O'Reilly got particularly angry when talking with Fox News analyst Juan Williams, calling Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that the backers of Proposition 8 had no standing to appeal the case "just absurd."

Williams argued that in cases like Prop 8 and Obamacare, Roberts "made a decision based on what he thought was in the political best interest of the Court."

"That's not his job!" O'Reilly exploded. "That's not his job, Juan!"

Here's the video. The interview with Williams begins at around 4:25:

Continue Reading...

Monday was the first chance for all but a handful of California's same-sex couples to wed since 2008, when about 18,000 couples got hitched in a brief window before a voter-approved ban.

Last week, the high court ruled that backers of Proposition 8 didn't have standing to defend the measure in court, and late Friday the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay, allowing some weddings that afternoon.

The Los Angeles County clerk-recorder's office logged 600 online marriage license applications over the weekend and posted extended hours Monday to deal with the crush.

Continue Reading...

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit lifted its injunction against same-sex marriages, which had been put in place pending a Supreme Court ruling on the legal challenge to Proposition 8. Last week, the Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits, as the supporters of the measure, which banned same-sex marriage in California, did not have standing to appeal a District Court ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, meaning that the only barrier to same-sex marriage in the state was the injunction.

Since the Ninth Circuit's decision, same-sex couples have already begun marrying in the state. But supporters of Proposition 8 argued that the injunction could not be lifted until the Supreme Court decision was finalized, which occurs 25 days after a decision is handed down.

Kennedy had dissented from the majority opinion on the ruling, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Continue Reading...

“Our goal is to have marriage equality, that is guaranteed by the United States constitution, enforced in every single state in the Union,” Boies said on CNN's State of the Union.

“There isn't any state we're giving up on,” he added.

From CNN:

Boies argued Sunday that the decision made by the Supreme Court can be applied on a national scale, rather than just California. Earlier this week, he told CNN’s Gloria Borger that proponents of same-sex marriage plan to get marriage equality in all 50 states within the next five years. Currently, 13 states plus the District of Columbia approve same-sex marriage.

Continue Reading...

“We are manufacturing the right to redefine marriage,” Eastman said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He added: “That’s judicial tyranny, not the kind of system we have.”

Watch, via Mediaite:

Continue Reading...

Reuters reports:

In their application asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit and reinstate the gay marriage ban, opponents argued the appeals court had jumped the gun in lifting its stay.

The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the 9th Circuit lacked authority to act when it did, and that it violated the terms of its own stay requiring the ruling remain in place "until final disposition by the Supreme Court."

Continue Reading...

Though wedding bells may be weeks away, same-sex couples and their supporters filled city blocks of San Francisco and West Hollywood on Wednesday night to savor the long awaited decisions as thumping music resounded.

"Today the words emblazoned across the Supreme Court ring true: equal justice under law," said Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs who challenged California's gay marriage ban, as he celebrated in West Hollywood.

In one of two 5-4 rulings, the high court cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California, holding that the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified a voter-approved ban for the ballot did not have the authority to defend it after state officials refused. The justices thus let stand a San Francisco trial court's ruling in August 2010 that overturned the ban.

In the other, the court wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, putting legally married gay couples on equal federal footing with all other married Americans, allowing them to receive the same tax, health and pension benefits.

Continue Reading...

Bachmann, R-Minn., had put out a statement in response to the ruling, saying that "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."

Watch, via Mediaite:

Continue Reading...

First there's DOMA: The Court held that Section 3 of the law, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" as only referring to unions between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. This means that couples in states that legally recognize same-sex marriages - and only in those states -  are now considered married under federal law, and can receive those benefits that federal law confers upon married couples. This amounts to over 1,000 benefits, all of which are listed at the United States General Accounting Office, and includes Social Security, death and other tax benefits (which were those benefits at issue in the case before the Court, called United States vs. Windsor).

Continue Reading...

