same-sex-couples-appear-at-city-hall-in-protest-to-request-marriage-licenses-on-valentines-day/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92248\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92248\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/161705242-300x211.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex couple Frank Capley (L) and Joe Alfano (R) look on before staging a sit-in protest after same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses from the San Francisco county clerk on Valentine's Day. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"211\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex couple Frank Capley (L) and Joe Alfano (R) look on before staging a sit-in protest at the San Francisco county clerk on Valentine's Day. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The protest, organized by Marriage Equality USA, happens every year. And every year the couples are turned away.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thom Watson from Daly City came with his partner.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You're really never fully prepared for what it's going to feel like yet again to be turned down for something that you want so badly and that other people take for granted,\" Watson said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The right to get that legal document from a county clerk is what Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing is all about: whether California's Proposition 8 -- a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman -- violates equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.\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>Supporters: What's at Stake\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To the sponsors of Prop. 8, like Protect Marriage.com attorney Andrew Pugno, California voters had a good reason for limiting marriage to one man and one woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We'd be in a very different world if a small minority can choose a new lifestyle,” Pugno said, “and then insist on a constitutional right to have government uphold that choice as an ideal.”\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, Pugno's legal team argues the rationale for Prop. 8 is that marriage is the institution that links biological parents with their children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"And if the parents are not encouraged to bind themselves together for the benefit of the children,” he said, “then ultimately it's the children that suffer.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Opponents: What's at Stake\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But don't tell that to Kris Perry. She and her partner Sandy Stier sued in federal court to have Prop. 8 overturned. Perry is the namesake of the case before the Supreme Court Tuesday – Hollingsworth v. Perry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Perry says their children are the exact reason they want to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We've been together for more than 13 years,\" Perry said. \"We've raised four boys. There is nothing that would make that more real and permanent than the right to be married.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two federal courts have already ruled that preventing gay and lesbian couples from getting married serves no rational purpose and is based on prejudice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>What Could Happen\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The fate of Prop. 8 may hinge on how the justices view the motivations behind banning gay marriage, according to Stanford Law School professor Jane Schacter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"On this fundamental question – what is the government's reason for doing this – if it's no more than prejudice or animosity toward the disadvantaged group, then Prop. 8 is not going to stand,\" Schacter said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Prop. 8 is struck down, gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But those marriages still won't be recognized by the federal government for things like filing joint taxes, Social Security benefits or inheritance taxes, unless the Supreme Court also strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That issue will be heard Wednesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>'Frustrated, Complicated and Galling'\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And no one will be watching more carefully San Francisco resident Karen Golinski. She and her partner got married in California when it was legal -- but then she couldn't add her wife to her health plan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I'm tired of my life being so much harder than everybody else's,\" Golinski said. \"I just want it to be the same. I'm not asking for special benefits or special privileges. I just want to be treated equally like all my neighbors.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Golinski is raising a 10-year-old son with her spouse Amy Cunninghis, who said the unequal treatment takes a financial and emotional toll on them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It is frustrating, complicated and galling to be legally married and then not have that marriage recognized by everyone,\" Cunninghis said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>How the Court Could Rule\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama Administration has weighed in on both cases, urging the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has many options when it comes to deciding Prop. 8, said UC Davis Law School Professor Vik Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It could rule very broadly in either direction,” Amar said. “It could strike down all bans on same-sex marriage. It could uphold all regulation or prohibition on same-sex marriage. Or it could rule like the 9th Circuit to do something in between.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That \"something in between\" would mean striking down Prop. 8 on narrow grounds that apply only in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Growing Support\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, support for gay marriage has gradually grown. Just this month a statewide poll found that 61 percent of California voters now support allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Fortune 500 companies and prominent Republicans have filed legal briefs opposing Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But will the court be influenced by shifting attitudes? Or will it just allow each state to decide for itself?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ryan Anderson, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., frames it this way: \"Will the Supreme Court allow citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy, or will the Supreme Court cut democratic deliberations short, create another Roe v. Wade and another 40-year culture war?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Stier, the wait has gone on long enough.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We have no idea when marriage will be legal in California,\" she said. \"But what we do know is when it is legal in California, we'll be the first in line.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Stier and Perry will be in the courtroom tomorrow morning with their twin sons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices will issue their rulings on both Prop. 8 and DOMA by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92244/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92118": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92118",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92118",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363975249000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363975249,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8: How We Got Here (Video)",
