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
}
}
},
"news_81322": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_81322",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81322",
"found": true
},
"parent": 81188,
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop0804-20120207.jpg",
"width": 3504,
"height": 2336
}
},
"publishDate": 1354126703,
"modified": 1354126703,
"caption": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Prop0804-20120207",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"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"
},
"ianhill": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11430",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11430",
"found": true
},
"name": "Ian Hill",
"firstName": "Ian",
"lastName": "Hill",
"slug": "ianhill",
"email": "ihill@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23990ff754640c3e53f489390266e5f2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "americangraduate",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Ian Hill | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23990ff754640c3e53f489390266e5f2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23990ff754640c3e53f489390266e5f2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ianhill"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_proposition-8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"score": 9.302406
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Proposition 8",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 6
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=proposition-8",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 6
}
},
{
"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_90384": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_90384",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "90384",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1362060093000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1362060093,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California Poll Finds Widespread Support For Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "California Poll Finds Widespread Support For Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_71902\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/07/Prop-8-plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-71902 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/07/Prop-8-plaintiffs.jpg\" alt=\"Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec. 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec. 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Four years after narrowly banning same-sex marriage in California through Proposition 8, state voters now approve of gay nuptials by 61 to 32 percent, a new Field Poll finds. That's a couple of points more in favor of same-sex marriage than in last year's poll, which found a 59 to 34 percent margin of support. In 2010, the numbers in favor were 52 to 48 percent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The survey, released today, finds more support than opposition to gay marriage in every demographic subgroup except registered Republicans and self-identified conservatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The poll comes on the last day for friend of the court or \"amicus\" briefs to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amicus briefs are filed by parties not directly involved in a case, in hopes of influencing the outcome. It's unclear how much sway they'll have on Supreme Court justices in a high- profile issue like same-sex marriage, especially those filed by the \"usual suspects.” But one last-minute brief opposing Proposition 8 has legal circles buzzing. \u003c!--more-->Stanford Law Professor Jane Schacter thinks the brief in support of same-sex marriage by prominent Republicans, including Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, could carry some weight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What this brief does,” Prof. Schacter says, “is it says that a lot of people out there who used to support [Prop 8] -- you know Meg Whitman supported Prop. 8 in her gubernatorial campaign ... -- have rethought it and now see it as an issue of fundamental fairness.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Schacter says it reminds her of an influential brief filed a decade ago by retired military leaders in support of affirmative action. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Sometimes a brief like that from an unexpected source can reposition the way the justices look at an issue,” she says. Opponents of Prop. 8 released a list of signers that includes Whitman and former Palm Springs Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, who lost her bid for re-election in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another highly anticipated brief that could make an impact by blurring ideological lines will be signed by corporate titans, including Facebook, Apple and Cisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay rights groups are also urging the Obama administration to file its own legal brief opposing Prop. 8. But the case does not involve a federal law, so conservative legal scholar John Eastman of Chapman Law School and the National Organization for Marriage thinks the Administration should stay out of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The president has claimed that this is an issue that ought to be left to up to the states,” Prof. Eastman said. “And if he is intent on honoring that pledge then he should allow the people of California to have a different course than say the people of Massachusetts.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He then added he never really believed the president when he said that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little understands the symbolism of the president supporting gay marriage in this case before the high court. But he thinks it might look too political, undermining the administration's credibility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They have never been involved in [the] Proposition 8 case up to this point,” Little notes. \"So there would be some oddity for them to come in at this point and file.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court will hear the case next month.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "90384 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=90384",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 574,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 16
},
"modified": 1363912171,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/07/Prop-8-plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-71902 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/07/Prop-8-plaintiffs.jpg\" alt=\"Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec. 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\">\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nFour years after narrowly banning same-sex marriage in California through Proposition 8, state voters now approve of gay nuptials by 61 to 32 percent, a new Field Poll finds. That's a couple of points more in favor of same-sex marriage than in last year's poll, which found a 59 to 34 percent margin of support. In 2010, the numbers in favor were 52 to 48 percent.\r\n\r\nThe survey, released today, finds more support than opposition to gay marriage in every demographic subgroup except registered Republicans and self-identified conservatives.\r\n\r\nThe poll comes on the last day for friend of the court or \"amicus\" briefs to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Prop. 8.\r\n",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": " \r\n\r\nFour years after narrowly banning same-sex marriage in California through Proposition 8, state voters now approve of gay nuptials by 61 to 32 percent, a new Field Poll finds. That's a couple of points more in favor of same-sex marriage than in last year's poll, which found a 59 to 34 percent margin of support. In 2010, the numbers in favor were 52 to 48 percent.\r\n\r\nThe survey, released today, finds more support than opposition to gay marriage in every demographic subgroup except registered Republicans and self-identified conservatives.\r\n\r\nThe poll comes on the last day for friend of the court or "amicus" briefs to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Prop. 8.\r\n",
"title": "California Poll Finds Widespread Support For Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Poll Finds Widespread Support For Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2013-02-28T06:01:33-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-21T17:29:31-07:00",
"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": "california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/90384/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_71902\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/07/Prop-8-plaintiffs.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-71902 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/07/Prop-8-plaintiffs.jpg\" alt=\"Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec. 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec. 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Four years after narrowly banning same-sex marriage in California through Proposition 8, state voters now approve of gay nuptials by 61 to 32 percent, a new Field Poll finds. That's a couple of points more in favor of same-sex marriage than in last year's poll, which found a 59 to 34 percent margin of support. In 2010, the numbers in favor were 52 to 48 percent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The survey, released today, finds more support than opposition to gay marriage in every demographic subgroup except registered Republicans and self-identified conservatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The poll comes on the last day for friend of the court or \"amicus\" briefs to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amicus briefs are filed by parties not directly involved in a case, in hopes of influencing the outcome. It's unclear how much sway they'll have on Supreme Court justices in a high- profile issue like same-sex marriage, especially those filed by the \"usual suspects.” But one last-minute brief opposing Proposition 8 has legal circles buzzing. \u003c!--more-->Stanford Law Professor Jane Schacter thinks the brief in support of same-sex marriage by prominent Republicans, including Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, could carry some weight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What this brief does,” Prof. Schacter says, “is it says that a lot of people out there who used to support [Prop 8] -- you know Meg Whitman supported Prop. 8 in her gubernatorial campaign ... -- have rethought it and now see it as an issue of fundamental fairness.”\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>Schacter says it reminds her of an influential brief filed a decade ago by retired military leaders in support of affirmative action. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Sometimes a brief like that from an unexpected source can reposition the way the justices look at an issue,” she says. Opponents of Prop. 8 released a list of signers that includes Whitman and former Palm Springs Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, who lost her bid for re-election in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another highly anticipated brief that could make an impact by blurring ideological lines will be signed by corporate titans, including Facebook, Apple and Cisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay rights groups are also urging the Obama administration to file its own legal brief opposing Prop. 8. But the case does not involve a federal law, so conservative legal scholar John Eastman of Chapman Law School and the National Organization for Marriage thinks the Administration should stay out of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The president has claimed that this is an issue that ought to be left to up to the states,” Prof. Eastman said. “And if he is intent on honoring that pledge then he should allow the people of California to have a different course than say the people of Massachusetts.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He then added he never really believed the president when he said that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little understands the symbolism of the president supporting gay marriage in this case before the high court. But he thinks it might look too political, undermining the administration's credibility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They have never been involved in [the] Proposition 8 case up to this point,” Little notes. \"So there would be some oddity for them to come in at this point and file.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court will hear the case next month.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/90384/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_89300": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_89300",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "89300",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1360889519000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1360889519,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Photos: Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Disrupt SF City Hall",
"headTitle": "Photos: Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Disrupt SF City Hall | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>Several gay and lesbian couples disrupted business at San Francisco’s city hall Friday morning. The couples entered the city clerk’s office asking for something they knew they couldn’t get … a marriage license.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We love each other and we want the rights that everyone else gets. I don’t want if I die that she can’t get my Social Security or come take my house because we’re not legally married,” said Linda Gates who attended the protest with her partner Betty.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During the demonstration, heterosexual couples, including Mario Caballeros and his fiancé Jessica from Richmond, were told to come back later.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“That just sucks. They can pick another time and another reason or do it the right way,” said Caballeros. “Just taking up peoples’ time. We have to wait just for them to get their little word out? That’s not cool, you know?” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Protesters sang and chanted until sheriff’s deputies ordered them to disperse. Thirteen protesters who refused to leave were detained for just a few minutes, then released without being charged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Photos by Gina Scialabba\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 201,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 8
},
"modified": 1685488369,
"excerpt": "Several gay and lesbian couples disrupted business at San Francisco's city hall Friday morning. The couples entered the city clerk's office asking for something they knew they couldn't get ... a marriage license.\r\n\r\n\"We love each other and we want the rights that everyone else gets. I don't want if I die that she can't get my Social Security or come take my house because we're not legally married,\" said Linda Gates who attended the protest with her partner Betty.\r\n\r\nDuring the demonstration, heterosexual couples, including Mario Caballeros and his fiancé Jessica from Richmond, were told to come back later.\r\n\r\n\"That just sucks. They can pick another time and another reason or do it the right way,\" said Caballeros. \"Just taking up peoples' time. We have to wait just for them to get their little word out? That's not cool, you know?\" \r\n\r\nProtesters sang and chanted until sheriff's deputies ordered them to disperse. Thirteen protesters who refused to leave were detained for just a few minutes, then released without being charged.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Several gay and lesbian couples disrupted business at San Francisco's city hall Friday morning. The couples entered the city clerk's office asking for something they knew they couldn't get ... a marriage license.\r\n\r\n"We love each other and we want the rights that everyone else gets. I don't want if I die that she can't get my Social Security or come take my house because we're not legally married," said Linda Gates who attended the protest with her partner Betty.\r\n\r\nDuring the demonstration, heterosexual couples, including Mario Caballeros and his fiancé Jessica from Richmond, were told to come back later.\r\n\r\n"That just sucks. They can pick another time and another reason or do it the right way," said Caballeros. "Just taking up peoples' time. We have to wait just for them to get their little word out? That's not cool, you know?" \r\n\r\nProtesters sang and chanted until sheriff's deputies ordered them to disperse. Thirteen protesters who refused to leave were detained for just a few minutes, then released without being charged.",
