window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"gcoan": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "9",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "9",
"found": true
},
"name": "Gabriel Coan",
"firstName": "Gabriel",
"lastName": "Coan",
"slug": "gcoan",
"email": "gcoan@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f3987968b1e7c1fbba1a291d52de173c?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": []
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Gabriel Coan | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f3987968b1e7c1fbba1a291d52de173c?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f3987968b1e7c1fbba1a291d52de173c?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/gcoan"
},
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"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"
},
"rmarcus": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "1430",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "1430",
"found": true
},
"name": "Rachael Bale",
"firstName": "Rachael",
"lastName": "Bale",
"slug": "rmarcus",
"email": "rmarcus@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": "\u003cspan style=\"color: #333333;\">Rachael Bale is researcher and reporter for The Center for Investigative Reporting and occasional contributor to KQED News and The California Report. A California native, she has a bachelor's degree in political science from Reed College and a master's degree in journalism from American University.\u003c/span>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Rachael Bale | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/rmarcus"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_u-s-supreme-court": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"score": 10.400899
},
"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,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 16
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=u-s-supreme-court",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 16
}
},
{
"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_100262": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100262",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100262",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371680436000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371680436,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the court could stretch the wait out beyond that date. Many SCOTUS observers believe the court will take as long as possible on the same-sex marriage cases, as it often does with potentially landmark decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As you await the decision, here is an updated reposting of our Prop. 8-at-SCOTUS primer, which we first published in March, when the case was heard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: A BRIEF HISTORY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The battle over same-sex marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to say: \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009 the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Judge Vaughn Walker in his 2010 ruling\u003cbr>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, same-sex marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled the county didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The federal court then sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether even Prop. 8's proponents had legal standing to sue, considering that the state's publicly elected officials had declined to do so. California's high court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents did, indeed, have the right to defend the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit then took up the case again, and in February 2012 it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It did, however, narrow the ruling considerably, applying it only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, other states have blazed their own trail on same-sex marriage. Currently, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are multiple possible outcomes of the Prop. 8 case. The court could potentially issue a sweeping ruling that overturns all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. However, what is more likely, according to many legal analysts, is that the justices will rule in such a way as to \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">restrict the impact of their ruling\u003c/a> to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide that Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That could leave the issue open to further appeals, with the ban's supporters arguing that the District Court ruling should not apply statewide\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.) DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case before the Supreme Court involves a widow who was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the president chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which means that even if Prop. 8 is upheld, we are likely to see another ballot, this one legalizing same-sex marriage in California, in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100262 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100262",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1266,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1371742225,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"datePublished": "2013-06-19T15:20:36-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-20T08:30:25-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/18/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100262/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>by Rachael Marcus, Kelly Dunleavy O'Mara and Jon Brooks\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>We are fast nearing a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The court does not announce in advance which opinions it will release on which days, but the last scheduled date for opinions to come down is Jun 27, though the court could stretch the wait out beyond that date. Many SCOTUS observers believe the court will take as long as possible on the same-sex marriage cases, as it often does with potentially landmark decisions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As you await the decision, here is an updated reposting of our Prop. 8-at-SCOTUS primer, which we first published in March, when the case was heard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: A BRIEF HISTORY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\" target=\"_blank\">Timeline: The battle over same-sex marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to say: \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Same-sex marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009 the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.\"\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n--Judge Vaughn Walker in his 2010 ruling\u003cbr>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, same-sex marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled the county didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The federal court then sent the case back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether even Prop. 8's proponents had legal standing to sue, considering that the state's publicly elected officials had declined to do so. California's high court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents did, indeed, have the right to defend the measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th Circuit then took up the case again, and in February 2012 it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It did, however, narrow the ruling considerably, applying it only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the meantime, other states have blazed their own trail on same-sex marriage. Currently, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are multiple possible outcomes of the Prop. 8 case. The court could potentially issue a sweeping ruling that overturns all same-sex marriage bans in the U.S. However, what is more likely, according to many legal analysts, is that the justices will rule in such a way as to \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">restrict the impact of their ruling\u003c/a> to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And if the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide that Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That could leave the issue open to further appeals, with the ban's supporters arguing that the District Court ruling should not apply statewide\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.) DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case before the Supreme Court involves a widow who was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the president chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Prop. 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Which means that even if Prop. 8 is upheld, we are likely to see another ballot, this one legalizing same-sex marriage in California, in 2014.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100262/prop-8-at-the-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99826": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99826",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99826",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371214831000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371214831,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99826 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99826",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/14/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 686,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 19
},
"modified": 1398733213,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word? When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms. “The case",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2013-06-14T06:00:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:13-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/",
"path": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99713": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99713",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99713",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371131729000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371131729,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"title": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_68608\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-68608\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061-300x212.jpg\" alt=\"Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8.\" width=\"300\" height=\"212\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 17\u003c/strong>: And the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\" target=\"_blank\">wait continues\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(The court did issue a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/\">significant ruling on gene patenting\u003c/a>, with potentially big implications for the biotech industry.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will release its decisions on either Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, or both this morning, around 7 a.m. PDT. It's not very likely, according to inveterate SCOTUS watchers. But, on the other hand, people have made entire careers out of unsuccessfully trying to predict what the high court will do. So, here we are, monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog, which almost always is first in reporting the decisions, has begun \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">live blogging\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/\" target=\"_blank\">list from the site of all the cases that are still outstanding\u003c/a> from the October 2012 term. (There's a major decision on an \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345\" target=\"_blank\">affirmative action case\u003c/a> that could come down today.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid- to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. There are many in-between possibilities as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99713 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99713",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 423,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1371491000,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Jun 17: And the wait continues... Update: Per SCOTUSblog, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch. (The court did issue a significant ruling on gene patenting, with",