"title": "Prop. 8: How We Got Here (Video)",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>You might say the long journey of Proposition 8 began May 15, 2008, when a ruling came down from the California Supreme Court declaring that gay and lesbian couples had a legal right to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92119\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/proposition-8-how-we-got-here/gay-marriages-begin-in-bay-area/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92119\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92119 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2614_81594706-300x203.jpg\" alt=\" San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (R) marries same-sex couple Del Martin (R) and Phyllis Lyon (L) during a private ceremony at San Francisco City Hall June 16, 2008. (Marcio Jose Sanchez-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"203\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (R) marries same-sex couple Del Martin (R) and Phyllis Lyon (L) during a private ceremony at San Francisco City Hall June 16, 2008. (Marcio Jose Sanchez-Pool/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Mayor Gavin Newsom celebrated at City Hall with a crowd of thrilled San Franciscans, “This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it’s now.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It was a historic ruling, but not a done deal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling infuriated supporters of traditional marriage, including Randy Thomasson, with \u003ca href=\"http://protectmarriage.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Protect Marriage\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It will spur Californians to go to the polls to override the judges and protect marriage licenses for one man and one woman in the California constitution,” Thomasson said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two weeks later Protect Marriage had submitted more than a million signatures for a ballot measure, Proposition 8, to do just that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Race to the Polls\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For the months leading up to the November election, same-sex couples rushed to get marriage licenses. Tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples were legally married in California before Prop. 8 hit the polls in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the same time Proposition 8 proponents organized and \u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R810070850/b\" target=\"_blank\">fundraised\u003c/a>.\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92120\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/proposition-8-how-we-got-here/anti-gay-marriage-ballot-initiative-sparks-activism-on-both-sides/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92120\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92120 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS3698_83424955-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Supporters of Proposition 8 rally during a 'Yes on 8 bus tour' stop at St. Frances X Cabrini Church on October 24, 2008 in Los Angeles, California. ( David McNew/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supporters of Proposition 8 rally during a 'Yes on 8 bus tour' stop at St. Frances X Cabrini Church on October 24, 2008 in Los Angeles, California. ( David McNew/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Less than a month before Election Day, the Calvary Christian Center sponsored an event that got thousands of people on the lawn of the State Capitol in Sacramento.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is not about a civil rights issue,” said Reverend Philip Goudeaux to the crowd. “It’s a moral issue. It’s about right and wrong.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Proponents of Prop. 8 spent more than $80 million dollars and aired campaigns targeted at scaring parents on the consequences for their children if Prop. 8 failed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On election night, opponents of gay marriage claimed a narrow victory, 52 to 48 percent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Into the Federal Courts\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the fight didn't end there. Same-sex marriage supporters immediately asked the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop. 8. But, in 2009, the court upheld the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling was the end of the road in state court, but it marked the beginning of a new journey through federal court. A male couple from Los Angeles and two lesbians from Berkeley filed a lawsuit against the measure in federal district court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re not asking to be tolerated or accepted. What we’re asking for is a basic civil right,” said Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two high profile attorneys led the legal team for their case. Theodore Olson, a conservative stalwart, jointed the tean saying: “The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The battle continued in August of 2010, following a two-week trial in San Francisco, federal Judge Vaughn Walker issues a sweeping decision declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional. He wrote that preventing gay and lesbian marriages violated equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where opponents asked for Judge Walker’s decision to be overturned. That didn’t happen. A three-judge panel \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">voted 2-1 to uphold it\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Heading to the Supreme Court\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which brings us to Tuesday, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\" target=\"_blank\">recent poll\u003c/a> shows that California voters feel differently now than they did in 2008, by a wide margin, most say that they support same sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>People on both sides of this historic case will be paying close attention on Tuesday, for a chance to witness history. The justices will issue their decision later this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Video\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch the clip from KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" explaining how we got here.\u003cbr>\n[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scZUPDsj8Oc]\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92118 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92118",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/proposition-8-how-we-got-here/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 723,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1398733237,