"title": "Photos: Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Disrupt SF City Hall | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Photos: Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Disrupt SF City Hall",
"datePublished": "2013-02-14T16:51:59-08:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T16:12:49-07:00",
"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": "photos-same-sex-marriage-advocates-disrupt-sf-city-hall",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/89300/photos-same-sex-marriage-advocates-disrupt-sf-city-hall",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Several gay and lesbian couples disrupted business at San Francisco’s city hall Friday morning. The couples entered the city clerk’s office asking for something they knew they couldn’t get … a marriage license.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We love each other and we want the rights that everyone else gets. I don’t want if I die that she can’t get my Social Security or come take my house because we’re not legally married,” said Linda Gates who attended the protest with her partner Betty.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During the demonstration, heterosexual couples, including Mario Caballeros and his fiancé Jessica from Richmond, were told to come back later.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“That just sucks. They can pick another time and another reason or do it the right way,” said Caballeros. “Just taking up peoples’ time. We have to wait just for them to get their little word out? That’s not cool, you know?” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Protesters sang and chanted until sheriff’s deputies ordered them to disperse. Thirteen protesters who refused to leave were detained for just a few minutes, then released without being charged.\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>Photos by Gina Scialabba\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/89300/photos-same-sex-marriage-advocates-disrupt-sf-city-hall",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_4691",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_38"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_84757": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_84757",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "84757",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1357580414000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1357580414,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court Sets Dates for Prop. 8, DOMA Hearings",
"title": "Supreme Court Sets Dates for Prop. 8, DOMA Hearings",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme court has \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentViewer.aspx?Filename=MonthyArgumentCalMar2013.html\">set dates\u003c/a> for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Proposition 8 hearing, \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00144qp.pdf\">Hollingsworth v. Perry\u003c/a>, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 -- its sponsors -- have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00307qp.pdf\">United States v. Windsor,\u003c/a> the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It is also asking them to debate the question of whether the U.S. House of Representatives has standing to defend DOMA since President Barack Obama is declining to defend it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">some background\u003c/a> on the two cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The office of San Francisco's City Attorney Dennis Herrera, which is a co-plaintiff in the suit against Proposition 8, offered a \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=23\">timeline of the case\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "84757 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=84757",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/01/07/supreme-court-sets-dates-for-same-sex-marriage-hearings/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 284,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1363912260,
"excerpt": "The U.S. Supreme court has \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentViewer.aspx?Filename=MonthyArgumentCalMar2013.html\">set dates\u003c/a> for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.\r\n\r\nIt will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.\r\n\r\nIn the Proposition 8 hearing, \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00144qp.pdf\">Hollingsworth v. Perry\u003c/a>, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.\r\n\r\nIt's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 -- its sponsors -- have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.\r\n\r\nDOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00307qp.pdf\">United States v. Windsor,\u003c/a> the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The U.S. Supreme court has set dates for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.\r\n\r\nIt will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.\r\n\r\nIn the Proposition 8 hearing, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.\r\n\r\nIt's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 -- its sponsors -- have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.\r\n\r\nDOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In United States v. Windsor, the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.",
"title": "Supreme Court Sets Dates for Prop. 8, DOMA Hearings | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Sets Dates for Prop. 8, DOMA Hearings",
"datePublished": "2013-01-07T09:40:14-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-21T17:31:00-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-sets-dates-for-same-sex-marriage-hearings",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/84757/supreme-court-sets-dates-for-same-sex-marriage-hearings",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme court has \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentViewer.aspx?Filename=MonthyArgumentCalMar2013.html\">set dates\u003c/a> for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Proposition 8 hearing, \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00144qp.pdf\">Hollingsworth v. Perry\u003c/a>, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 -- its sponsors -- have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00307qp.pdf\">United States v. Windsor,\u003c/a> the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.\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>It is also asking them to debate the question of whether the U.S. House of Representatives has standing to defend DOMA since President Barack Obama is declining to defend it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">some background\u003c/a> on the two cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The office of San Francisco's City Attorney Dennis Herrera, which is a co-plaintiff in the suit against Proposition 8, offered a \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=23\">timeline of the case\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/84757/supreme-court-sets-dates-for-same-sex-marriage-hearings",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_3672",
"news_2626",
"news_851",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_82450": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_82450",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82450",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354930494000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354930494,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Will SCOTUS Go Narrow or Broad on Same-Sex Marriage Rulings?",
"title": "Analysis: Will SCOTUS Go Narrow or Broad on Same-Sex Marriage Rulings?",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court took the first step toward negotiating its way through complicated questions of same-sex marriage on Friday by agreeing to review cases concerning both Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer asked U.C. Davis constitutional law expert Vikram Amar to explain the ramifications of the court’s selections. Edited transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: Before the court decided to hear this case, there were a lot of questions about how broad a question the Supreme Court would take up, whether this could be a ruling applying nationwide or just to California. Which way did they decide to go?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: We don’t know. Remember, the Ninth Circuit Court invalidated Prop. 8. on grounds that were very specific to Prop. 8 and wouldn’t necessarily invalidate same-sex marriage bans in other states. That was an attempt by the Ninth Circuit to narrow the case so as to keep it away from the Supreme Court. That didn’t work. The Supreme Court is going to take the case. But whether they decide it on the same narrow grounds that the Ninth Circuit Court did, or they use it to more broadly accept or reject gay marriage is open to question, and we won’t know until the Supreme Court decides next spring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: The legal team for Prop. 8 held a phone conference call shortly after the Supreme Court announced its decision, and Ted Olson was asked how they were going to approach the briefs in this case. He said they would argue on the broad merits of the case, the same way they did before the Ninth Circuit. He said, “The fundamental right to marry… is fundamental to all citizens… It is one of the most fundamental rights, if not \u003cem>the\u003c/em> most fundamental right that we have in this country.” \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: The Supreme Court could rule narrowly if they agreed with the Ninth Circuit that there are fundamental problems with Prop. 8, for example the fact that Prop. 8 repeals same-sex marriage, rather than never recognizes it in the first place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But my guess is that the justices aren’t going to be that moved by the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. And if they rule on the merits, they’d probably go a little bit more broadly than the Ninth Circuit did in one direction or the other. But remember, the Supreme Court today asked the parties to brief it about another question, which has been looming throughout, and that is whether the sponsors to Prop. 8 are proper parties to defend the measure in federal court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: I believe they also asked that question in the DOMA case they took up.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: They did, because the Obama Administration has declined to defend DOMA, and in fact agrees with the lower courts that it’s unconstitutional, which led the House of Representatives to hire its own outside lawyers headed by Paul Clement. The court today wondered aloud, and asked the parties to brief it on whether Paul Clement and his group is a proper party to defend DOMA. If the justices were to say there is no one to defend Congress’s work product when the president doesn’t, that really opens up the door to broad presidential powers to essentially ignore and thus undermine what Congress does.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: How does the cultural landscape affect the justices on these big questions?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: Well, I think it’s not just the important fact that a few weeks ago same-sex marriage proponents won at the ballot box for the first time in state initiatives. I think it’s more the sense that those victories are going to become more common in the future. It’s not just the electoral votes, it’s the polling data and the attitudinal data that we have behind those results that suggests there’s going to be major change going forward. Now that might incline some justices to want to get out ahead of the issue and to invalidate bans on same-sex marriage if ultimately that’s the way the populace is going. Other justices might say, “Look, if that’s the way the states are going there’s no reason for the courts to stick their noses in, just let it happen more slowly.”\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "82450 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=82450",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/analysis-will-scotus-go-narrow-or-broad-on-same-sex-marriage-rulings/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 777,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 13
},
"modified": 1398733251,
"excerpt": "The U.S. Supreme court has \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentViewer.aspx?Filename=MonthyArgumentCalMar2013.html\">set dates\u003c/a> for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.\r\n\r\nIt will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.\r\n\r\nIn the Proposition 8 hearing, \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00144qp.pdf\">Hollingsworth v. Perry\u003c/a>, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.\r\n\r\nIt's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 -- its sponsors -- have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.\r\n\r\nDOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00307qp.pdf\">United States v. Windsor,\u003c/a> the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The U.S. Supreme court has set dates for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.\r\n\r\nIt will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.\r\n\r\nIn the Proposition 8 hearing, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.\r\n\r\nIt's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 -- its sponsors -- have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.\r\n\r\nDOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In United States v. Windsor, the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.",
"title": "Analysis: Will SCOTUS Go Narrow or Broad on Same-Sex Marriage Rulings? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Will SCOTUS Go Narrow or Broad on Same-Sex Marriage Rulings?",
"datePublished": "2012-12-07T17:34:54-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:51-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "analysis-will-scotus-go-narrow-or-broad-on-same-sex-marriage-rulings",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/82450/analysis-will-scotus-go-narrow-or-broad-on-same-sex-marriage-rulings",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court took the first step toward negotiating its way through complicated questions of same-sex marriage on Friday by agreeing to review cases concerning both Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer asked U.C. Davis constitutional law expert Vikram Amar to explain the ramifications of the court’s selections. Edited transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: Before the court decided to hear this case, there were a lot of questions about how broad a question the Supreme Court would take up, whether this could be a ruling applying nationwide or just to California. Which way did they decide to go?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: We don’t know. Remember, the Ninth Circuit Court invalidated Prop. 8. on grounds that were very specific to Prop. 8 and wouldn’t necessarily invalidate same-sex marriage bans in other states. That was an attempt by the Ninth Circuit to narrow the case so as to keep it away from the Supreme Court. That didn’t work. The Supreme Court is going to take the case. But whether they decide it on the same narrow grounds that the Ninth Circuit Court did, or they use it to more broadly accept or reject gay marriage is open to question, and we won’t know until the Supreme Court decides next spring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: The legal team for Prop. 8 held a phone conference call shortly after the Supreme Court announced its decision, and Ted Olson was asked how they were going to approach the briefs in this case. He said they would argue on the broad merits of the case, the same way they did before the Ninth Circuit. He said, “The fundamental right to marry… is fundamental to all citizens… It is one of the most fundamental rights, if not \u003cem>the\u003c/em> most fundamental right that we have in this country.” \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>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: The Supreme Court could rule narrowly if they agreed with the Ninth Circuit that there are fundamental problems with Prop. 8, for example the fact that Prop. 8 repeals same-sex marriage, rather than never recognizes it in the first place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But my guess is that the justices aren’t going to be that moved by the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. And if they rule on the merits, they’d probably go a little bit more broadly than the Ninth Circuit did in one direction or the other. But remember, the Supreme Court today asked the parties to brief it about another question, which has been looming throughout, and that is whether the sponsors to Prop. 8 are proper parties to defend the measure in federal court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: I believe they also asked that question in the DOMA case they took up.