E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California today declined -- by an apparent vote of 21-4, though we cannot be certain about the numbers -- to take up the challenge to Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage in the state.
That leaves the lower court ruling in place, which declared it unconstitutional, and clears the way for supporters of Prop 8 to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, a step that the backers can be counted on to take. For now, the appeals court put a 90-day hold on the effect of today's order, which means that no same-sex marriages can be performed for at least the next 90 days.
As soon as the Prop 8 backers file their papers asking the Supreme Court to take the case, that will extend the stay for as long as it takes the justices to dispose of the case. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, we wouldn't learn about that order until October at the earliest, and the case probably wouldn't be argued until February or March of 2013.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case -- and again, we wouldn't hear of the court's order on that until the fall -- then the stay on the Prop 8 ruling would evaporate, and same-sex marriages could again proceed in California.
It's also quite likely that the Supreme Court will be asked in the coming term to hear a related issue, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That's the law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal.
So the justices might agree to hear both cases, or one of them, or neither. It the Supreme Court takes up just one of the cases, it's more likely to be the DOMA issue, because that involves striking down an act of Congress, which would be a strong factor in urging the court to hear it.
Leave a Comment:
One more reason to re-elect President Obama!
The last thing we need is Willard appointing more activist judges to the bench!
Hasn't the SCOTUS done enough damage to this country already?
something tells me this summer is going to be more interesting then it usually is
This SCOTUS is prepared to tell us all that Americans are not worthy of health care. They would also be willing to tell us through their twisted decisions that some of us don't have the same rights as others. President Obama will right these wrongs in his second term by replacing Thomas or Scalia or both. Both of them love to grind their respective axes.
How idiotic Fuxtsy sounds trying to redefine "activist judge". That term is reserved for liberal judges like the Gay judge that overturned a state constitutional amendment by saying it was unconstitutional by the state's constitution. LOL
So, YES, we need to get rid of the liberal "activist judges" on the SCOTUS who don't know the Constitution. Too bad Obama is an idiot and keeps appointing more.
I have always wondered why people don't want to have a single-payer healthcare system run by the government, it would be considerably cheaper in the long run for the average Americans.
I mean come on look at the Canadian system, it works for them why not for us too. it wold certainly get rid of the problem of people going to the hospital without any healthcare (which costs us average Americans more anyway)
Annoyed... my Canadian friends claim that the doctors are getting paid off to "hide" their health problems, so that the government doesn't have to pay. Knowing how honorable our government is here in the USA, that scares me!
Yea start running that ad during the campaign. "Elect Obama because we want more liberals on the Supreme Court".....
sirie:
umm how reliable are your Canadian friends, cause i have friends that claim 9/11 was conspiracy from the government to start a war with Afghanistan. Not saying your friends are wrong but i would like proof, cause i have friends from Canada as well and they think the way we do our healthcare system is crazy
Anyway no system is ever perfect and you will always have the few who want more money for themselves, and lucky for us if some government official does something corrupt we can always get rid of them, not the perfect solution, but it works. if you want a perfect system go to sleep and dream cause you will only find it there.
also a single-payer system would be cheaper run by the government is cause the government doesn't need to make a profit so it would cost you less, do you know how many millions of dollars private insurance dollars make on our health, not to mention there wont be any of the nonsense of not being covered because of a preexisting conditions.
like i said it wont be a perfect system, but we can always modify it to make it work better if needed
sirie ... I am a Canadian and you 'friends' are full of bull-puckey.
ideologyspoilstheview
you know every Country has some form of Conspiracy theorist of some sort or other.
not saying yours are sirie but if i where you i would get some facts straight
Hello Ideology! Tell us how you feel about the Canadian health care system.
Wayne - I agree with your opinion of the current Supreme Court, but you do know that the President can't "replace" justices, right? They serve for life. The odds of any of the current conservative justices retiring during an Obama 2nd term are zip, zilch, nada, bupkas, diddley. On the other hand, can Ruth Bader Ginsberg hold on through a Romney presidency?
MKM you are right the President can't replace the justices, but remember several of them are retiring soon, and its the presidents job to appoint a new justices when one does retire. i wouldn't want anymore republican justices on the SC then there already are.
yeah MKM, I am aware of the process. I am also aware that both Scalia and Thomas are getting long in the tooth and will need replacing soon, as per the Constitution. It's the circle of life thing going on here. Neither one of them look too healthy to me. I'm not sure that either of them have another four years left to serve. If they get through Obama's second term they won't make it through Hillary's two terms. Let's give the president a Congress who will work with him so we can achieve fairness in this country for all of our citizens!