"excerpt": "You might say the long journey of Proposition 8 began May 15, 2008, when a ruling came down from the California Supreme Court declaring that gay and lesbian couples had a legal right to get married.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?attachment_id=92119\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92119\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92119 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/RS2614_81594706-300x203.jpg\" alt=\" San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (R) marries same-sex couple Del Martin (R) and Phyllis Lyon (L) during a private ceremony at San Francisco City Hall June 16, 2008. (Marcio Jose Sanchez-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"203\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nMayor Gavin Newsom celebrated at City Hall with a crowd of thrilled San Franciscans, “This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it’s now.”\r\n\r\nIt was a historic ruling, but not a done deal.\r\n\r\nThe ruling infuriated supporters of traditional marriage, including Randy Thomasson, with \u003ca href=\"http://protectmarriage.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Protect Marriage\u003c/a>.\r\n\r\n“It will spur Californians to go to the polls to override the judges and protect marriage licenses for one man and one woman in the California constitution,” Thomasson said.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "You might say the long journey of Proposition 8 began May 15, 2008, when a ruling came down from the California Supreme Court declaring that gay and lesbian couples had a legal right to get married.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMayor Gavin Newsom celebrated at City Hall with a crowd of thrilled San Franciscans, “This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it’s now.”\r\n\r\nIt was a historic ruling, but not a done deal.\r\n\r\nThe ruling infuriated supporters of traditional marriage, including Randy Thomasson, with Protect Marriage.\r\n\r\n“It will spur Californians to go to the polls to override the judges and protect marriage licenses for one man and one woman in the California constitution,” Thomasson said.",
"title": "Prop. 8: How We Got Here (Video) | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8: How We Got Here (Video)",
"datePublished": "2013-03-22T11:00:49-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:37-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "proposition-8-how-we-got-here",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92118/proposition-8-how-we-got-here",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>You might say the long journey of Proposition 8 began May 15, 2008, when a ruling came down from the California Supreme Court declaring that gay and lesbian couples had a legal right to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92119\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/proposition-8-how-we-got-here/gay-marriages-begin-in-bay-area/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92119\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92119 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2614_81594706-300x203.jpg\" alt=\" San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (R) marries same-sex couple Del Martin (R) and Phyllis Lyon (L) during a private ceremony at San Francisco City Hall June 16, 2008. (Marcio Jose Sanchez-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"203\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (R) marries same-sex couple Del Martin (R) and Phyllis Lyon (L) during a private ceremony at San Francisco City Hall June 16, 2008. (Marcio Jose Sanchez-Pool/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Mayor Gavin Newsom celebrated at City Hall with a crowd of thrilled San Franciscans, “This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it’s now.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It was a historic ruling, but not a done deal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling infuriated supporters of traditional marriage, including Randy Thomasson, with \u003ca href=\"http://protectmarriage.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Protect Marriage\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It will spur Californians to go to the polls to override the judges and protect marriage licenses for one man and one woman in the California constitution,” Thomasson said.\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>Two weeks later Protect Marriage had submitted more than a million signatures for a ballot measure, Proposition 8, to do just that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Race to the Polls\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For the months leading up to the November election, same-sex couples rushed to get marriage licenses. Tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples were legally married in California before Prop. 8 hit the polls in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the same time Proposition 8 proponents organized and \u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R810070850/b\" target=\"_blank\">fundraised\u003c/a>.\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92120\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/proposition-8-how-we-got-here/anti-gay-marriage-ballot-initiative-sparks-activism-on-both-sides/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92120\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92120 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS3698_83424955-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Supporters of Proposition 8 rally during a 'Yes on 8 bus tour' stop at St. Frances X Cabrini Church on October 24, 2008 in Los Angeles, California. ( David McNew/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supporters of Proposition 8 rally during a 'Yes on 8 bus tour' stop at St. Frances X Cabrini Church on October 24, 2008 in Los Angeles, California. ( David McNew/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Less than a month before Election Day, the Calvary Christian Center sponsored an event that got thousands of people on the lawn of the State Capitol in Sacramento.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This is not about a civil rights issue,” said Reverend Philip Goudeaux to the crowd. “It’s a moral issue. It’s about right and wrong.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Proponents of Prop. 8 spent more than $80 million dollars and aired campaigns targeted at scaring parents on the consequences for their children if Prop. 8 failed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On election night, opponents of gay marriage claimed a narrow victory, 52 to 48 percent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Into the Federal Courts\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the fight didn't end there. Same-sex marriage supporters immediately asked the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop. 8. But, in 2009, the court upheld the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ruling was the end of the road in state court, but it marked the beginning of a new journey through federal court. A male couple from Los Angeles and two lesbians from Berkeley filed a lawsuit against the measure in federal district court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re not asking to be tolerated or accepted. What we’re asking for is a basic civil right,” said Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two high profile attorneys led the legal team for their case. Theodore Olson, a conservative stalwart, jointed the tean saying: “The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The battle continued in August of 2010, following a two-week trial in San Francisco, federal Judge Vaughn Walker issues a sweeping decision declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional. He wrote that preventing gay and lesbian marriages violated equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where opponents asked for Judge Walker’s decision to be overturned. That didn’t happen. A three-judge panel \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">voted 2-1 to uphold it\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Heading to the Supreme Court\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which brings us to Tuesday, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\" target=\"_blank\">recent poll\u003c/a> shows that California voters feel differently now than they did in 2008, by a wide margin, most say that they support same sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>People on both sides of this historic case will be paying close attention on Tuesday, for a chance to witness history. The justices will issue their decision later this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Video\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch the clip from KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" explaining how we got here.