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: They did, because the Obama Administration has declined to defend DOMA, and in fact agrees with the lower courts that it’s unconstitutional, which led the House of Representatives to hire its own outside lawyers headed by Paul Clement. The court today wondered aloud, and asked the parties to brief it on whether Paul Clement and his group is a proper party to defend DOMA. If the justices were to say there is no one to defend Congress’s work product when the president doesn’t, that really opens up the door to broad presidential powers to essentially ignore and thus undermine what Congress does.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTT SHAFER\u003c/strong>: How does the cultural landscape affect the justices on these big questions?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: Well, I think it’s not just the important fact that a few weeks ago same-sex marriage proponents won at the ballot box for the first time in state initiatives. I think it’s more the sense that those victories are going to become more common in the future. It’s not just the electoral votes, it’s the polling data and the attitudinal data that we have behind those results that suggests there’s going to be major change going forward. Now that might incline some justices to want to get out ahead of the issue and to invalidate bans on same-sex marriage if ultimately that’s the way the populace is going. Other justices might say, “Look, if that’s the way the states are going there’s no reason for the courts to stick their noses in, just let it happen more slowly.”\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/82450/analysis-will-scotus-go-narrow-or-broad-on-same-sex-marriage-rulings",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81802": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81802",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81802",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354923950000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354923950,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court to Review Prop. 8, Defense of Marriage Act",
"title": "Supreme Court to Review Prop. 8, Defense of Marriage Act",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>From AP:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/#AP\">Full AP story here\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81808\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203-300x186.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"300\" height=\"186\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 1:25 p.m.\u003c/strong> Interesting entry from \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/live-blog-anticipating-orders-hopefully-regarding-same-sex-marriage-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog live analysis\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>There is a good deal of complexity in the marriage orders, but the bottom line is this: the Court has offered to rule on Prop. 8 and on DOMA Section 3, but it also has given itself a way not to decide either case. That probably depends upon how eager the Justices are to get to the merits; if they are having trouble getting to 5 on the merits, they may just opt out through one of the procedural devices they have offered up as potentials.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>In a conversation with Scott Shafer today, UC Davis law professor Vik Amar addressed this issue: \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>AMAR\u003c/strong>: Remember, the Supreme Court today asked the parties to brief another question, which has been looming throughout, and that is whether the sponsors to Prop. 8 are proper parties to defend the measure in federal court. The Supreme Court signaled that his case may go away on standing grounds. And the court may never reach the merits at all, if it’s not convinced that the sponsors are appropriate defendants to the court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SHAFER\u003c/strong>: I believe they also asked that question in the DOMA case they took up, that question of standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>AMAR\u003c/strong>: They did, because the Obama Administration has declined to defend the DOMA, the federal statute, and in fact agrees with the lower courts that it’s unconstitutional, which led the House of Representatives to hire its own outside lawyers headed by Paul Clement. And the court today wondered aloud, and asked the parties to brief whether Paul Clement and his group is a proper party to defend DOMA. Now that’s even more arresting than them asking whether the Prop. 8 sponsors have standing, because there are a lot of cases in which Congress has been allowed to defend federal statutes where the president has not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(I)f the justices were to say there is no one to defend Congress’s work product when the president doesn’t, that really opens up the door to broad presidential powers to essentially ignore and thus undermine what Congress does.\n\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 1:40 p.m.\u003c/strong> Another interesting wrinkle...from the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/am-alert-is-proposition-8-referendum-in-the-cards-for-california.html\" target=\"_blank\">Sacramento Bee\u003c/a>, Nov 15:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>During a chat with The Bee's editorial board Wednesday, Steinberg said he could envision the Democrat-controlled Legislature using its new-found two-thirds majority power to put a gay-marriage referendum on a future statewide ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Depending upon what the Supreme Court might or might not do with Proposition 8, in coalition with stakeholders and the gay and lesbian leadership, if it were appropriate and necessary to put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot with our two-thirds supermajority, I would be open to that,\" the Sacramento Democrat said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>\u003c/div>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>In Nov 2008, Californians passed Prop 8 by 52 percent to 48 percent. But a May 2012 \u003ca href=\"http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012\" target=\"_blank\">PPIC poll\u003c/a> found that Californians supported same-sex marriage by 54-40 percent. More on the changing views of Californians on this issue from that poll:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>In October 2008, a majority of older Californians opposed same-sex marriage (34% in favor, 58% opposed); they are now closely divided (45% favor, 47% oppose). Support has grown 15 points among younger Californians, age 18–34 (from 53% to 68%). Majorities of both women (53%, up slightly from 47% in 2008) and men (55%, up 13 points) now support same-sex marriage. In their 2008 campaign, Proposition 8 proponents appealed to parents by claiming that if same-sex marriage remained legal, it would be taught in schools. A majority of parents expressed opposition at the time (42% in favor, 54% opposed), but the opinion gap has since narrowed (46% in favor, 47% opposed). Support for same-sex marriage has increased somewhat among whites (from 50% in 2008 to 59% in 2012) and Latinos (from 36% to 43%).\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>You'll recall that in the November election, Maine voters approved same-sex marriage just a few years after banning it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Meaning that even if the Supreme Court reverses the 9th Circuit's decision, we \u003cem>still\u003c/em> may have not heard the last on this issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 2:45 p.m.\u003c/strong> California Attorney General Kamala Harris says she will lead attorneys general nationwide in drafting a brief in support of same-sex marriage for the Prop 8 SCOTUS case. You can \u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/calif-attorney-general-kamala\">listen to her speaking at San Francisco City Hall today here\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F70396796&show_artwork=true\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 4:00 p.m.\u003c/strong> Here is the \u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/raw-audio-attorneys-who\" target=\"_blank\">audio of today's press conference\u003c/a> by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the legal challenge to Proposition 8. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We got involved in this case two-and-a-half years ago because we wanted to get married and we were being discriminated against, along with thousands of other gays and lesbians,\" said plainfiff Jeff Zarillo. \"This is why we have a court system, this is why we have a judicial system. They have a job to step in when the rights of the minority are being oppressed by the majority.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Said attorney Ted Boutros: \"We really believe we have the best possible record for the Supreme Court to look at. It's never going to happen again where the lead expert witness in one of these cases switches sides and agrees with the position on marriage equality. It really couldn't be a better situation.\" Boutros was referring to the Institute for American Values' David Blankenhorn, who renounced his testimony in favor of Proposition 8 in a \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html\" target=\"_blank\">New York Times op-ed piece\u003c/a> in June. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F70394781&show_artwork=true\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 4:45 p.m.\u003c/strong> KQED's Kat Snow today talked to Byron Babione, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, part of the legal team defending Proposition 8. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Responding to the court's orders today, Babione said, \"We believe the Supreme Court will recognize that marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of western civilization. And that it serves substantial and compelling government purposes and is therefore constitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Marriage has always been society's mechanism for regulating opposite-sex sex, because it results in procreation, accidental procreation, spontaneous conception. And so society needs a mechanism to address that. And of course opposite-sex couples implicate the state's interest in responsible procreation. And while it is no slight to same-sex couples, same-sex couples do not implicate the interest that society has in marriage, which is to make sure that mothers and fathers who have children raise those children together.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"AP\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Full AP report\u003c/em>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/live-blog-anticipating-orders-hopefully-regarding-same-sex-marriage-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law/\">\u003cstrong>SCOTUSblog coverage\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120712zr_3f14.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Friday's SCOTUS order list\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=12526975¬oc=1\">\u003cstrong>National Organization for Marriage statement\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/#time\">\u003cstrong>Timeline: Same-sex marriage in California\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\tBut 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest potential issue before the justices comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been $0.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"time\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Timeline: Same-sex marriage in California\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"dipity_embed\" style=\"width: 600px\">\u003ciframe style=\"border: 1px solid #CCC\" src=\"http://www.dipity.com/KQED/Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/?mode=embed&z=10yr#tl\" width=\"600\" height=\"400\">\u003c/iframe>\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0;font-family: Arial,sans;font-size: 13px;text-align: center\">\u003ca href=\"http://www.dipity.com/KQED/Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\">Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a> on \u003ca href=\"http://www.dipity.com/\">Dipity\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81802 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81802",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1940,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 53
},
"modified": 1398733252,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/scotusng20121203-300x186.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"300\" height=\"186\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.\r\n\r\nThe justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nThe court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.\r\n\r\nThe cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/#AP\">Full AP story here\u003c/a>",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.\r\n\r\nThe justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nThe court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.\r\n\r\nThe cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June. Full AP story here",
"title": "Supreme Court to Review Prop. 8, Defense of Marriage Act | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court to Review Prop. 8, Defense of Marriage Act",
"datePublished": "2012-12-07T15:45:50-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:52-07:00",
"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": "u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81802/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>From AP:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/#AP\">Full AP story here\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81808\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203-300x186.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"300\" height=\"186\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 1:25 p.m.\u003c/strong> Interesting entry from \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/live-blog-anticipating-orders-hopefully-regarding-same-sex-marriage-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog live analysis\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>There is a good deal of complexity in the marriage orders, but the bottom line is this: the Court has offered to rule on Prop. 8 and on DOMA Section 3, but it also has given itself a way not to decide either case. That probably depends upon how eager the Justices are to get to the merits; if they are having trouble getting to 5 on the merits, they may just opt out through one of the procedural devices they have offered up as potentials.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>In a conversation with Scott Shafer today, UC Davis law professor Vik Amar addressed this issue: \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>AMAR\u003c/strong>: Remember, the Supreme Court today asked the parties to brief another question, which has been looming throughout, and that is whether the sponsors to Prop. 8 are proper parties to defend the measure in federal court. The Supreme Court signaled that his case may go away on standing grounds. And the court may never reach the merits at all, if it’s not convinced that the sponsors are appropriate defendants to the court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SHAFER\u003c/strong>: I believe they also asked that question in the DOMA case they took up, that question of standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>AMAR\u003c/strong>: They did, because the Obama Administration has declined to defend the DOMA, the federal statute, and in fact agrees with the lower courts that it’s unconstitutional, which led the House of Representatives to hire its own outside lawyers headed by Paul Clement. And the court today wondered aloud, and asked the parties to brief whether Paul Clement and his group is a proper party to defend DOMA. Now that’s even more arresting than them asking whether the Prop. 8 sponsors have standing, because there are a lot of cases in which Congress has been allowed to defend federal statutes where the president has not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(I)f the justices were to say there is no one to defend Congress’s work product when the president doesn’t, that really opens up the door to broad presidential powers to essentially ignore and thus undermine what Congress does.