"title": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop. 8, DOMA Supreme Court Decisions Today -- Next Possibility is Monday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-13T06:55:29-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-17T10:43:20-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/",
"path": "/news/99713/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_68608\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-68608\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/1073613061-300x212.jpg\" alt=\"Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8.\" width=\"300\" height=\"212\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters on both sides closely watched the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 17\u003c/strong>: And the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/17/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\" target=\"_blank\">wait continues\u003c/a>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>: Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, four opinions are in, none of them one of the same-sex marriage cases. That's it for today -- the court has recessed until Monday, when we'll be back here again on Prop. 8/DOMA watch.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(The court did issue a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-cannot-be-patented/\">significant ruling on gene patenting\u003c/a>, with potentially big implications for the biotech industry.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will release its decisions on either Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, or both this morning, around 7 a.m. PDT. It's not very likely, according to inveterate SCOTUS watchers. But, on the other hand, people have made entire careers out of unsuccessfully trying to predict what the high court will do. So, here we are, monitoring.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog, which almost always is first in reporting the decisions, has begun \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/\" target=\"_blank\">live blogging\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/\" target=\"_blank\">list from the site of all the cases that are still outstanding\u003c/a> from the October 2012 term. (There's a major decision on an \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345\" target=\"_blank\">affirmative action case\u003c/a> that could come down today.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop. 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California in mid- to-late July, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country. There are many in-between possibilities as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99713/waiting-for-possible-prop-8-doma-decisions-by-supreme-court-this-morning",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99173": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99173",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99173",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1370870491000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1370870491,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"title": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Thursday Jun 13:\u003c/strong> We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">See that post here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a possibility the decisions could come on Thursday, though most court watchers think that's unlikely, and that the opinions won't be released until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55730\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM.gif\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55730\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM-300x200.gif\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">FILE PHOTO: Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There's a chance the Supreme Court will release its Proposition 8 and/or Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings today, around 7 a.m. If that's the case, we'll be live blogging right here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If that's not the case, we'll head back to bed and keep an eye out on Thursday, the next day the court will be issuing opinions. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/faqs-opinion-announcement-days/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog FAQ\u003c/a> about how the court issues opinions. SCOTUSblog, the gold standard in high court watching, thinks the same-sex marriage opinions won't be issued until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Vaughn Walker: Getting Prop 8 Case 'My Oh S*** Moment'\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Prop 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California within a month, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99173 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99173",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 419,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1371130266,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Thursday Jun 13: We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. See that post here. Update: Per SCOTUSblog, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a",
"title": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Prop 8 or DOMA Decisions From Supreme Court Today",
"datePublished": "2013-06-10T06:21:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-13T06:31:06-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/",
"path": "/news/99173/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Thursday Jun 13:\u003c/strong> We're again monitoring the possibility today that the court will issue its rulings on Prop 8 and/or DOMA. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-prop-8-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">See that post here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Per \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog\u003c/a>, three opinions have been issued, none of which are Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) or United States v. Windsor (DOMA). That's it for today. There's a possibility the decisions could come on Thursday, though most court watchers think that's unlikely, and that the opinions won't be released until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Original post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55730\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM.gif\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55730\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8SM-300x200.gif\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">FILE PHOTO: Same-sex marriage supporters march. (Don Clyde/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There's a chance the Supreme Court will release its Proposition 8 and/or Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rulings today, around 7 a.m. If that's the case, we'll be live blogging right here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If that's not the case, we'll head back to bed and keep an eye out on Thursday, the next day the court will be issuing opinions. Here's a \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/faqs-opinion-announcement-days/\" target=\"_blank\">SCOTUSblog FAQ\u003c/a> about how the court issues opinions. SCOTUSblog, the gold standard in high court watching, thinks the same-sex marriage opinions won't be issued until the last week of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Vaughn Walker: Getting Prop 8 Case 'My Oh S*** Moment'\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Prop 8, of course, is California's same-sex marriage ban that was struck down on narrow grounds by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Should SCOTUS uphold that decision, same-sex marriages could begin again in California within a month, according to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. (San Francisco was an intervenor in the case on the plaintiff's side.) If the court uses the case to issue a more sweeping ruling that all same-sex marriage bans are illegal, that would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99173/supreme-courts-prop-8-doma-rulings-could-come-this-morning",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92269": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92269",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92269",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364245238000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364245238,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments",
"title": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>When Theodore Boutrous Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class-action case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked Boutrous, who goes by \"Ted,\" how many times he has argued in front of the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92270\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 195px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements/michael-jacksons/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92270\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92270 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/50997687-195x300.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Theodore Boutros, Media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing on June 25, 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"195\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Theodore Boutros, media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing in 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images) Supreme Court.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\"Twice,\" he said. \"And I’ve got 18 votes!\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record -- 18 votes mean all the justices ruled in his favor both times he appeared before them -- he emailed back, “It’s tempting!”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since the start of the Proposition 8 debate in federal court four years ago, \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\">Boutrous\u003c/a> has been overshadowed by a higher-profile Ted, colleague \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tolson\">Theodore Olson\u003c/a>. Both are partners at \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\" target=\"_blank\">Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\u003c/a> (Boutrous in Los Angeles, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Both are part of the high-powered No on 8 legal team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Preparing for the Big Day\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson will be the attorney arguing before the justices on behalf of the No on 8 team on Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare for oral arguments, the team has been doing simulations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We’ll have done four moot courts by Tuesday,\" Boutrous said, referring to the practice arguments. \"We’ve had a mix of experienced Supreme Court litigators from inside and outside the firm join us for the preparation.