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/scZUPDsj8Oc'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/scZUPDsj8Oc'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92118/proposition-8-how-we-got-here",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_686",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92042": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92042",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92042",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363964416000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363964416,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Video: Newsom on Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "Video: Newsom on Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92222\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 150px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/DSC_7452_GNewsom_byMLam.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-thumbnail wp-image-92222\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/DSC_7452_GNewsom_byMLam-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"Shafer and Newsom\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">KQED's Scott Shafer interviews Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>As San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom made headlines worldwide when he ordered the city clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004, nearly 4,000 same-sex couples got married at City Hall despite a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, Newsom discusses why he gave the order and how reaction in the LGBT community was not all positive. He also revisits his notorious \"whether you like it or not\" line, which he concedes gave opponents of same-sex marriage measure a powerful weapon in their 2008 campaign for Proposition 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Not my best moment,\" Newsom said. \"I got caught up in that moment. And I was also talking about the rights movement, where, whether you like it or not -- over the objections of the majority -- this country has always fought for the rights of minorities.\"\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/BkCvtfI_K4M\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Bonus video\u003c/strong>: Newsom discusses Americans' changing attitudes on same-sex marriage, including those of his father and grandfather.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Individuals' and families' [attitudes] are shifting -- my father included,\" Newsom said, noting his father lives in Placer County, known for its conservative bent. \"He's an old Jesuit, an old Irish Catholic. He said, 'Can't you just call it something else?'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But because people are having conversations about same-sex marriage more than ever, because it's a common topic in pop culture and because more people are coming out, even more social conservatives are changing their minds, Newsom said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Newsom cites Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, as an example. Portman was a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage until he announced a change of heart mid-March upon learning his son is gay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"All of a sudden the conversation is spreading in a way where people realize it's okay,\" Newsom said. \"This is my brother, my sister, my aunt, my uncle, my kids, my grandkids.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/z310QjEWat0\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This interview and more coverage will air on KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" Friday, March 22 at 7:30 p.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch an interview \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author/\">here\u003c/a> with Andy Pugno, a Prop. 8 co-author and counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92042 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92042",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 370,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1364236362,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/DSC_7452_GNewsom_byMLam.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-thumbnail wp-image-92222\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/DSC_7452_GNewsom_byMLam-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"Shafer and Newsom\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nAs San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom made headlines worldwide when he ordered the city clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004, nearly 4,000 same-sex couples got married at City Hall despite a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.\r\n\r\nNow, Newsom discusses why he gave the order and how reaction in the LGBT community was not all positive. He also revisits his notorious \"whether you like it or not\" line, which he concedes gave opponents of same-sex marriage measure a powerful weapon in their 2008 campaign for Proposition 8.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "\r\n\r\nAs San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom made headlines worldwide when he ordered the city clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004, nearly 4,000 same-sex couples got married at City Hall despite a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.\r\n\r\nNow, Newsom discusses why he gave the order and how reaction in the LGBT community was not all positive. He also revisits his notorious "whether you like it or not" line, which he concedes gave opponents of same-sex marriage measure a powerful weapon in their 2008 campaign for Proposition 8.",
"title": "Video: Newsom on Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Video: Newsom on Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2013-03-22T08:00:16-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-25T11:32:42-07:00",