\n\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 1:40 p.m.\u003c/strong> Another interesting wrinkle...from the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/am-alert-is-proposition-8-referendum-in-the-cards-for-california.html\" target=\"_blank\">Sacramento Bee\u003c/a>, Nov 15:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>During a chat with The Bee's editorial board Wednesday, Steinberg said he could envision the Democrat-controlled Legislature using its new-found two-thirds majority power to put a gay-marriage referendum on a future statewide ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Depending upon what the Supreme Court might or might not do with Proposition 8, in coalition with stakeholders and the gay and lesbian leadership, if it were appropriate and necessary to put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot with our two-thirds supermajority, I would be open to that,\" the Sacramento Democrat said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>\u003c/div>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>In Nov 2008, Californians passed Prop 8 by 52 percent to 48 percent. But a May 2012 \u003ca href=\"http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012\" target=\"_blank\">PPIC poll\u003c/a> found that Californians supported same-sex marriage by 54-40 percent. More on the changing views of Californians on this issue from that poll:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>In October 2008, a majority of older Californians opposed same-sex marriage (34% in favor, 58% opposed); they are now closely divided (45% favor, 47% oppose). Support has grown 15 points among younger Californians, age 18–34 (from 53% to 68%). Majorities of both women (53%, up slightly from 47% in 2008) and men (55%, up 13 points) now support same-sex marriage. In their 2008 campaign, Proposition 8 proponents appealed to parents by claiming that if same-sex marriage remained legal, it would be taught in schools. A majority of parents expressed opposition at the time (42% in favor, 54% opposed), but the opinion gap has since narrowed (46% in favor, 47% opposed). Support for same-sex marriage has increased somewhat among whites (from 50% in 2008 to 59% in 2012) and Latinos (from 36% to 43%).\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>You'll recall that in the November election, Maine voters approved same-sex marriage just a few years after banning it.\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>Meaning that even if the Supreme Court reverses the 9th Circuit's decision, we \u003cem>still\u003c/em> may have not heard the last on this issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 2:45 p.m.\u003c/strong> California Attorney General Kamala Harris says she will lead attorneys general nationwide in drafting a brief in support of same-sex marriage for the Prop 8 SCOTUS case. You can \u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/calif-attorney-general-kamala\">listen to her speaking at San Francisco City Hall today here\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F70396796&show_artwork=true\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 4:00 p.m.\u003c/strong> Here is the \u003ca href=\"https://soundcloud.com/kqed/raw-audio-attorneys-who\" target=\"_blank\">audio of today's press conference\u003c/a> by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the legal challenge to Proposition 8. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We got involved in this case two-and-a-half years ago because we wanted to get married and we were being discriminated against, along with thousands of other gays and lesbians,\" said plainfiff Jeff Zarillo. \"This is why we have a court system, this is why we have a judicial system. They have a job to step in when the rights of the minority are being oppressed by the majority.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Said attorney Ted Boutros: \"We really believe we have the best possible record for the Supreme Court to look at. It's never going to happen again where the lead expert witness in one of these cases switches sides and agrees with the position on marriage equality. It really couldn't be a better situation.\" Boutros was referring to the Institute for American Values' David Blankenhorn, who renounced his testimony in favor of Proposition 8 in a \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html\" target=\"_blank\">New York Times op-ed piece\u003c/a> in June. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F70394781&show_artwork=true\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 4:45 p.m.\u003c/strong> KQED's Kat Snow today talked to Byron Babione, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, part of the legal team defending Proposition 8. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Responding to the court's orders today, Babione said, \"We believe the Supreme Court will recognize that marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of western civilization. And that it serves substantial and compelling government purposes and is therefore constitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Marriage has always been society's mechanism for regulating opposite-sex sex, because it results in procreation, accidental procreation, spontaneous conception. And so society needs a mechanism to address that. And of course opposite-sex couples implicate the state's interest in responsible procreation. And while it is no slight to same-sex couples, same-sex couples do not implicate the interest that society has in marriage, which is to make sure that mothers and fathers who have children raise those children together.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"AP\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Full AP report\u003c/em>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/live-blog-anticipating-orders-hopefully-regarding-same-sex-marriage-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law/\">\u003cstrong>SCOTUSblog coverage\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120712zr_3f14.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Friday's SCOTUS order list\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=12526975¬oc=1\">\u003cstrong>National Organization for Marriage statement\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/#time\">\u003cstrong>Timeline: Same-sex marriage in California\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\tBut 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest potential issue before the justices comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been $0.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"time\">\u003c/a>\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>\u003cem>Timeline: Same-sex marriage in California\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"dipity_embed\" style=\"width: 600px\">\u003ciframe style=\"border: 1px solid #CCC\" src=\"http://www.dipity.com/KQED/Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/?mode=embed&z=10yr#tl\" width=\"600\" height=\"400\">\u003c/iframe>\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 0;font-family: Arial,sans;font-size: 13px;text-align: center\">\u003ca href=\"http://www.dipity.com/KQED/Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\">Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a> on \u003ca href=\"http://www.dipity.com/\">Dipity\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81802/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81906": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81906",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81906",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354643989000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354643989,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Nevada Gay Marriage Ruling Could Complicate Supreme Court's Prop. 8 Decision",
"title": "Nevada Gay Marriage Ruling Could Complicate Supreme Court's Prop. 8 Decision",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Four days before the U.S. Supreme Court met to ostensibly discuss California's Proposition 8, a Nevada District Court issued a ruling upholding that state's ban on same-sex marriage. The \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/ruled.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">ruling by Judge Robert C. Jones\u003c/a>, a George W. Bush appointee, holds that Nevada's law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81634\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A same-sex marriage supporter in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>That decision is at odds with Judge \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/Walkers-Decision.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision\u003c/a> that struck down Prop. 8 as a violation of both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Judge Walker also found that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Lambda Legal, which represented the 16 plaintiffs in Nevada, will appeal Judge Jones' decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit upheld Judge Walker's decision but \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\" target=\"_blank\">narrowed it considerably\u003c/a>, declining to rule on his broader findings that marriage is a fundamental right. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court acts first, a new panel of 9th Circuit judges would consider the appeal to that Nevada ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>One well-placed legal observer told me that makes the Prop. 8 case something of a moving target for the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Could it increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will send the Prop. 8 case back to the 9th Circuit and ask them to address the fundamental questions addressed by Judge Walker, but skirted by 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt in his Prop. 8 decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We may know more on Friday, when the Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision on whether or not it will review the Prop. 8 case.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81906 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81906",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/04/nevada-gay-marriage-ruling-could-complicate-supreme-courts-prop-8-decision/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 302,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 9
},
"modified": 1363912520,
"excerpt": "Four days before the U.S. Supreme Court met to ostensibly discuss California's Proposition 8, a Nevada District Court issued a ruling upholding that state's ban on same-sex marriage. The \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/ruled.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">ruling by Judge Robert C. Jones\u003c/a>, a George W. Bush appointee, holds that Nevada's law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nThat decision is at odds with Judge \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/Walkers-Decision.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision\u003c/a> that struck down Prop. 8 as a violation of both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Judge Walker also found that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.\r\n\r\nLambda Legal, which represented the 16 plaintiffs in Nevada, will appeal Judge Jones' decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Four days before the U.S. Supreme Court met to ostensibly discuss California's Proposition 8, a Nevada District Court issued a ruling upholding that state's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling by Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, holds that Nevada's law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThat decision is at odds with Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision that struck down Prop. 8 as a violation of both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Judge Walker also found that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.\r\n\r\nLambda Legal, which represented the 16 plaintiffs in Nevada, will appeal Judge Jones' decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.",
"title": "Nevada Gay Marriage Ruling Could Complicate Supreme Court's Prop. 8 Decision | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Nevada Gay Marriage Ruling Could Complicate Supreme Court's Prop. 8 Decision",
"datePublished": "2012-12-04T09:59:49-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-21T17:35:20-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "nevada-gay-marriage-ruling-could-complicate-supreme-courts-prop-8-decision",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81906/nevada-gay-marriage-ruling-could-complicate-supreme-courts-prop-8-decision",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Four days before the U.S. Supreme Court met to ostensibly discuss California's Proposition 8, a Nevada District Court issued a ruling upholding that state's ban on same-sex marriage. The \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/ruled.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">ruling by Judge Robert C. Jones\u003c/a>, a George W. Bush appointee, holds that Nevada's law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81634\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A same-sex marriage supporter in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>That decision is at odds with Judge \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/Walkers-Decision.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision\u003c/a> that struck down Prop. 8 as a violation of both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Judge Walker also found that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Lambda Legal, which represented the 16 plaintiffs in Nevada, will appeal Judge Jones' decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit upheld Judge Walker's decision but \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\" target=\"_blank\">narrowed it considerably\u003c/a>, declining to rule on his broader findings that marriage is a fundamental right. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court acts first, a new panel of 9th Circuit judges would consider the appeal to that Nevada ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\" target=\"_blank\">Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>One well-placed legal observer told me that makes the Prop. 8 case something of a moving target for the Supreme Court.\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>Could it increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will send the Prop. 8 case back to the 9th Circuit and ask them to address the fundamental questions addressed by Judge Walker, but skirted by 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt in his Prop. 8 decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We may know more on Friday, when the Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision on whether or not it will review the Prop. 8 case.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81906/nevada-gay-marriage-ruling-could-complicate-supreme-courts-prop-8-decision",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81815": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81815",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81815",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354547993000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354547993,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday",
"title": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81808\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"640\" height=\"398\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">list of orders\u003c/a> when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>An appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. \"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders,\" the Supreme Court website \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">states\u003c/a>. \"Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The next announcement of miscellaneous orders is expected Friday, when the Supreme Court also will hold its final conference of 2012 to discuss petitions from those asking the high court to review cases. SCOTUSblog, a Bloomberg Law-sponsored blog covering the court, \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/275616145120301056\">tweeted\u003c/a> that the court \"is almost sure to act on same-sex marriage late this Friday afternoon so it can hear arguments this March.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Want to learn more about the case while you wait for the announcement? Here are some resources you may want to check out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\">Clarifying What's Before the Court\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">End of the Road or Next Chapter for Prop. 8?\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/\">KQED's Prop. 8 blog\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201202071800\">KQED's Prop. 8 special\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">Wikipedia's summary of Prop. 8\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">Supreme Court Orders\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?s=same+sex+marriage&searchsubmit=Blog\">SCOTUSblog coverage of same-sex marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/scotusblog\">SCOTUSblog on Twitter\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81815 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81815",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/03/no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 360,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 7