\"\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\"Ted [Olson] walks up to the podium,\" Boutrous said. \"The four or five lawyers playing the roles of justices stay in character during the hourlong session. They let him get off a few sentences, and then they just go at him.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"People like playing justices,\" Boutrous joked.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92284\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/behind-the-scenes-with-the-no-on-8-team/federal-appeals-court-holds-hearing-on-prop-8-6/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92284\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92284\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4279_107361311-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"No on 8 attorneys\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">No on 8 attorneys Ted Boutrous (R), Ted Olson (2nd R) David Boies (L) speak to reporters following a hearing at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The moot courts, he said, allow the No on 8 legal team to try out and edit their best arguments, to see where a particular argument will lead and to practice avoiding the creation of unnecessary issues that could bog down the argument or distract from the main points.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The No on 8 team will have 20 minutes to argue its case. The U.S. Solicitor General, also opposing Prop. 8, gets 10 minutes. The Yes on 8 team gets the other 30 minutes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reading the Justices\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Don’t get too happy or too depressed about the questions they ask during the arguments,\" Boutrous said. \"You just don’t know what the purpose of the question is. You have to stay even-keeled.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In fact, he noted, he was stunned to see he’d gotten Justice Elena Kagan’s vote in that recent 9-0 decision because her questions during oral arguments seemed so hostile to his side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Looking Sharp\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a lighter matter, I asked how they decide what to wear in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You always keep to dark colors,\" Boutrous said. \"I remember once I saw a lawyer came into court with a powder-blue jacket. I thought, 'This isn’t going to go well!'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>'Abstract Principles Versus Real People'\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Boutrous and the rest of team appear confident.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked what is the biggest hurdle his opponents face.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"They’ve never been able to prove that excluding gay people is necessary to anyone or anything,\" Boutrous said. \"They can’t point to any harm done by same-sex marriage. It’s their abstract principles versus real people and their children being harmed. They just want to be like everybody else.\"\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92269 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92269",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 683,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1398733234,
"excerpt": "When Theodore Boutrous, Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy. “We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!” He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class action case.\r\n\r\nI asked Boutrous, who goes by “Ted”, how many times he’s argued in front of the Supreme Court. “Twice, “ he said. “And I’ve got 18 votes!” When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record, he emailed back “It’s tempting!”\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92270\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/50997687-195x300.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Theodore Boutros, Media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing on June 25, 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"195\" height=\"300\" style=\"padding:10px 10px 10px 10 px\" align=\"right\" />\u003c/a> \r\nSince the start of the Prop. 8 debate in federal court four years ago, Boutrous has been overshadowed by his high profile colleague, attorney Theodore Olson. Both are partners at \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\" target=\"_blank\">Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\u003c/a> (Boutrous in the Los Angeles office, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\r\n\r\nBoutrous may not get the “ink” they get, but he’s been an integral part of the legal strategy against Prop. 8.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "When Theodore Boutrous, Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy. “We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!” He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class action case.\r\n\r\nI asked Boutrous, who goes by “Ted”, how many times he’s argued in front of the Supreme Court. “Twice, “ he said. “And I’ve got 18 votes!” When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record, he emailed back “It’s tempting!”\r\n\r\n \r\nSince the start of the Prop. 8 debate in federal court four years ago, Boutrous has been overshadowed by his high profile colleague, attorney Theodore Olson. Both are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Boutrous in the Los Angeles office, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\r\n\r\nBoutrous may not get the “ink” they get, but he’s been an integral part of the legal strategy against Prop. 8.",
"title": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T14:00:38-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92269/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>When Theodore Boutrous Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!\" he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class-action case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked Boutrous, who goes by \"Ted,\" how many times he has argued in front of the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92270\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 195px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements/michael-jacksons/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92270\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92270 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/50997687-195x300.jpg\" alt=\"File photo. Theodore Boutros, Media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing on June 25, 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images)\" width=\"195\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Theodore Boutros, media attorney speaks at a press conference after the Michael Jackson's pre-trial hearing in 2004. (Joshua Gates Weisberg-Pool/Getty Images) Supreme Court.\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\"Twice,\" he said. \"And I’ve got 18 votes!\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record -- 18 votes mean all the justices ruled in his favor both times he appeared before them -- he emailed back, “It’s tempting!”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since the start of the Proposition 8 debate in federal court four years ago, \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\">Boutrous\u003c/a> has been overshadowed by a higher-profile Ted, colleague \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tolson\">Theodore Olson\u003c/a>. Both are partners at \u003ca href=\"http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/tboutrous\" target=\"_blank\">Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher\u003c/a> (Boutrous in Los Angeles, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Both are part of the high-powered No on 8 legal team.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Preparing for the Big Day\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson will be the attorney arguing before the justices on behalf of the No on 8 team on Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To prepare for oral arguments, the team has been doing simulations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We’ll have done four moot courts by Tuesday,\" Boutrous said, referring to the practice arguments. \"We’ve had a mix of experienced Supreme Court litigators from inside and outside the firm join us for the preparation.\"\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\"Ted [Olson] walks up to the podium,\" Boutrous said. \"The four or five lawyers playing the roles of justices stay in character during the hourlong session. They let him get off a few sentences, and then they just go at him.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"People like playing justices,\" Boutrous joked.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92284\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/behind-the-scenes-with-the-no-on-8-team/federal-appeals-court-holds-hearing-on-prop-8-6/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92284\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92284\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4279_107361311-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"No on 8 attorneys\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">No on 8 attorneys Ted Boutrous (R), Ted Olson (2nd R) David Boies (L) speak to reporters following a hearing at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The moot courts, he said, allow the No on 8 legal team to try out and edit their best arguments, to see where a particular argument will lead and to practice avoiding the creation of unnecessary issues that could bog down the argument or distract from the main points.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The No on 8 team will have 20 minutes to argue its case. The U.S. Solicitor General, also opposing Prop. 8, gets 10 minutes. The Yes on 8 team gets the other 30 minutes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Reading the Justices\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Don’t get too happy or too depressed about the questions they ask during the arguments,\" Boutrous said. \"You just don’t know what the purpose of the question is. You have to stay even-keeled.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In fact, he noted, he was stunned to see he’d gotten Justice Elena Kagan’s vote in that recent 9-0 decision because her questions during oral arguments seemed so hostile to his side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Looking Sharp\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a lighter matter, I asked how they decide what to wear in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"You always keep to dark colors,\" Boutrous said. \"I remember once I saw a lawyer came into court with a powder-blue jacket. I thought, 'This isn’t going to go well!'\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>'Abstract Principles Versus Real People'\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Boutrous and the rest of team appear confident.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I asked what is the biggest hurdle his opponents face.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"They’ve never been able to prove that excluding gay people is necessary to anyone or anything,\" Boutrous said. \"They can’t point to any harm done by same-sex marriage. It’s their abstract principles versus real people and their children being harmed. They just want to be like everybody else.\"\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92269/the-other-ted-no-on-8-attorney-prepares-for-supreme-court-oral-arguements",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_3877",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92229": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92229",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92229",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364234439000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364234439,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism",