"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": "video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92042/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92222\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 150px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/DSC_7452_GNewsom_byMLam.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-thumbnail wp-image-92222\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/DSC_7452_GNewsom_byMLam-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"Shafer and Newsom\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">KQED's Scott Shafer interviews Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>As San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom made headlines worldwide when he ordered the city clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004, nearly 4,000 same-sex couples got married at City Hall despite a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, Newsom discusses why he gave the order and how reaction in the LGBT community was not all positive. He also revisits his notorious \"whether you like it or not\" line, which he concedes gave opponents of same-sex marriage measure a powerful weapon in their 2008 campaign for Proposition 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Not my best moment,\" Newsom said. \"I got caught up in that moment. And I was also talking about the rights movement, where, whether you like it or not -- over the objections of the majority -- this country has always fought for the rights of minorities.\"\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/BkCvtfI_K4M\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Bonus video\u003c/strong>: Newsom discusses Americans' changing attitudes on same-sex marriage, including those of his father and grandfather.\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>\"Individuals' and families' [attitudes] are shifting -- my father included,\" Newsom said, noting his father lives in Placer County, known for its conservative bent. \"He's an old Jesuit, an old Irish Catholic. He said, 'Can't you just call it something else?'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But because people are having conversations about same-sex marriage more than ever, because it's a common topic in pop culture and because more people are coming out, even more social conservatives are changing their minds, Newsom said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Newsom cites Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, as an example. Portman was a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage until he announced a change of heart mid-March upon learning his son is gay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"All of a sudden the conversation is spreading in a way where people realize it's okay,\" Newsom said. \"This is my brother, my sister, my aunt, my uncle, my kids, my grandkids.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/z310QjEWat0\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This interview and more coverage will air on KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" Friday, March 22 at 7:30 p.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch an interview \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author/\">here\u003c/a> with Andy Pugno, a Prop. 8 co-author and counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92042/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"tags": [
"news_16",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_38"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_91703": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_91703",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "91703",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363878014000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363878014,
"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>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 read, \"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\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 class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" 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>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>Gay-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/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, gay-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>[ad fullwidth]\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, garnering a win for same-sex couples.\u003c!--more-->\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> 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> the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, \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 could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco \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.\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 or not 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>As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">multiple possible outcomes\u003c/a> of the Prop. 8 case -- none of which will likely settle the issue for good. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>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 the Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the Ninth Circuit court's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That decision could also leave the issue open to more appeals.\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 woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. 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.\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. If the bill 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>\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 Proposition 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\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "91703 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=91703",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 956,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 26
},
"modified": 1398733239,
"excerpt": "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 read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized \" in the state. 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.\r\n\r\n\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 class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/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\" align=\"left\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nBut 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.\r\n\r\nGay-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.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted "yes" on Proposition 22, a measure that amended state law to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized " in the state. 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.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBut the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed Proposition 8. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\r\n\r\nGay-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.",
"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": "2013-03-21T08:00:14-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:39-07:00",
"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-what-you-need-to-know",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/91703/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\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 read, \"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\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 class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" 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>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>Gay-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/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, gay-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>\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>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, garnering a win for same-sex couples.\u003c!--more-->\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> 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> the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, \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 could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco \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.\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 or not 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>As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">multiple possible outcomes\u003c/a> of the Prop. 8 case -- none of which will likely settle the issue for good. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>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 the Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the Ninth Circuit court's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That decision could also leave the issue open to more appeals.\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 woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. 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.\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. If the bill 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>\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 Proposition 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\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/91703/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_4863",