},
"modified": 1398733254,
"excerpt": "\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"640\" height=\"398\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nSame-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">list of orders\u003c/a> when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\r\n\r\nAn appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. \"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders,\" the Supreme Court website \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">states\u003c/a>. \"Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.\"",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "\r\n\r\nSame-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's list of orders when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\r\n\r\nAn appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. "The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders," the Supreme Court website states. "Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time."",
"title": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Supreme Court Action on Same-Sex Marriage This Morning; Announcement May Come Friday",
"datePublished": "2012-12-03T07:19:53-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:54-07:00",
"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": "no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81815/no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81808\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-81808\" title=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/12/scotusng20121203.jpg\" alt=\"The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\" width=\"640\" height=\"398\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Supreme Court Building. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage was not on the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">list of orders\u003c/a> when it was released at about 9:30 a.m. That means we'll have to wait until Friday to find out if the high court will review the case concerning Prop 8, California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>An appeals court previously upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated Proposition 8. That is one of two laws involving same-sex marriage that the high court may review next spring. The court is also weighing overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court will announce whether or not it will review the cases in a list of orders. \"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders,\" the Supreme Court website \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">states\u003c/a>. \"Such an order will, for example, deny a petition... without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but 'miscellaneous' orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The next announcement of miscellaneous orders is expected Friday, when the Supreme Court also will hold its final conference of 2012 to discuss petitions from those asking the high court to review cases. SCOTUSblog, a Bloomberg Law-sponsored blog covering the court, \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/275616145120301056\">tweeted\u003c/a> that the court \"is almost sure to act on same-sex marriage late this Friday afternoon so it can hear arguments this March.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Want to learn more about the case while you wait for the announcement? Here are some resources you may want to check out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/\">Clarifying What's Before the Court\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">End of the Road or Next Chapter for Prop. 8?\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/\">KQED's Prop. 8 blog\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201202071800\">KQED's Prop. 8 special\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">Wikipedia's summary of Prop. 8\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx\">Supreme Court Orders\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?s=same+sex+marriage&searchsubmit=Blog\">SCOTUSblog coverage of same-sex marriage\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/scotusblog\">SCOTUSblog on Twitter\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\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/81815/no-supreme-court-action-on-same-sex-marriage-this-morning-announcement-may-come-friday",
"authors": [
"11430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81629": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81629",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81629",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354335001000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354335001,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court",
"title": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. Despite widespread anticipation, the court did not announce today whether or not it would hear the cases, so everyone will have to wait till at least Monday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81634\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A same-sex marriage protester before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>One set of rulings the court is weighing overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the other case, an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer interviewed Vikram Amar, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Davis, to get a better idea of what issues are at play in the court's decision of whether to take up the matter of same-sex marriage. Edited transcript...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> What is the standard the Supreme Court uses for granting review of a lower court’s ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>UC Davis law professor Vik Amar:\u003c/strong> A very small percentage of cases in which review is sought are granted certiorari, or review. They get 7-8,000 petitions a year and they grant maybe eight. So you are talking about maybe one in a hundred. Cases that involve national issues and cases that involve a statute of Congress, or cases in which a statute or initiative of a big state like California have been struck down by a lower court stand a much better chance of getting the Supreme Court’s attention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The two most important factors the court looks at are how important is this issue and how much confusion or variant is there in the way lower courts are dealing with it. In those cases, it’s going to grant review even if it thinks the lower court got the decision right. So it’s not about doing justice in an individual case, it’s about clarifying questions in constitutional law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: By this standard how strong is the case for taking up the Prop. 8 issue?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: Judged by that standard, the Prop. 8 case has a very strong argument for review, probably not as strong as the DOMA cases out of the First Circuit, because in those cases a federal court of appeal struck down an act of Congress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 case, a court struck down an act of California. And while California is incredibly important, it’s not quite on the level of a federal statute. So I think if the court were granting review of only one law, I would expect it to grant review of the DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What would be the argument for combining not just the DOMA cases but DOMA with Prop. 8?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time...\u003cbr>\n--UC Davis Law Prof. Vik Amar\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: They could do that to get a better idea of the different sides of the same-sex marriage controversy. Remember in the DOMA cases the question posed is whether the federal government has to recognize people who are married under a state law that permits same-sex marriage. So in those cases, same-sex couples are not arguing that there is an affirmative constitutional right to get married. They are just saying, “If the state I live in accepts it, then you the federal government should accept it for the purpose of benefits as well.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ninth Circuit court tried to limit its reasoning on Prop 8 so it wouldn’t call into question bans that other states have on same-sex marriage, because those bans are different than Prop. 8 in certain respects. But I don’t think the court is going to find that limiting aspect of the Ninth Circuit opinion in the Prop. 8 case persuasive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So in some sense the DOMA cases are narrower than the Prop. 8 case, but in another aspect the Prop. 8 case is narrower because it’s a California statute. So you could argue that the court should take one or the other. But you could also argue that the court should take both so it could have the full range of issues concerning same-sex marriage before it when it decides to weigh in on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court takes the Prop 8 case it could do all kinds of things with it. It could decide that the Prop. 8 sponsors lack standing in federal court and erase the whole Prop. 8 litigation on that basis, which would leave same-sex couples in California free to get married because neither the governor nor the attorney general is going to stop them. But it wouldn’t really provide a judicial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage the way the Ninth Circuit opinion did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: So if they did that, would it only apply to just the four plaintiffs? I know there was an argument earlier that this wasn’t a class action.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: So in legal technicality, the only couples who would have a right to marry would be those who sued to marry in Vaughn Walker’s court. But since we know that the governor and the current attorney general are going to take the same position that Gov. Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Brown took in not defending Prop. 8, then any other same-sex couple could file suit, and this one could be a class-action suit, and we know what the result would be. It’s just a matter of a little time and a little process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Looking at the big picture here, how has the legal landscape changed since 2008 when Prop. 8 first passed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think the legal landscape has changed in that you have courts of appeal having struck down DOMA, and you have the Ninth Circuit court that has struck down a state’s ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These decisions by federal courts of appeal are the first of their kind arguing in favor of at least some kinds of rights of same-sex couples to marry in some sets of circumstances. And that’s a dramatic difference in terms of lower court law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other thing that has changed is that you have legislatures and electorates that have weighed in in different ways. Just earlier this month we had for the first time same-sex marriage winning at the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And even though strictly speaking the constitutional questions are separate from the question of whether the people of the United States in their various state legislatures and their state populaces want to have same-sex marriage, the reality is that whether there is a federal Constitutional right to something depends on the way states are resolving the questions about these things and how common or unusual is the state’s practice that is being challenged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: In that regard, the Human Rights Campaign is running ads in Washington D.C. They are not aimed at the Supreme Court specifically. But the judges presumably watch TV from time to time, and hopefully listen to the radio. Do you think this has any impact on them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time and not have to weigh in before the trend lines are clear.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the case of DOMA I don’t think they can avoid taking the case because the First Circuit and now the Second Circuit have struck down a federal statute. In the case of Prop. 8 and the full frontal assault on bans on same-sex marriage, I think the court might want to wait a while before resolving that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the conservatives on the court might think about Justice Kennedy, whose vote would be necessary in order to protect a right to same-sex marriage -- you can’t get to five votes in favor of same-sex marriage without Justice Kennedy. The conservatives might think now is the time to resolve same-sex marriage because Justice Kennedy might not be ready to proclaim any kind of national right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And a decision against same-sex marriage now, if that’s what they would like Kennedy to join onto, might make it a little bit harder for the court to reverse itself in the intermediate term, even if the trend line changes with the elections in 2014 and 2016 and beyond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Finally if they do strike down DOMA, what difference would that make in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: The circuit courts ruled against DOMA on the grounds that couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage should also have federal benefits. It’s not clear that that rationale would also apply to those states in which same-sex marriage is available by virtue of a federal judicial ruling, as in California and the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But putting that aside, what invalidation of DOMA at the Supreme Court level would mean is that in every state that recognizes same-sex marriage, same-sex couples in that state would be entitled to the full range of federal benefits concerning social security and survival benefits, tax consequences etc. It would harmonize federal law with state law in those states that recognize same sex unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: But it would not compel, say Nevada, to recognize same-sex marriage in California...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: No. the First Circuit in its DOMA ruling was very clear that it was deciding whether the federal government had to follow the lead of those states that recognize same sex-marriage, without deciding that there was a general right to same-sex marriage that compels states that haven’t already recognized it to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What do you think is the most likely scenario?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think it would be extremely unlikely for the court to grant review of Prop. 8 and not DOMA. I think it would also be extremely unlikely for the court to deny the Prop. 8 case altogether -- that is, to just leave the Ninth Circuit decision alone. I think they will either grant cert in both the DOMA and the Prop. 8 case, or perhaps more likely they will grant it in the DOMA case and sit on the Prop. 8 case, and we won’t know what they’re going to do with that until after they resolve DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>End of interview, and if you read this far you're probably ready to take the California Bar Exam\u003c/em>. \u003cem>We'll see what happens next week.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81629 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81629",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1999,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 36
},
"modified": 1398733255,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. Despite widespread anticipation, the court did not announce today whether or not it would hear the cases, so everyone will have to wait till at least Monday. One set of rulings the court is weighing overturned",