"title": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pugno discussed with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of the team's legal argument, as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate,\" Pugno said. \"I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Indeed, it appears that one of the pro-Prop. 8 team's core arguments is that the proposition passed into law through a valid democratic process and that any judge's attempt to invalidate it would be akin to judicial activism, Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is also the issue of states' rights:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It really would be unfortunate to have same-sex marriage imposed -- marriage redefined -- for all 50 states by the intervention of the federal courts,\" Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If the Supreme Court decides there is a hidden, invisible right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, that would spell the end for Proposition 8 in California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOi3MEz6MWs]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This interview and more coverage aired on KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" Friday, March 22, at 7:30 p.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch an interview \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage/\">here\u003c/a> with California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who, for one month, oversaw the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco in 2004.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92229 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92229",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 300,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 13
},
"modified": 1398733234,
"excerpt": "Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\r\n\r\nPugno discusses with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of their legal argument as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\r\n\r\nEven though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public is becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\r\n\r\n\"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate,\" Pugno said. \"I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law.\"\r\n\r\n[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOi3MEz6MWs]",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\r\n\r\nPugno discusses with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of their legal argument as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\r\n\r\nEven though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public is becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\r\n\r\n"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate," Pugno said. "I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law."\r\n\r\n",
"title": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T11:00:39-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92229/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pugno discussed with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of the team's legal argument, as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate,\" Pugno said. \"I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Indeed, it appears that one of the pro-Prop. 8 team's core arguments is that the proposition passed into law through a valid democratic process and that any judge's attempt to invalidate it would be akin to judicial activism, Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is also the issue of states' rights:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It really would be unfortunate to have same-sex marriage imposed -- marriage redefined -- for all 50 states by the intervention of the federal courts,\" Pugno said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If the Supreme Court decides there is a hidden, invisible right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, that would spell the end for Proposition 8 in California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/VOi3MEz6MWs'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/VOi3MEz6MWs'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This interview and more coverage aired on KQED's \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/266864/a\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>\" Friday, March 22, at 7:30 p.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Watch an interview \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/22/video-newsom-on-same-sex-marriage/\">here\u003c/a> with California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who, for one month, oversaw the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco in 2004.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92229/video-interview-with-prop-8-co-author",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_4118",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92081": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92081",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92081",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364231427000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364231427,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Same-Sex Marriage: 5 Possible Outcomes From the Supreme Court Hearings",
"title": "Same-Sex Marriage: 5 Possible Outcomes From the Supreme Court Hearings",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>To us non-lawyers it looks pretty simple: Either gay people can legally marry each other or they can't.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court will hear arguments on the case Tuesday, with a decision expected in June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To start with, the court isn't just taking on Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. It's also tackling the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that denies the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The court will hear arguments on the act Wednesday. And the two decisions are intertwined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In this video, KQED's Scott Shafer discusses the legal possibilities of the Supreme Court hearing with law professors Vik Amar of the UC Davis and Jane Schacter of Stanford University.\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n\u003cobject width=\"560\" height=\"315\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/l3FfWDT97ug?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\">[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FfWDT97ug&hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0]\u003c/object>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here are the decisions the court could reach as outlined by Georgetown University law Professor Marty Lederman writing in Bloomberg's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=16021\">Blog\u003c/a>, with further analysis by UC Davis law Professor Vik Amar:\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>1) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.\u003c/strong> If the Supreme Court makes this ruling, bans on same-sex marriage can continue in the \u003ca href=\"http://gaymarriage.procon.org/\">37\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160210\">41\u003c/a> states (depending on how you count them) where they are now in force, including California. Individual states would still have the option to legalize same-sex marriage. Public opinion has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage \u003ca href=\"http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/\">around the country\u003c/a>, and particularly \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">in California\u003c/a>. So it's likely that advocates would soon mount initiatives to change the laws.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.\u003c/strong> This ruling would mean that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples. Every state in the union would have to grant marriage to same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>3)\u003cstrong> States cannot deny the label of marriage once the privileges of marriage are already granted. \u003c/strong>Some states, including California, already have granted the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through domestic partner or similar legislation. But these states still won't officially recognize same-sex couples as married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court could reason that these states already have accepted the legitimacy of same-sex unions, so denying these couples the status of marriage has no purpose except stigmatization. Such stigmatization is unconstitutional. Those states with bans on same-sex marriage and no benefits for same-sex couples could keep these laws in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Exactly how many states would be affected is not clear. Lederman counts California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. But Amar said California's law might have gone farther in granting privileges, so it could take further litigation to sort out exactly which states were affected.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I personally don't expect the court to go that route,\" Amar said. \"It punishes states that move toward equality. And it doesn't jibe with the court's other equality rulings.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>4) \u003cstrong>A state that grants same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage and also has previously granted them the right to the official status of marriage can't revoke that right. \u003c/strong>This was the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision\u003c/a> on the Prop. 8 case in 2012.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California granted same-sex couples the right to marry in May 2008 when the state Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, an initiative in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage. In November 2008, Prop. 8 passed, trumping the California Supreme Court decision by putting the ban in the state Constitution. So, same-sex marriage was legal in California for half a year. California is the only state where the privilege existed before being revoked, so the decision would affect only California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"That's an unlikely basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on because it would discourage states from experimenting with equality,\" Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>5) \u003cstrong>The people defending Prop. 8 before the court don't have the right to defend it.\u003c/strong> Normally the governor and attorney general of a state would defend a state law before the U.S. Supreme Court. But in this case, California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have declined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, sponsors of the initiative hired their own lawyers to defend it. They claim California law grants them such standing, but there are good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=15809\">arguments on both sides\u003c/a>, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court denies the Prop. 8 defenders' standing, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision would be voided, and the case would revert back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which struck down Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision would be a default ruling against the state because it declined to defend Prop. 8 -- sort of like a forfeit when one soccer team doesn't show up for a scheduled match. It might change only the status of the two couples who filed the\u003ca href=\"http://centerforhumanrights.org/perry%20v.