"news_335",
"news_548",
"news_893",
"news_3672",
"news_2626",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172",
"news_1244"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_55537": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_55537",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "55537",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363838414000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363838414,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"title": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/94206/A-History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\" target=\"_blank\">timeline\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "55537 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=55537",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 69,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 4
},
"modified": 1540258676,
"excerpt": "When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\nAnd while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/94206/A-History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\" target=\"_blank\">timeline\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\r\n\r\n\u003ciframe frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border-width:0\" width=\"620\" height=\"480\" src=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/embed/94206/6323748030/\">\u003c/iframe>",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\nAnd while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this timeline.\r\n\r\n",
"title": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"datePublished": "2013-03-20T21:00:14-07:00",
"dateModified": "2018-10-22T18:37:56-07:00",
"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": "timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/55537/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/94206/A-History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\" target=\"_blank\">timeline\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/55537/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_90464": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_90464",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "90464",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1362089483000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1362089483,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Obama Argues Against California's Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ban",
"title": "Obama Argues Against California's Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ban",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Advocates for same-sex marriage got a powerful new friend on Thursday: President Barack Obama.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_88992\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 335px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/12/watch-live-state-of-the-union/obama640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-88992\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-88992 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/02/obama640.jpg\" alt=\"(Win McNamee/Getty Images)\" width=\"335\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In a legal brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argues against California's Proposition 8. (For full text, scroll to the bottom of this post)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The brief argues that the measure passed by voters in 2008 discriminates against gays and lesbians without justification.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law is not necessary to protect procreation, as its defenders assert, the brief says. \"Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The argument doesn't assert a federal right to gay marriage, but it would apply to states with similar situations as California where same-sex couples enjoy the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but can't be officially married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The friend-of-the-court document makes Obama the latest in a list of prominent folks who have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state's ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Among those who have taken a stand against Proposition 8 are prominent conservatives including Clint Eastwood, Meg Whitman and Paul Wolfowitz, big companies like Apple, Facebook and Intel, and 14 states including California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The new legal briefs have not yet appeared on the \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/domprp8.aspx\">Supreme Court website\u003c/a>, though some earlier briefs are there, but the \u003ca href=\"http://www.afer.org/blog/friend-of-the-court-briefs-filed-with-u-s-supreme-court/\">American Foundation for Equal Rights\u003c/a> has published some of the new ones on its own site.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier the court also received many petitions in support of Proposition 8, many of them from religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Some of those briefs, along with others in opposition, can be found on the \u003ca href=\"http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-144.html\">American Bar Association website\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How much weight Obama's opinion will carry in the court remains to be seen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/06/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\">A timeline of the same-sex marriage controversy in California\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Obama has said in the past that questions of same-sex marriage should be left up to states, so some observers, such as University of California Hastings Law Professor Rory Little, wonder if the public stance will undermine the president's credibility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Obama appears to be moving with the tide of public opinion. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll released Wednesday \u003c/a>found 61 percent of California voters in favor of same-sex marriage, versus 32 percent against.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The measure passed in 2008 with 52 percent of ballots cast in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Opponents took their case to court, and won decisions against the measure in lower courts. The Supreme Court plans to take up Proposition 8 in March, along with the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>News that the Obama Administration will throw its weight behind efforts to overturn California's Proposition 8 is getting strong reaction on both sides of the gay marriage debate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera told KQED's Scott Shafer he was \"delighted\" that the President was lending, in his words, \"the legal and moral weight of the federal government\" on behalf of same sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But attorney Andrew Pugno with the Yes on 8 legal team calls it a significant reversal on the President's part. \"Prior to the election he was very clear that he thought this was an issue that belonged to the states and that it was a healthy and good thing for this debate to work itself out at the state level,\" he said. \"And by stepping in and attacking an individual state's marriage laws that essentially has federalized the issue.