"title": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court",
"datePublished": "2012-11-30T20:10:01-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:55-07:00",
"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": "awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81629/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. Despite widespread anticipation, the court did not announce today whether or not it would hear the cases, so everyone will have to wait till at least Monday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81634\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81634\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court1-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A same-sex marriage protester before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>One set of rulings the court is weighing overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for the purposes of legal recognition and receipt of benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the other case, an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that invalidated California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED’s Scott Shafer interviewed Vikram Amar, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Davis, to get a better idea of what issues are at play in the court's decision of whether to take up the matter of same-sex marriage. Edited transcript...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> What is the standard the Supreme Court uses for granting review of a lower court’s ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>UC Davis law professor Vik Amar:\u003c/strong> A very small percentage of cases in which review is sought are granted certiorari, or review. They get 7-8,000 petitions a year and they grant maybe eight. So you are talking about maybe one in a hundred. Cases that involve national issues and cases that involve a statute of Congress, or cases in which a statute or initiative of a big state like California have been struck down by a lower court stand a much better chance of getting the Supreme Court’s attention.\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 two most important factors the court looks at are how important is this issue and how much confusion or variant is there in the way lower courts are dealing with it. In those cases, it’s going to grant review even if it thinks the lower court got the decision right. So it’s not about doing justice in an individual case, it’s about clarifying questions in constitutional law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: By this standard how strong is the case for taking up the Prop. 8 issue?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: Judged by that standard, the Prop. 8 case has a very strong argument for review, probably not as strong as the DOMA cases out of the First Circuit, because in those cases a federal court of appeal struck down an act of Congress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 case, a court struck down an act of California. And while California is incredibly important, it’s not quite on the level of a federal statute. So I think if the court were granting review of only one law, I would expect it to grant review of the DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What would be the argument for combining not just the DOMA cases but DOMA with Prop. 8?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time...\u003cbr>\n--UC Davis Law Prof. Vik Amar\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: They could do that to get a better idea of the different sides of the same-sex marriage controversy. Remember in the DOMA cases the question posed is whether the federal government has to recognize people who are married under a state law that permits same-sex marriage. So in those cases, same-sex couples are not arguing that there is an affirmative constitutional right to get married. They are just saying, “If the state I live in accepts it, then you the federal government should accept it for the purpose of benefits as well.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ninth Circuit court tried to limit its reasoning on Prop 8 so it wouldn’t call into question bans that other states have on same-sex marriage, because those bans are different than Prop. 8 in certain respects. But I don’t think the court is going to find that limiting aspect of the Ninth Circuit opinion in the Prop. 8 case persuasive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So in some sense the DOMA cases are narrower than the Prop. 8 case, but in another aspect the Prop. 8 case is narrower because it’s a California statute. So you could argue that the court should take one or the other. But you could also argue that the court should take both so it could have the full range of issues concerning same-sex marriage before it when it decides to weigh in on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court takes the Prop 8 case it could do all kinds of things with it. It could decide that the Prop. 8 sponsors lack standing in federal court and erase the whole Prop. 8 litigation on that basis, which would leave same-sex couples in California free to get married because neither the governor nor the attorney general is going to stop them. But it wouldn’t really provide a judicial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage the way the Ninth Circuit opinion did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: So if they did that, would it only apply to just the four plaintiffs? I know there was an argument earlier that this wasn’t a class action.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: So in legal technicality, the only couples who would have a right to marry would be those who sued to marry in Vaughn Walker’s court. But since we know that the governor and the current attorney general are going to take the same position that Gov. Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Brown took in not defending Prop. 8, then any other same-sex couple could file suit, and this one could be a class-action suit, and we know what the result would be. It’s just a matter of a little time and a little process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Looking at the big picture here, how has the legal landscape changed since 2008 when Prop. 8 first passed?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think the legal landscape has changed in that you have courts of appeal having struck down DOMA, and you have the Ninth Circuit court that has struck down a state’s ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>These decisions by federal courts of appeal are the first of their kind arguing in favor of at least some kinds of rights of same-sex couples to marry in some sets of circumstances. And that’s a dramatic difference in terms of lower court law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The other thing that has changed is that you have legislatures and electorates that have weighed in in different ways. Just earlier this month we had for the first time same-sex marriage winning at the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And even though strictly speaking the constitutional questions are separate from the question of whether the people of the United States in their various state legislatures and their state populaces want to have same-sex marriage, the reality is that whether there is a federal Constitutional right to something depends on the way states are resolving the questions about these things and how common or unusual is the state’s practice that is being challenged.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: In that regard, the Human Rights Campaign is running ads in Washington D.C. They are not aimed at the Supreme Court specifically. But the judges presumably watch TV from time to time, and hopefully listen to the radio. Do you think this has any impact on them?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think some members of the court don’t want to issue rulings that with the hindsight of 10 or 12 years look anachronistic and look like they mispredicted the arc of history. But at the same time some members of the court don’t want to get too far ahead and make predictions that may not turn out to be true, which is why in general the court likes to wait and see how these issues play out in political circles for some period of time and not have to weigh in before the trend lines are clear.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the case of DOMA I don’t think they can avoid taking the case because the First Circuit and now the Second Circuit have struck down a federal statute. In the case of Prop. 8 and the full frontal assault on bans on same-sex marriage, I think the court might want to wait a while before resolving that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the conservatives on the court might think about Justice Kennedy, whose vote would be necessary in order to protect a right to same-sex marriage -- you can’t get to five votes in favor of same-sex marriage without Justice Kennedy. The conservatives might think now is the time to resolve same-sex marriage because Justice Kennedy might not be ready to proclaim any kind of national right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And a decision against same-sex marriage now, if that’s what they would like Kennedy to join onto, might make it a little bit harder for the court to reverse itself in the intermediate term, even if the trend line changes with the elections in 2014 and 2016 and beyond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: Finally if they do strike down DOMA, what difference would that make in California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: The circuit courts ruled against DOMA on the grounds that couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage should also have federal benefits. It’s not clear that that rationale would also apply to those states in which same-sex marriage is available by virtue of a federal judicial ruling, as in California and the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But putting that aside, what invalidation of DOMA at the Supreme Court level would mean is that in every state that recognizes same-sex marriage, same-sex couples in that state would be entitled to the full range of federal benefits concerning social security and survival benefits, tax consequences etc. It would harmonize federal law with state law in those states that recognize same sex unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: But it would not compel, say Nevada, to recognize same-sex marriage in California...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: No. the First Circuit in its DOMA ruling was very clear that it was deciding whether the federal government had to follow the lead of those states that recognize same sex-marriage, without deciding that there was a general right to same-sex marriage that compels states that haven’t already recognized it to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>: What do you think is the most likely scenario?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Vikram Amar\u003c/strong>: I think it would be extremely unlikely for the court to grant review of Prop. 8 and not DOMA. I think it would also be extremely unlikely for the court to deny the Prop. 8 case altogether -- that is, to just leave the Ninth Circuit decision alone. I think they will either grant cert in both the DOMA and the Prop. 8 case, or perhaps more likely they will grant it in the DOMA case and sit on the Prop. 8 case, and we won’t know what they’re going to do with that until after they resolve DOMA.\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>\u003cem>End of interview, and if you read this far you're probably ready to take the California Bar Exam\u003c/em>. \u003cem>We'll see what happens next week.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81629/awaiting-scotus-on-same-sex-marriage-clarifying-whats-before-the-court",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_893",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81508": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81508",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81508",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354307720000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354307720,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"title": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-81554\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 10, 2013: \u003c/strong>The court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\">did not release\u003c/a> its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was no announcement about the court's plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week's time. That will be their last meeting until January. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">\u003cstrong>Analysis: SCOTUS and Prop 8: End of Road or Next Chapter?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">\u003cstrong>More Prop 8 coverage and legal analysis\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there's no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They'll be the villains in the historical narrative,\" said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don't think there is,\" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,\" Clement said in court papers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center — whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor's is the other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.\n\n\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81508 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81508",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1274,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1370875669,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Jun 10, 2013: The court did not release its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June. (AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later",
"title": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"datePublished": "2012-11-30T12:35:20-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-10T07:47:49-07:00",
"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": "no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81508/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-81554\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 10, 2013: \u003c/strong>The court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\">did not release\u003c/a> its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was no announcement about the court's plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week's time. That will be their last meeting until January. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">\u003cstrong>Analysis: SCOTUS and Prop 8: End of Road or Next Chapter?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">\u003cstrong>More Prop 8 coverage and legal analysis\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.\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>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there's no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They'll be the villains in the historical narrative,\" said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don't think there is,\" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,\" Clement said in court papers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center — whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor's is the other.\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>Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.\n\n\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81508/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81188": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81188",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81188",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354126374000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354126374,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "U.S. Supreme Court and Proposition 8: End of the Road or Next Chapter?",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court and Proposition 8: End of the Road or Next Chapter?",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The next and final chapter in the legal saga of \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>, California’s ban on same sex marriage, is set to begin Friday morning at the U.S. Supreme Court. And unlike the previous legal skirmishes in which this measure has been mired for four years, \u003cem>this\u003c/em> one will take place behind closed doors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81322\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop0804-20120207.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81322\" title=\"Bob Sodervick of San Francisco protests Proposition 8 outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this year. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop0804-20120207-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bob Sodervick of San Francisco protests Proposition 8 outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this year. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The nine justices will discuss which cases to accept for review -- or “grant certiorari” -- at a conference meeting in Washington D.C. In addition to this case, now officially known as \u003cem>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-144.htm\">Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al\u003c/a>, \u003c/em>the justices will consider several cases challenging the \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act\">Defense of Marriage Act\u003c/a>, or DOMA, including \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2012/02/karen-golinski-wins-will-doma-ruling-to-prompt-litigation-spree.html\" target=\"_blank\">one from California\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since voters approved Prop. 8 in November 2008, the legal and cultural landscapes have shifted dramatically on same sex marriage. Eight states and the District of Columbia have joined Massachusetts in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. President Obama, with a nudge from Veep Joe Biden, endorsed the rights of gay and lesbian couples to wed. His Justice Department stopped defending DOMA -- and eight federal courts, including two Courts of Appeal, have struck down DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Finally, \u003cem>Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell\u003c/em>, the military’s ban on LGBT soldiers, sailors and Marines serving openly, was repealed without incident.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Public opinion has also sharply shifted in favor of gay marriage, and the Republican Party has mostly backed away from using it as a wedge issue in national politics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is the environment in which SCOTUS takes up the issue. It has several options and what the justices do depends on how far into it they want to wade.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>First, they could take up the case on its merits -- and separately from the DOMA cases. Since the Ninth Circuit narrowed \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop8Decision.pdf\">Judge Vaughn Walker's decision\u003c/a> considerably, it could be decided with limited scope by the high court -- applying only to California without taking up the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right and should be available across the country. They could also combine the Prop. 8 question with any or all of the DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alternatively, the justices could dodge the issue altogether by saying proponents of Prop. 8 lack legal standing to challenge the ruling. Or they could decline to take it up because it presents no legal conflict with earlier rulings from either district courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. Either of those two options would allow the lower court ruling to stand and same sex marriages would resume in California very shortly, as soon as next week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep in mind it takes four votes to grant cert. and review a case, and generally the four justices who vote to take it up think they can get a fifth vote (why take it up otherwise?). This is the third time this case has been calendared for conference. It’s been delayed twice before.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Justice Kennedy is apparently the key here (as in so many cases, though not in Obamacare as it turned out) the other eight will be sizing up where he stands.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s funny how almost mainstream the issue has become. It's been only four years since California voters eliminated the right for same sex couples to marry -- after more than 18-thousand couples had tied the knot. Who would have predicted nine states would legalize gay marriage before California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For sign posts along the winding road to Friday's SCOTUS conference, check out my Prop. 8 blog \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/\">here\u003c/a> -- and KQED's hour-long radio special \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201202071800\">here\u003c/a>. Wikipedia also has a balanced summary \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81188 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81188",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 634,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1363126476,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The next and final chapter in the legal saga of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same sex marriage, is set to begin Friday morning at the U.S. Supreme Court. And unlike the previous legal skirmishes in which this measure has been mired for four years, this one will take place behind closed doors. The nine",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court and Proposition 8: End of the Road or Next Chapter? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "U.S. Supreme Court and Proposition 8: End of the Road or Next Chapter?",
"datePublished": "2012-11-28T10:12:54-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-12T15:14:36-07:00",
"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": "u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81188/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The next and final chapter in the legal saga of \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>, California’s ban on same sex marriage, is set to begin Friday morning at the U.S. Supreme Court. And unlike the previous legal skirmishes in which this measure has been mired for four years, \u003cem>this\u003c/em> one will take place behind closed doors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_81322\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop0804-20120207.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-81322\" title=\"Bob Sodervick of San Francisco protests Proposition 8 outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this year. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop0804-20120207-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bob Sodervick of San Francisco protests Proposition 8 outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this year. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The nine justices will discuss which cases to accept for review -- or “grant certiorari” -- at a conference meeting in Washington D.C. In addition to this case, now officially known as \u003cem>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-144.htm\">Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. Kristin M. Perry, et al\u003c/a>, \u003c/em>the justices will consider several cases challenging the \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act\">Defense of Marriage Act\u003c/a>, or DOMA, including \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2012/02/karen-golinski-wins-will-doma-ruling-to-prompt-litigation-spree.html\" target=\"_blank\">one from California\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since voters approved Prop. 8 in November 2008, the legal and cultural landscapes have shifted dramatically on same sex marriage. Eight states and the District of Columbia have joined Massachusetts in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. President Obama, with a nudge from Veep Joe Biden, endorsed the rights of gay and lesbian couples to wed. His Justice Department stopped defending DOMA -- and eight federal courts, including two Courts of Appeal, have struck down DOMA.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Finally, \u003cem>Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell\u003c/em>, the military’s ban on LGBT soldiers, sailors and Marines serving openly, was repealed without incident.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Public opinion has also sharply shifted in favor of gay marriage, and the Republican Party has mostly backed away from using it as a wedge issue in national politics.\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>This is the environment in which SCOTUS takes up the issue. It has several options and what the justices do depends on how far into it they want to wade.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>First, they could take up the case on its merits -- and separately from the DOMA cases. Since the Ninth Circuit narrowed \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/Prop8Decision.pdf\">Judge Vaughn Walker's decision\u003c/a> considerably, it could be decided with limited scope by the high court -- applying only to California without taking up the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right and should be available across the country. They could also combine the Prop. 8 question with any or all of the DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alternatively, the justices could dodge the issue altogether by saying proponents of Prop. 8 lack legal standing to challenge the ruling. Or they could decline to take it up because it presents no legal conflict with earlier rulings from either district courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. Either of those two options would allow the lower court ruling to stand and same sex marriages would resume in California very shortly, as soon as next week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep in mind it takes four votes to grant cert. and review a case, and generally the four justices who vote to take it up think they can get a fifth vote (why take it up otherwise?). This is the third time this case has been calendared for conference. It’s been delayed twice before.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Justice Kennedy is apparently the key here (as in so many cases, though not in Obamacare as it turned out) the other eight will be sizing up where he stands.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s funny how almost mainstream the issue has become. It's been only four years since California voters eliminated the right for same sex couples to marry -- after more than 18-thousand couples had tied the knot. Who would have predicted nine states would legalize gay marriage before California?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For sign posts along the winding road to Friday's SCOTUS conference, check out my Prop. 8 blog \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/\">here\u003c/a> -- and KQED's hour-long radio special \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/radiospecials/R201202071800\">here\u003c/a>. Wikipedia also has a balanced summary \u003ca href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8\">here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81188/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_851",
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"featImg": "news_81322",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_75958": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_75958",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "75958",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1347603592000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1347603592,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Will There be Same-Sex Marriage in California Next Month?",
"title": "Will There be Same-Sex Marriage in California Next Month?",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_75969\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/gettinmarried.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/gettinmarried-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"(FILES) This 17 February 2004 file photo\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-75969\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Hyde Revilla and her partner Dawn Revilla stand together after applying for their marriage license at the City Hall clerk's office in San Francisco, California in 2004. (Hector Mata/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>By Scott Shafer\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court could decide by September 25 whether it will review this year's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On that day, the justices will announce which cases got the necessary four votes to \"grant cert,\" meaning get a full review by the high court in its 2012/13 session. If the court grants cert to the Proposition 8 case, an oral argument will be scheduled, probably for some time in early 2013, with a decision to come by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The following Monday, October 1, the court will announce which cases have been denied cert. If the Proposition 8 case is rejected by the justices, it means the lower court decision holds, and same-sex marriages will resume once the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals mandates it -- likely within a week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is a chance the justices will delay a decision on the case until later in the session.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Supporters of same-sex marriage are asking the Supreme Court to deny the case a hearing, and have written in their briefs that the decision really only applies to California and is not a federal issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The opponents of Proposition 8 take a pretty interesting position in the petition,\"says U.C. Hastings Law professor Rory Little. \"They say this is a really important issue. It's a really well-developed issue. We had a trial, and we've got great facts. But you should deny it because it's narrowly decided in California. That's almost a schizophrenic cert petition, or cert opposition.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some experts suggest that the Supreme Court will grant cert to the DOMA cases but deny it for Proposition 8. However, Little sees it differently, noting that the strengths of this same-sex marriage suit could be attractive to the Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You may not have another opportunity to address such a central issue with such talented advocates on all sides. The court likes that,\" Little says. \"They like big issues to be represented by talented and experienced Supreme Court advocates...And if you grant in both cases you can really say something large. You can really attempt to answer the big question, which is 'Does the Constitution prohibit the banning of same-sex marriage or does the Constitution permit it?'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Proposition 8 is ultimately upheld by the high court, California voters could still restore the right to same-sex marriage in a future ballot measure. There would likely be enormous pressure from gay rights groups to place that on the ballot in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "75958 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=75958",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/09/13/will-there-be-same-sex-marriage-in-california-next-month/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 473,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 12
},
"modified": 1398733259,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "By Scott Shafer The U.S. Supreme Court could decide by September 25 whether it will review this year's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, the justices will announce which cases got the necessary four votes to "grant cert," meaning get a full",
"title": "Will There be Same-Sex Marriage in California Next Month? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Will There be Same-Sex Marriage in California Next Month?",
"datePublished": "2012-09-13T23:19:52-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:59-07:00",