%20brown.pdf\"> original lawsuit\u003c/a>, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Los Angeles. It is possible that only they would be allowed to marry, but no one else would, said Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Under that scenario, same-sex marriage advocates would have to file a new class-action lawsuit in which all same-sex couples are plaintiffs, he said. He estimates this would likely proceed through the court in a matter of months, extending the district court's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional to all same-sex couples in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs themselves have argued that other same-sex couples should gain the right to marriage even if the court ruled in this way, because the two couples would be harmed by being \"stigmatized\" if they are the only same-sex couples who can marry, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>A final wild card is the court's separate ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. \u003c/strong>\"If they reject the DOMA,\" said Amar, \"then — depending on the reasons they give — it's going to be hard to say that states can continue to deny rights to same-sex marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the past, the court has generally ruled that federal law trumps state law. For example, the federal government is continuing to enforce laws against marijuana use, even though some states now allow it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's still possible, though, that the high court will break with this precedent and strike down the DOMA but decide to defer to each state on its same-sex marriage laws. This would leave bans on same-sex marriage intact. This would mean that married same-sex couples could qualify for benefits under federal law. But it would not allow same-sex couples to get married in states that prohibit these marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the court could uphold the DOMA and rely on one of the lines of reasoning to strike down Prop. 8 in a way that affects only California, leaving a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws around the country. Ambiguity would linger.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92081 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92081",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/25/what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1213,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1398475086,
"excerpt": "To us non lawyers it looks pretty simple: either gay people can legally marry each other or they can't.\r\n\r\nBut as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.\r\n\r\nThe high court will hear arguments on the case on Tuesday, with a decision expected in June.\r\n\r\nTo start with, the court isn't just taking on Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. It's also tackling the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that denies federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The court will hear arguments on the DOMA on Wednesday. And the two decisions are intertwined.\r\n\r\n\u003cobject width=\"560\" height=\"315\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\" />\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\" />\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/l3FfWDT97ug?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0\" />\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\" />[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FfWDT97ug&hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0]\u003c/object>\r\n\r\n",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.",
"title": "The Supreme Court has Many Options in Deciding California's Proposition 8",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Same-Sex Marriage: 5 Possible Outcomes From the Supreme Court Hearings",
"datePublished": "2013-03-25T10:10:27-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:18:06-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92081/what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>To us non-lawyers it looks pretty simple: Either gay people can legally marry each other or they can't.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on California's Proposition 8, the justices will weigh multiple options. Some decisions would settle the question throughout the country for the foreseeable future. Some could leave it dangling for years to come.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court will hear arguments on the case Tuesday, with a decision expected in June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To start with, the court isn't just taking on Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. It's also tackling the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that denies the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The court will hear arguments on the act Wednesday. And the two decisions are intertwined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>In this video, KQED's Scott Shafer discusses the legal possibilities of the Supreme Court hearing with law professors Vik Amar of the UC Davis and Jane Schacter of Stanford University.\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\n\u003cobject width=\"560\" height=\"315\" classid=\"d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\">\u003cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\">\u003cparam name=\"src\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/l3FfWDT97ug?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0\">\u003cparam name=\"allowfullscreen\" value=\"true\">\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/l3FfWDT97ug'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/l3FfWDT97ug'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/object>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here are the decisions the court could reach as outlined by Georgetown University law Professor Marty Lederman writing in Bloomberg's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=16021\">Blog\u003c/a>, with further analysis by UC Davis law Professor Vik Amar:\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>1) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.\u003c/strong> If the Supreme Court makes this ruling, bans on same-sex marriage can continue in the \u003ca href=\"http://gaymarriage.procon.org/\">37\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160210\">41\u003c/a> states (depending on how you count them) where they are now in force, including California. Individual states would still have the option to legalize same-sex marriage. Public opinion has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage \u003ca href=\"http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/\">around the country\u003c/a>, and particularly \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">in California\u003c/a>. So it's likely that advocates would soon mount initiatives to change the laws.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2) \u003cstrong>Bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.\u003c/strong> This ruling would mean that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination against same-sex couples. Every state in the union would have to grant marriage to same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>3)\u003cstrong> States cannot deny the label of marriage once the privileges of marriage are already granted. \u003c/strong>Some states, including California, already have granted the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through domestic partner or similar legislation. But these states still won't officially recognize same-sex couples as married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court could reason that these states already have accepted the legitimacy of same-sex unions, so denying these couples the status of marriage has no purpose except stigmatization. Such stigmatization is unconstitutional. Those states with bans on same-sex marriage and no benefits for same-sex couples could keep these laws in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Exactly how many states would be affected is not clear. Lederman counts California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. But Amar said California's law might have gone farther in granting privileges, so it could take further litigation to sort out exactly which states were affected.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I personally don't expect the court to go that route,\" Amar said. \"It punishes states that move toward equality. And it doesn't jibe with the court's other equality rulings.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>4) \u003cstrong>A state that grants same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage and also has previously granted them the right to the official status of marriage can't revoke that right. \u003c/strong>This was the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision\u003c/a> on the Prop. 8 case in 2012.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California granted same-sex couples the right to marry in May 2008 when the state Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22, an initiative in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage. In November 2008, Prop. 8 passed, trumping the California Supreme Court decision by putting the ban in the state Constitution. So, same-sex marriage was legal in California for half a year. California is the only state where the privilege existed before being revoked, so the decision would affect only California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"That's an unlikely basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on because it would discourage states from experimenting with equality,\" Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>5) \u003cstrong>The people defending Prop. 8 before the court don't have the right to defend it.\u003c/strong> Normally the governor and attorney general of a state would defend a state law before the U.S. Supreme Court. But in this case, California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have declined.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, sponsors of the initiative hired their own lawyers to defend it. They claim California law grants them such standing, but there are good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=15809\">arguments on both sides\u003c/a>, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court denies the Prop. 8 defenders' standing, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision would be voided, and the case would revert back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which struck down Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision would be a default ruling against the state because it declined to defend Prop. 8 -- sort of like a forfeit when one soccer team doesn't show up for a scheduled match. It might change only the status of the two couples who filed the\u003ca href=\"http://centerforhumanrights.org/perry%20v.%20brown.pdf\"> original lawsuit\u003c/a>, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Los Angeles. It is possible that only they would be allowed to marry, but no one else would, said Amar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Under that scenario, same-sex marriage advocates would have to file a new class-action lawsuit in which all same-sex couples are plaintiffs, he said. He estimates this would likely proceed through the court in a matter of months, extending the district court's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional to all same-sex couples in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs themselves have argued that other same-sex couples should gain the right to marriage even if the court ruled in this way, because the two couples would be harmed by being \"stigmatized\" if they are the only same-sex couples who can marry, wrote Lederman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>A final wild card is the court's separate ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. \u003c/strong>\"If they reject the DOMA,\" said Amar, \"then — depending on the reasons they give — it's going to be hard to say that states can continue to deny rights to same-sex marriage.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the past, the court has generally ruled that federal law trumps state law. For example, the federal government is continuing to enforce laws against marijuana use, even though some states now allow it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's still possible, though, that the high court will break with this precedent and strike down the DOMA but decide to defer to each state on its same-sex marriage laws. This would leave bans on same-sex marriage intact. This would mean that married same-sex couples could qualify for benefits under federal law. But it would not allow same-sex couples to get married in states that prohibit these marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the court could uphold the DOMA and rely on one of the lines of reasoning to strike down Prop. 8 in a way that affects only California, leaving a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws around the country. Ambiguity would linger.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92081/what-a-high-court-ruling-on-californias-prop-8-could-mean",