I'm not asking we forget marriage equality. I'm not requesting that one inch of the hard-fought ground gained Wednesday recede. I'm saying instead that as we recognize that two men or two women can forge together loving, enduring, legally recognized unions, it's time to retire the belittling phrase "gay marriage" itself, once and for all. Calling it "gay marriage" is like calling it "black marriage" or "geriatric marriage" or any other absurd, insulting modifier. It anoints the institution with otherness and makes it seem outside the norm. Marriage Substitute. Marriage Lite. I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage! The term doesn't even have the brilliant hilarity of American Family Association director Bryan J. Fischer's definition of the Supreme Court ruling Wednesday as a victory for "sodomy-based marriage." At least that sounds fun.

Continue Reading...

Perry and Stier were soon joined on air by fellow plaintiffs Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami to listen in on the celebratory call.

You can watch the surprising moment here:

Continue Reading...

In the immediate wake of the Supreme Court's rulings striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 in California, the right-wing media remained relatively silent. At around 11 this morning, National Review led with a piece on President Obama's "radical climate agenda." Over at the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol was on the news with "Comprehensive immigration reform? Just say no."

The National Organization for Marriage didn't appear to have updated its site, focusing instead on suing the IRS and a "major victory" for marriage supporters" in Illinois, a comparably minor incident that happened last month. The professional homophobes over at the Family Research Council were similarly mum. [Ed.: They've now responded. See below.]

It's almost as if the right collectively realized that fighting marriage equality is not a winning issue in the 21st century. If so we wouldn't have anything to post. But they didn't completely disappoint.

Continue Reading...

As Raw Story first pointed out, over 200 conservative activists released a letter under the name "Freedom Federation," writing that "Like many other concerned Americans, we await the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on two cases which open up the possibility that the institution of marriage will be further undermined by a judicial opinion. We pledge to stand together to defend marriage as what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children."

The letter continues that "Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage," and "As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross."

Continue Reading...

Sixty percent of Americans now say they have a close friend or family member who is gay, an 11 percent jump from 2010. In the 1990s, most Americans said exactly the opposite.

Essentially, a progressive societal shift has taken place — what was once considered taboo has now become polite dinner table conversation in a good number of American households. And while civil rights advancements almost always provoke some societal tension, this trend toward a humanization of the subject may largely insulate the LGBT equality movement from the setbacks that have sometimes befallen the reproductive rights movement.

Continue Reading...

"There has been movement across the board," Dave Kanevsky, the research director for the Republican polling outfit American Viewpoint, which was involved in the survey, told the Los Angeles Times. "Every group has moved" in favor of same-sex marriage, he said.

The Times reports that one of the most significant shifts has been among older voters:

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

A significant number of elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens is now talking about “charting a path” for them; a bipartisan group of senators is expected to present a draft bill April 8.

Even a few who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.

It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for marriage equality at the highest in the ten years the question has been asked, with 58% of Americans in favor and 36 percent opposed.

Continue Reading...

Before pointing out that "we let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years from 1898 to 1954," she asked: “If the issue is letting the states experiment (with same-sex marriage bans) and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” The question embodied much of the sentiment of other justices, leading the New York Times to summarize the hearing with the headline: "Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case."

Three theories are at work in this line of reasoning: 1) The judiciary has an obligation to make sure its rulings reflect public opinion, 2) judges should always avoid rulings that conflict with public opinion, and 3) the Supreme Court should not immediately strike down laws violating the Constitution's equal protection precepts because state fights over those statutes allegedly help the public reach consensus on those underlying issues.

Continue Reading...

The Hill reports:

The conservatives were angered by Roberts’s surprise backing of President Obama’s healthcare law last year, and they don't want to see a similar surprise in the two marriage cases the court considered this week.

“I certainly think his credentials were tarnished with the ObamaCare decision,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Does he care about his standing with conservatives? I don’t know.”

Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, agreed, saying that if Roberts doesn't vote with the other conservative justices “on another major issue … then I think the whole understanding of the current makeup of the Supreme Court would be in question."

Continue Reading...