\"\u003cem>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama Administration has already weighed in against the Defense of Marriage Act, which is also being heard by the Supreme Court next.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here is a copy of the brief from the Obama Administration:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 12px auto 6px auto;font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;font-size: 14px;line-height: normal\">\u003ca title=\"View Obama Amicus Brief on Prop 8 on Scribd\" href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/127868811/Obama-Amicus-Brief-on-Prop-8\">Obama Amicus Brief on Prop 8\u003c/a> by\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/127868811/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "90464 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=90464",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 645,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 22
},
"modified": 1398733243,
"excerpt": "Advocates for same-sex marriage got a powerful new friend on Thursday: President Barack Obama.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/12/watch-live-state-of-the-union/obama640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-88992\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-88992 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/02/obama640.jpg\" alt=\"(Win McNamee/Getty Images)\" width=\"335\" height=\"225\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nIn a legal brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argues against California's Proposition 8. (For full text, scroll to the bottom of this post)\r\n\r\nThe brief argues that the measure passed by voters in 2008 discriminates against gays and lesbians without justification.\r\n\r\nThe law is not necessary to protect procreation, as its defenders assert, the brief says. \"Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection.\"",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Advocates for same-sex marriage got a powerful new friend on Thursday: President Barack Obama.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIn a legal brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argues against California's Proposition 8. (For full text, scroll to the bottom of this post)\r\n\r\nThe brief argues that the measure passed by voters in 2008 discriminates against gays and lesbians without justification.\r\n\r\nThe law is not necessary to protect procreation, as its defenders assert, the brief says. "Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection."",
"title": "Obama Argues Against California's Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ban | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Obama Argues Against California's Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ban",
"datePublished": "2013-02-28T14:11:23-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:43-07:00",
"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": "obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/90464/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Advocates for same-sex marriage got a powerful new friend on Thursday: President Barack Obama.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_88992\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 335px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/12/watch-live-state-of-the-union/obama640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-88992\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-88992 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/02/obama640.jpg\" alt=\"(Win McNamee/Getty Images)\" width=\"335\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In a legal brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argues against California's Proposition 8. (For full text, scroll to the bottom of this post)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The brief argues that the measure passed by voters in 2008 discriminates against gays and lesbians without justification.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law is not necessary to protect procreation, as its defenders assert, the brief says. \"Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The argument doesn't assert a federal right to gay marriage, but it would apply to states with similar situations as California where same-sex couples enjoy the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but can't be officially married.\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 friend-of-the-court document makes Obama the latest in a list of prominent folks who have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state's ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Among those who have taken a stand against Proposition 8 are prominent conservatives including Clint Eastwood, Meg Whitman and Paul Wolfowitz, big companies like Apple, Facebook and Intel, and 14 states including California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The new legal briefs have not yet appeared on the \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/domprp8.aspx\">Supreme Court website\u003c/a>, though some earlier briefs are there, but the \u003ca href=\"http://www.afer.org/blog/friend-of-the-court-briefs-filed-with-u-s-supreme-court/\">American Foundation for Equal Rights\u003c/a> has published some of the new ones on its own site.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier the court also received many petitions in support of Proposition 8, many of them from religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Some of those briefs, along with others in opposition, can be found on the \u003ca href=\"http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-144.html\">American Bar Association website\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How much weight Obama's opinion will carry in the court remains to be seen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/06/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\">A timeline of the same-sex marriage controversy in California\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Obama has said in the past that questions of same-sex marriage should be left up to states, so some observers, such as University of California Hastings Law Professor Rory Little, wonder if the public stance will undermine the president's credibility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Obama appears to be moving with the tide of public opinion. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll released Wednesday \u003c/a>found 61 percent of California voters in favor of same-sex marriage, versus 32 percent against.