"authors": [
"1367"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_2626",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_2725",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_91703": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_91703",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "91703",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363878014000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363878014,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, gay-marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law, garnering a win for same-sex couples.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether or not Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage, and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">multiple possible outcomes\u003c/a> of the Prop. 8 case -- none of which will likely settle the issue for good. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide the Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the Ninth Circuit court's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That decision could also leave the issue open to more appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the President chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. If the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Proposition 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "91703 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=91703",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 956,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 26
},
"modified": 1398733239,
"excerpt": "In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized \" in the state. The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" align=\"left\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nBut the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\r\n\r\nGay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted "yes" on Proposition 22, a measure that amended state law to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized " in the state. The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBut the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed Proposition 8. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\r\n\r\nGay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"datePublished": "2013-03-21T08:00:14-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:39-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/91703/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, gay-marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law, garnering a win for same-sex couples.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether or not Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage, and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">multiple possible outcomes\u003c/a> of the Prop. 8 case -- none of which will likely settle the issue for good. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide the Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the Ninth Circuit court's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That decision could also leave the issue open to more appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the President chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. If the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Proposition 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/91703/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_4863",
"news_335",
"news_548",
"news_893",
"news_3672",
"news_2626",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172",
"news_1244"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_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_69013": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_69013",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "69013",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1340902570000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1340902570,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court Says First Amendment Protects Lies About Military Medals",
"title": "Supreme Court Says First Amendment Protects Lies About Military Medals",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_69017\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/146306249.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-69017\" title=\"Prime Minister John Key Welcomes US Marines To New Zealand\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/146306249-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Medals belonging to a US Marine commander. (Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In other Supreme Court news today, the Supreme Court has struck down the\u003ca href=\"https://www.google.com/search?q=stolen+valor+act\"> Stolen Valor Act\u003c/a>, a federal law making it a crime to lie about having received the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court voted 6-3 Thursday in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-speech-or-is-it-a-crime\">falsely claimed he was a decorated war veteran\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alvarez had pleaded guilty to violating a 2006 law that was adopted with the nation at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and aimed at people making phony claims of heroism in battle. The court, in a judgment written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ordered that his conviction be thrown out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Read the \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf\">complete text of United States v. Alvarez [pdf]\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "69013 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=69013",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/28/supreme-court-says-first-ammendment-protects-lies-about-military-medals/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 136,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 6
},
"modified": 1340903294,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In other Supreme Court news today, the Supreme Court has struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law making it a crime to lie about having received the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards. The court voted 6-3 Thursday in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who",
"title": "Supreme Court Says First Amendment Protects Lies About Military Medals | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Says First Amendment Protects Lies About Military Medals",
"datePublished": "2012-06-28T09:56:10-07:00",
"dateModified": "2012-06-28T10:08:14-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-says-first-ammendment-protects-lies-about-military-medals",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/69013/supreme-court-says-first-ammendment-protects-lies-about-military-medals",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_69017\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/146306249.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-69017\" title=\"Prime Minister John Key Welcomes US Marines To New Zealand\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/06/146306249-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Medals belonging to a US Marine commander. (Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In other Supreme Court news today, the Supreme Court has struck down the\u003ca href=\"https://www.google.com/search?q=stolen+valor+act\"> Stolen Valor Act\u003c/a>, a federal law making it a crime to lie about having received the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court voted 6-3 Thursday in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-speech-or-is-it-a-crime\">falsely claimed he was a decorated war veteran\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alvarez had pleaded guilty to violating a 2006 law that was adopted with the nation at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and aimed at people making phony claims of heroism in battle. The court, in a judgment written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ordered that his conviction be thrown out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Read the \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf\">complete text of United States v. Alvarez [pdf]\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/69013/supreme-court-says-first-ammendment-protects-lies-about-military-medals",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_80",
"news_2647",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_36321": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_36321",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "36321",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1312582912000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1312582912,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "LAO Publishes Status Report, Recommendations on Prison Overcrowding",
"title": "LAO Publishes Status Report, Recommendations on Prison Overcrowding",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_36359\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/107515794.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-36359 \" title=\"Supreme Court To Rule On California's Overcrowded Prisons\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/107515794-300x202.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"202\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A gymnasium that was modified to house prisoners on December 10, 2010 in Chino, California. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images) \u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx\">Legislative Analyst Office\u003c/a> has released its recommendations for how California can comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/05/23/scott-shafer-explains-todays-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-california-prison-overcrowding/\">May ruling\u003c/a> requiring the state to \"reduce overcrowding in its prisons to 137.5 percent of its 'design capacity' within two years.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The top-level bullet points from the executive summary are:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Encourage the administration to request additional time from the court to comply with its mandate to reduce overcrowding in California’s prisons.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Direct the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by statute to report on the justification of each prison construction project that it now proposes (including projects that have already been approved) in light of the inmate population reductions that will occur because of the three-judge panel ruling and the enactment of the realignment plan. Entering into contracts for these projects would be put on hold until the Legislature received and reviewed the report in January.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Change state law to authorize CDCR to continue to transfer prison inmates involuntarily to out-of- state contract beds at least until the court’s requirements are met.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>You can download the report in its entirety \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/overcrowding_080511.pdf\">here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Tune-in Note:\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Prison realignment will be discussed later today on the \u003ca href=\"http://californiareport.org\">California Report Magazine\u003c/a>, and again tonight on \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Further Reading:\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/05/23/scott-shafer-explains-todays-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-california-prison-overcrowding/\">\u003c/a>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/05/23/scott-shafer-explains-todays-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-california-prison-overcrowding/\">Supreme Court Ruling on Prison Overcrowding Explained; Prison Photos From Decision\u003c/a> (News Fix, May 24, 2011)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "36321 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=36321",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/08/05/lao-publishes-status-report-recommendations-on-prison-overcrowding/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 253,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 7