"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": "will-there-be-same-sex-marriage-in-california-next-month",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/75958/will-there-be-same-sex-marriage-in-california-next-month",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_75969\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/gettinmarried.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/gettinmarried-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"(FILES) This 17 February 2004 file photo\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-75969\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Hyde Revilla and her partner Dawn Revilla stand together after applying for their marriage license at the City Hall clerk's office in San Francisco, California in 2004. (Hector Mata/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>By Scott Shafer\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court could decide by September 25 whether it will review this year's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On that day, the justices will announce which cases got the necessary four votes to \"grant cert,\" meaning get a full review by the high court in its 2012/13 session. If the court grants cert to the Proposition 8 case, an oral argument will be scheduled, probably for some time in early 2013, with a decision to come by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The following Monday, October 1, the court will announce which cases have been denied cert. If the Proposition 8 case is rejected by the justices, it means the lower court decision holds, and same-sex marriages will resume once the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals mandates it -- likely within a week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is a chance the justices will delay a decision on the case until later in the session.\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>Supporters of same-sex marriage are asking the Supreme Court to deny the case a hearing, and have written in their briefs that the decision really only applies to California and is not a federal issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The opponents of Proposition 8 take a pretty interesting position in the petition,\"says U.C. Hastings Law professor Rory Little. \"They say this is a really important issue. It's a really well-developed issue. We had a trial, and we've got great facts. But you should deny it because it's narrowly decided in California. That's almost a schizophrenic cert petition, or cert opposition.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some experts suggest that the Supreme Court will grant cert to the DOMA cases but deny it for Proposition 8. However, Little sees it differently, noting that the strengths of this same-sex marriage suit could be attractive to the Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You may not have another opportunity to address such a central issue with such talented advocates on all sides. The court likes that,\" Little says. \"They like big issues to be represented by talented and experienced Supreme Court advocates...And if you grant in both cases you can really say something large. You can really attempt to answer the big question, which is 'Does the Constitution prohibit the banning of same-sex marriage or does the Constitution permit it?'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Proposition 8 is ultimately upheld by the high court, California voters could still restore the right to same-sex marriage in a future ballot measure. There would likely be enormous pressure from gay rights groups to place that on the ballot in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/75958/will-there-be-same-sex-marriage-in-california-next-month",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_75523": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_75523",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "75523",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1347304272000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1347304272,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Who Cares If NFL Players Support Gay Marriage?",
"title": "Who Cares If NFL Players Support Gay Marriage?",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_75544\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 161px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/aba.jpeg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-thumbnail wp-image-75544\" title=\"Brendon Ayanbadejo\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/aba-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"Brendon Ayanbadejo\" width=\"161\" height=\"161\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Baltimore Ravens LB Brendon Ayanbadejo. Photo by Keith Allison/Flickr.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>It's been more than a year since Baltimore Ravens linebacker \u003ca href=\"http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/4777/brendon-ayanbadejo\">Brendon Ayanbadejo\u003c/a>, who grew up in Santa Cruz, expressed his support for gay marriage in a \u003ca href=\"http://youtu.be/a5IpTdbE5ts\">video\u003c/a> posted on YouTube. Since then the video has garnered more than 27,000 views; certainly a respectable number, but not nearly what you'd expect given the hullabaloo recently sparked by Ayanbadejo's opinions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In late August a Maryland state legislator sent Ravens team officials a \u003ca href=\"http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--maryland-politician%E2%80%99s-letter-denouncing-brendon-ayanbadejo%E2%80%99s-support-of-gay-marriage.html\">letter\u003c/a> asking that they stop Ayanbadejo from expressing his views on same-sex marriage. That led Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe to pen a profanity-laced and often hilarious \u003ca href=\"http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it\">response\u003c/a> that was posted Friday on the website Deadspin.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Kluwe letter has gotten 1.6 million hits on Deadspin, according to \u003ca href=\"http://www.outsports.com\">Outsports.com\u003c/a> co-founder Jim Buzinski. Outsports covers sports from a gay perspective.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cp>\"America's supposed to be the land of the free, but in order for this to be true for all of us, then we must have the ability to marry whom we love regardless of their gender.\" - Brendon Ayanbadejo, Baltimore Ravens linebacker.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\"It was just one of those things that hit and everybody read it, because, they though, Oh my god this is a perfect rebuttal,\" Buzinski said. \"That's the reason this has become a huge issue, and Ayanbadejo had now gotten a lot of support within the NFL, within the Ravens, within the fan base.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Football fans haven't always been so supportive of Ayanbadejo. The linebacker has been speaking out about gay marriage since at least \u003ca href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendon-ayanbadejo/same-sex-marriages-whats_b_190591.html\">2009\u003c/a>, and Buzinski said some of the comments fans posted online about his opinions at the time were very critical.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, however, it takes a humorous letter marked with obscenities to generate discussion about gay issues in pro sports. Meanwhile, a video of a NFL player expressing support for gay marriage draws fewer views than a \u003ca href=\"http://youtu.be/clfAq1xSevc\">video\u003c/a> of a cat playing piano. (OK, so maybe that's an unfair comparison.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It could just be that Americans overall are more in favor of gay marriage. A 2012 \u003ca href=\"http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Two-Thirds-of-Democrats-Now-Support-Gay-Marriage.aspx\">study\u003c/a> by the Pew Research Center shows that support for same-sex marriage has grown over the years. The attitudes of football fans and some players reflects that change in opinion, Buzinski said. He noted that this summer Outsports.com interviewed more than two dozen NFL players who are \"gay supportive.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"At some point, you'll have an openly gay player in professional sports, there will be a huge flurry and then people will say what was all the fuss about,\" Buzinski said. \"Homophobia is no longer cool in sports. By that I mean, it obviously still exists because we don't have any out (athletes in the major pro sports). But players cannot get away with saying anti-gay things without there being repercussions.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The media is not accepting it, fans are not accepting it, nobody thinks it's cool to do these things,\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Still, the number of professional athletes who are joining Ayanbadejo by voicing their support for same-sex marriage remains relatively small. Here are some of the players who have expressed that opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Do you know of an athlete that we left off the list? Should professional athletes be leading the discussion on social issues? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/professional-athletes-who-support-gay-marriage-and\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "75523 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=75523",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/09/10/five-nfl-players-who-have-supported-gay-marriage/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 584,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 15
},
"modified": 1363126217,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "It's been more than a year since Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who grew up in Santa Cruz, expressed his support for gay marriage in a video posted on YouTube. Since then the video has garnered more than 27,000 views; certainly a respectable number, but not nearly what you'd expect given the hullabaloo recently sparked by",
"title": "Who Cares If NFL Players Support Gay Marriage? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Who Cares If NFL Players Support Gay Marriage?",
"datePublished": "2012-09-10T12:11:12-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-03-12T15:10:17-07:00",
"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": "five-nfl-players-who-have-supported-gay-marriage",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/75523/five-nfl-players-who-have-supported-gay-marriage",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_75544\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 161px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/aba.jpeg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-thumbnail wp-image-75544\" title=\"Brendon Ayanbadejo\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/09/aba-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"Brendon Ayanbadejo\" width=\"161\" height=\"161\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Baltimore Ravens LB Brendon Ayanbadejo. Photo by Keith Allison/Flickr.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>It's been more than a year since Baltimore Ravens linebacker \u003ca href=\"http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/4777/brendon-ayanbadejo\">Brendon Ayanbadejo\u003c/a>, who grew up in Santa Cruz, expressed his support for gay marriage in a \u003ca href=\"http://youtu.be/a5IpTdbE5ts\">video\u003c/a> posted on YouTube. Since then the video has garnered more than 27,000 views; certainly a respectable number, but not nearly what you'd expect given the hullabaloo recently sparked by Ayanbadejo's opinions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In late August a Maryland state legislator sent Ravens team officials a \u003ca href=\"http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--maryland-politician%E2%80%99s-letter-denouncing-brendon-ayanbadejo%E2%80%99s-support-of-gay-marriage.html\">letter\u003c/a> asking that they stop Ayanbadejo from expressing his views on same-sex marriage. That led Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe to pen a profanity-laced and often hilarious \u003ca href=\"http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it\">response\u003c/a> that was posted Friday on the website Deadspin.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Kluwe letter has gotten 1.6 million hits on Deadspin, according to \u003ca href=\"http://www.outsports.com\">Outsports.com\u003c/a> co-founder Jim Buzinski. Outsports covers sports from a gay perspective.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cp>\"America's supposed to be the land of the free, but in order for this to be true for all of us, then we must have the ability to marry whom we love regardless of their gender.\" - Brendon Ayanbadejo, Baltimore Ravens linebacker.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\"It was just one of those things that hit and everybody read it, because, they though, Oh my god this is a perfect rebuttal,\" Buzinski said. \"That's the reason this has become a huge issue, and Ayanbadejo had now gotten a lot of support within the NFL, within the Ravens, within the fan base.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Football fans haven't always been so supportive of Ayanbadejo. The linebacker has been speaking out about gay marriage since at least \u003ca href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendon-ayanbadejo/same-sex-marriages-whats_b_190591.html\">2009\u003c/a>, and Buzinski said some of the comments fans posted online about his opinions at the time were very critical.\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>Now, however, it takes a humorous letter marked with obscenities to generate discussion about gay issues in pro sports. Meanwhile, a video of a NFL player expressing support for gay marriage draws fewer views than a \u003ca href=\"http://youtu.be/clfAq1xSevc\">video\u003c/a> of a cat playing piano. (OK, so maybe that's an unfair comparison.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It could just be that Americans overall are more in favor of gay marriage. A 2012 \u003ca href=\"http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Two-Thirds-of-Democrats-Now-Support-Gay-Marriage.aspx\">study\u003c/a> by the Pew Research Center shows that support for same-sex marriage has grown over the years. The attitudes of football fans and some players reflects that change in opinion, Buzinski said. He noted that this summer Outsports.com interviewed more than two dozen NFL players who are \"gay supportive.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"At some point, you'll have an openly gay player in professional sports, there will be a huge flurry and then people will say what was all the fuss about,\" Buzinski said. \"Homophobia is no longer cool in sports. By that I mean, it obviously still exists because we don't have any out (athletes in the major pro sports). But players cannot get away with saying anti-gay things without there being repercussions.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The media is not accepting it, fans are not accepting it, nobody thinks it's cool to do these things,\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Still, the number of professional athletes who are joining Ayanbadejo by voicing their support for same-sex marriage remains relatively small. Here are some of the players who have expressed that opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Do you know of an athlete that we left off the list? Should professional athletes be leading the discussion on social issues? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/professional-athletes-who-support-gay-marriage-and\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/75523/five-nfl-players-who-have-supported-gay-marriage",
"authors": [
"11430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_10"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=proposition-8": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 60,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 134,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_90384",
"news_89300",
"news_84757",
"news_82450",
"news_81802",
"news_81906",
"news_81815",
"news_81629",
"news_81508",
"news_81188",
"news_75958",
"news_75523"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_tag_proposition-8": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_4691": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4691",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4691",
"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": 4710,
"slug": "human-rights-2",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/human-rights-2"
},
"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_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_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_851": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_851",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "851",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gender Issues",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gender Issues Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 861,
"slug": "gender-issues",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gender-issues"
},
"news_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_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_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_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_10": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_10",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sports",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sports Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 10,
"slug": "sports",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/sports"
}
},
"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
}
}