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The measure passed in 2008 with 52 percent of ballots cast in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Opponents took their case to court, and won decisions against the measure in lower courts. The Supreme Court plans to take up Proposition 8 in March, along with the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>News that the Obama Administration will throw its weight behind efforts to overturn California's Proposition 8 is getting strong reaction on both sides of the gay marriage debate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera told KQED's Scott Shafer he was \"delighted\" that the President was lending, in his words, \"the legal and moral weight of the federal government\" on behalf of same sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But attorney Andrew Pugno with the Yes on 8 legal team calls it a significant reversal on the President's part. \"Prior to the election he was very clear that he thought this was an issue that belonged to the states and that it was a healthy and good thing for this debate to work itself out at the state level,\" he said. \"And by stepping in and attacking an individual state's marriage laws that essentially has federalized the issue.\"\u003cem>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama Administration has already weighed in against the Defense of Marriage Act, which is also being heard by the Supreme Court next.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here is a copy of the brief from the Obama Administration:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 12px auto 6px auto;font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;font-size: 14px;line-height: normal\">\u003ca title=\"View Obama Amicus Brief on Prop 8 on Scribd\" href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/127868811/Obama-Amicus-Brief-on-Prop-8\">Obama Amicus Brief on Prop 8\u003c/a> by\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/127868811/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/90464/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_335",
"news_82",
"news_1593",
"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": 48,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 134,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_92552",
"news_92453",
"news_92387",
"news_92269",
"news_92229",
"news_92081",
"news_92244",
"news_92118",
"news_92042",
"news_91703",
"news_55537",
"news_90464"
],
"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_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_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_201": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_201",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "201",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "SCOTUS",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "SCOTUS Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 209,
"slug": "scotus",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/scotus"
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_1089": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1089",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1089",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "social media",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "social media Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1100,
"slug": "social-media",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/social-media"
},
"news_4126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Storify",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Storify Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4145,
"slug": "storify",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/storify"
},
"news_3877": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3877",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3877",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marraige",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marraige Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3896,
"slug": "same-sex-marraige",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marraige"
},
"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_4118": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4118",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4118",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Andy Pugno",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Andy Pugno Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4137,
"slug": "andy-pugno",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/andy-pugno"
},
"news_2626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gay marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gay marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2642,
"slug": "gay-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gay-marriage"
},
"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_893": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_893",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "893",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Defense of Marriage Act",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Defense of Marriage Act Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 903,
"slug": "defense-of-marriage-act",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/defense-of-marriage-act"
},
"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_686": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_686",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "686",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Human Rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Human Rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 695,
"slug": "human-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/human-rights"
},
"news_16": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_16",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "16",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gavin Newsom",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gavin Newsom Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 16,
"slug": "gavin-newsom",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gavin-newsom"
},
"news_38": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_38",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "38",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 58,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco"
},
"news_4863": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4863",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4863",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals",
"slug": "9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 4882,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals"
},
"news_335": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_335",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "335",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Barack Obama",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Barack Obama Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 343,
"slug": "barack-obama",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/barack-obama"
},
"news_548": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_548",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "548",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 557,
"slug": "california-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-supreme-court"
},
"news_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_1244": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1244",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1244",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1256,
"slug": "vaughn-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-walker"
},
"news_1593": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1593",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1593",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "New York state same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "New York state same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1605,
"slug": "new-york-state-same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/new-york-state-same-sex-marriage"
}
},
"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
}
}