},
"modified": 1312583967,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Legislative Analyst Office has released its recommendations for how California can comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's May ruling requiring the state to "reduce overcrowding in its prisons to 137.5 percent of its 'design capacity' within two years." The top-level bullet points from the executive summary are: Encourage the administration to request additional time",
"title": "LAO Publishes Status Report, Recommendations on Prison Overcrowding | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "LAO Publishes Status Report, Recommendations on Prison Overcrowding",
"datePublished": "2011-08-05T15:21:52-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-08-05T15:39:27-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "lao-publishes-status-report-recommendations-on-prison-overcrowding",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/36321/lao-publishes-status-report-recommendations-on-prison-overcrowding",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_36359\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/107515794.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-36359 \" title=\"Supreme Court To Rule On California's Overcrowded Prisons\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/107515794-300x202.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"202\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A gymnasium that was modified to house prisoners on December 10, 2010 in Chino, California. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images) \u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx\">Legislative Analyst Office\u003c/a> has released its recommendations for how California can comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/05/23/scott-shafer-explains-todays-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-california-prison-overcrowding/\">May ruling\u003c/a> requiring the state to \"reduce overcrowding in its prisons to 137.5 percent of its 'design capacity' within two years.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The top-level bullet points from the executive summary are:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Encourage the administration to request additional time from the court to comply with its mandate to reduce overcrowding in California’s prisons.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Direct the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by statute to report on the justification of each prison construction project that it now proposes (including projects that have already been approved) in light of the inmate population reductions that will occur because of the three-judge panel ruling and the enactment of the realignment plan. Entering into contracts for these projects would be put on hold until the Legislature received and reviewed the report in January.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Change state law to authorize CDCR to continue to transfer prison inmates involuntarily to out-of- state contract beds at least until the court’s requirements are met.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>You can download the report in its entirety \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/08/overcrowding_080511.pdf\">here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Tune-in Note:\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Prison realignment will be discussed later today on the \u003ca href=\"http://californiareport.org\">California Report Magazine\u003c/a>, and again tonight on \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Further Reading:\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/05/23/scott-shafer-explains-todays-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-california-prison-overcrowding/\">\u003c/a>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/05/23/scott-shafer-explains-todays-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-california-prison-overcrowding/\">Supreme Court Ruling on Prison Overcrowding Explained; Prison Photos From Decision\u003c/a> (News Fix, May 24, 2011)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/36321/lao-publishes-status-report-recommendations-on-prison-overcrowding",
"authors": [
"9"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_616",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_32249": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_32249",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32249",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1309207171000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1309207171,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Interview: Leland Yee After SCOTUS Throws Out His Violent Video Game Ban",
"title": "Interview: Leland Yee After SCOTUS Throws Out His Violent Video Game Ban",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_32339\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/videogamesSM.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/videogamesSM-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"videogamesSM\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-32339\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court today nullified a California law that would restrict access for minors to violent video games. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/27/supreme-court-rules-california-cant-ban-violent-video-games-for-minors/#news\">AP report below\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED's Joshua Johnson talked to local State Sen. Leland Yee, the author of the bill, after the ruling came down. Yee said he was disappointed but would review the decision to look for a way to re-craft the law so that it addresses the court's freedom of speech concerns. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Audio and partial edited transcript below. Fun aural note: Yee's unintentional portmanteau when referring to this two-headed jurist: \"Justice Scalito.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/LelandYeeGames.mp3\">\u003cem>Leland Yee on SCOTUS decision striking down his law restricting access for minors to violent video games\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n[audio:http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/LelandYeeGames.mp3|titles=LelandYeeGames]\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\nI'm clearly disappointed by this decision. Once again the Supreme Court is siding with corporate America and Walmart against our children. I think the saving grace in the decision is that there were a number of dissenting opinions. Breyer, Alito, Kennedy...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But what the court missed is the fact that these ultra-violent video games are different technology than books, and it has a different effect on our children. It is not passive looking and passive reading of material. It's actively doing things and changing your brain connection, changing your behavior, and that's what is particularly harmful to our children. \u003c/p>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And this...\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>One of the difficulties in terms of parents: We will never know the full extent of the cruelty and the violence in any of these games, because you have to be sophisticated enough to open the game into those higher levels of violence. \u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">Within a game are embedded different levels of violence and it's only if you are sophisticated enough to do the low-level violence that you get to experience the high-level violence. \u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As a result, many parents will not know what they're kids are playing. This is different than a movie. You watch a movie for two hours and you see everything. Within a game are embedded different levels of violence and it's only if you are sophisticated enough to do the low-level violence that you get to experience the high-level violence. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For many parents who are not that sophisticated in this technology, you'll never get to that higher level and therefore you'll never know what kinds of activities your kids are engaged in…\u003c/p>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Lee also appeared on KQED Radio's Forum program today, along with a senior vice president of communications and industry affairs for the Electronic Software Association. \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201106271000\">LISTEN HERE\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the AP article on today's ruling:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"news\">WASHINGTON (AP) – WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to \"restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed\" despite complaints about graphic violence.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm,\" said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. \"But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Unlike depictions of \"sexual conduct,\" Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore,\" Scalia added.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that \"the freedom of speech,\" as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians,\" Thomas wrote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was written by \u003ca href=\"http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BEFA496BC-EDC8-4E38-9CC7-68D37AC03DFF%7D&DE=%7BEDF8FFFC-E59F-48D6-9C59-7E2B4345D18D%7D\">State Sen. Leland Yee\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf\">\u003cstrong>Read a .pdf of the ruling here\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "32249 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=32249",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/27/supreme-court-rules-california-cant-ban-violent-video-games-for-minors/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 860,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1309208299,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The Supreme Court today nullified a California law that would restrict access for minors to violent video games. AP report below. KQED's Joshua Johnson talked to local State Sen. Leland Yee, the author of the bill, after the ruling came down. Yee said he was disappointed but would review the decision to look for a",
"title": "Interview: Leland Yee After SCOTUS Throws Out His Violent Video Game Ban | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Interview: Leland Yee After SCOTUS Throws Out His Violent Video Game Ban",
"datePublished": "2011-06-27T13:39:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-06-27T13:58:19-07:00",
"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-rules-california-cant-ban-violent-video-games-for-minors",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/32249/supreme-court-rules-california-cant-ban-violent-video-games-for-minors",
"audioUrl": "http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2011/06/LelandYeeGames.mp3",
"audioDuration": null,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_32339\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/videogamesSM.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/videogamesSM-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"videogamesSM\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-32339\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court today nullified a California law that would restrict access for minors to violent video games. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/27/supreme-court-rules-california-cant-ban-violent-video-games-for-minors/#news\">AP report below\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED's Joshua Johnson talked to local State Sen. Leland Yee, the author of the bill, after the ruling came down. Yee said he was disappointed but would review the decision to look for a way to re-craft the law so that it addresses the court's freedom of speech concerns. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Audio and partial edited transcript below. Fun aural note: Yee's unintentional portmanteau when referring to this two-headed jurist: \"Justice Scalito.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/LelandYeeGames.mp3\">\u003cem>Leland Yee on SCOTUS decision striking down his law restricting access for minors to violent video games\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "audio",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/LelandYeeGames.mp3|titles=LelandYeeGames"
},
"numeric": [
":http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/LelandYeeGames.mp3|titles=LelandYeeGames"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\nI'm clearly disappointed by this decision. Once again the Supreme Court is siding with corporate America and Walmart against our children. I think the saving grace in the decision is that there were a number of dissenting opinions. Breyer, Alito, Kennedy...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But what the court missed is the fact that these ultra-violent video games are different technology than books, and it has a different effect on our children. It is not passive looking and passive reading of material. It's actively doing things and changing your brain connection, changing your behavior, and that's what is particularly harmful to our children. \u003c/p>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\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>And this...\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>One of the difficulties in terms of parents: We will never know the full extent of the cruelty and the violence in any of these games, because you have to be sophisticated enough to open the game into those higher levels of violence. \u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">Within a game are embedded different levels of violence and it's only if you are sophisticated enough to do the low-level violence that you get to experience the high-level violence. \u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As a result, many parents will not know what they're kids are playing. This is different than a movie. You watch a movie for two hours and you see everything. Within a game are embedded different levels of violence and it's only if you are sophisticated enough to do the low-level violence that you get to experience the high-level violence. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For many parents who are not that sophisticated in this technology, you'll never get to that higher level and therefore you'll never know what kinds of activities your kids are engaged in…\u003c/p>\n\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Lee also appeared on KQED Radio's Forum program today, along with a senior vice president of communications and industry affairs for the Electronic Software Association. \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201106271000\">LISTEN HERE\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the AP article on today's ruling:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"news\">WASHINGTON (AP) – WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to \"restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed\" despite complaints about graphic violence.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm,\" said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. \"But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Unlike depictions of \"sexual conduct,\" Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore,\" Scalia added.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that \"the freedom of speech,\" as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians,\" Thomas wrote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was written by \u003ca href=\"http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BEFA496BC-EDC8-4E38-9CC7-68D37AC03DFF%7D&DE=%7BEDF8FFFC-E59F-48D6-9C59-7E2B4345D18D%7D\">State Sen. Leland Yee\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf\">\u003cstrong>Read a .pdf of the ruling here\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/32249/supreme-court-rules-california-cant-ban-violent-video-games-for-minors",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_223",
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_689",
"news_1172",
"news_1589"
],
"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=u-s-supreme-court": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 180,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 197,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_100262",
"news_99826",
"news_99713",
"news_99173",
"news_92269",
"news_92229",
"news_92081",
"news_91703",
"news_75958",
"news_69013",
"news_36321",
"news_32249"
],
"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_u-s-supreme-court": {
"isLoading": true
},
"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_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_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_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_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_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_3877": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3877",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3877",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marraige",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marraige Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3896,
"slug": "same-sex-marraige",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marraige"
},
"news_4118": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4118",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4118",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Andy Pugno",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Andy Pugno Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4137,
"slug": "andy-pugno",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/andy-pugno"
},
"news_2626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gay marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gay marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2642,
"slug": "gay-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gay-marriage"
},
"news_2725": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2725",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2725",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2743,
"slug": "same-sex",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex"
},
"news_4863": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4863",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4863",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals",
"slug": "9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 4882,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals"
},
"news_335": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_335",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "335",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Barack Obama",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Barack Obama Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 343,
"slug": "barack-obama",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/barack-obama"
},
"news_548": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_548",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "548",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 557,
"slug": "california-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-supreme-court"
},
"news_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_323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 331,
"slug": "perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger"
},
"news_1244": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1244",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1244",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1256,
"slug": "vaughn-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-walker"
},
"news_80": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_80",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Military",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Military Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 81,
"slug": "military",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/military"
},
"news_2647": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2647",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2647",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Stolen Valor Act",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Stolen Valor Act Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2664,
"slug": "stolen-valor-act",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/stolen-valor-act"
},
"news_616": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_616",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "616",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California prisons",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California prisons Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 625,
"slug": "california-prisons",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-prisons"
},
"news_223": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_223",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 231,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/arts-and-culture"
},
"news_689": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_689",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "689",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Parenting",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Parenting Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 698,
"slug": "parenting",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/parenting"
},
"news_1589": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1589",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1589",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "violent video games",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "violent video games Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1601,
"slug": "violent-video-games",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/violent-video-games"
}
},
"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
}
}