Obama/Biden 2012
Fareed Zakaria on CNN presented on segment of Healthcare systems around the world and it saddens me that the United States thinks of itself as #1 in so many categories and yet as a world leader we rank much lower than other industrialized nations in how we provide health care and how much money is wasted and stolen via fraud. Yet with all of the money that goes through the System the actual healthcare received is subpar for so many folks.
Zakaria focused on an alternative program implemented in Camden NJ that is working and the Suits in charge of everything healthcare insurance hope that most Americans never hear about it because then there would be major clamor for REAL healthcare reform.
Btw, if the SCOTUS repeals Obamacare what are the people benefitting from it today going to do going forward. No insurance company is going to pick them up. At least not the one I work for.
I would love to hear from medical professionals in the United States but within spitting distance of the Canadian border.....As I understand it, Canadians are happy to come into the US for treatment and care and pay cash money for it, as their health program in Canada certainly does not reimburse US doctors and facilities. To have the best standard of medical care in the world is a polar opposite of free health care. It costs money to offer the best possible care and treatment. I find the single payer, government controlled model to be frightening, because the individual's health would become the province of politics-treatments and research based upon what is politically correct at any given time, and therefore subject to change as the administrations change. It gives government an element of control in your personal life that is much more scary than the ramblings of politicos over birth control and abortion issues. I don't want government to decide who lives and dies, be it on a case by case basis, or as absolute definitions of what diseases are worthwhile to treat and which are not.
If the SCOTUS shoots down healthcare, many, many people will die because some deadbeats don't think they should have to pay for health insurance because the rest of us should do it for them at the ER. If this goes down, so many will never be insured by any company. This is madness.
The GOP is constantly telling us that we are the greatest nation in the world, but everything in their book, is too much for its citizens.
um sue im not sure where you got your information, but i know Canadians and they think we are crazy on how we run our healthcare system.
Not to mention that a single-payer healthcare system would actually be cheaper in the long run. also health companies are already deciding on who gets to live our die by the fact if you have a preexisting condition it is next to impossible to get good healthcare here, with a single-payer system that wouldn't be a problem cause everyone is covered.
also don't forget that our education system is pitiful as well, we have one of the most inefficient education system there is, yet the all the GOP want to do is cut the spending budget for it.
Sue, I live in Washington and the Canadians I have met love their health insurance. I met one pair of Canadians who told me about a friend that would not come with them to the United States. The lady was not feeling well and was afraid she would get sick and she could not afford our health care and didn't want to take the chance of getting sick in America.
I have spent several summers in Canada on a boat, so I have met my share of Canadians.
I have not met all Canadians, but the ones I have met love their health care and think we are crazy to be so far behind the rest of the industrialized nations in the world, for our health care.
Faux is not going to tell you the truth. So all you are doing is being a sucker-repeat-a-lie for the republicans.
Proposition 8?
See !!!!!!!!!!!
- you can't put everything to a vote and expect The People to make the right decision. People's vote should be balanced by the elites, for example, the California Supreme Court that had given gays their deserved marriage rights before the people took it away in Proposition 8.
"rational"one...the "legislating from the bench" talking point is a Karl Rove attempt at accusing his enemies of doing precisely what his allies are doing. Rove and the other turd-blossoms in training have used the phrase to describe any judge, including those considered to be conservative, that rules in a way contrary to their fascist manifesto. Using the term to describe Rove/Cheney (Bush, I am sure, just did what he was told to do) appointees is very appropriate and accurate. By complaining about it, "rational"one, you only show that you are easily duped by parlor tricks and your that words can not be trusted.
Sue: Where do you get your information? You run the risk of sounding like just another brainwashed, FOX tabloid channel watching teabagger. It was a lame attempt to try and resurrect Palin's "death panel" lie...do you prefer to allow insurance companies, beholden to no one but those who own their stock, to choose whether you live or die? Does that really seem intelligent to you? Really??
I encourage both of you to turn off your propaganda and practice some independent thought. It is quite liberating.
Supreme Court's going to be busy, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as conservatives would like to believe. Attitudes across the country are changing on this issue - perhaps not in the deep south, but they are the minority.
Gays should have their Civil Union with all the Benefits that the Traditional Marriage between a man a woman have. It does not matter if I agree with it or not and is not a Traditional Marriage, get it, TRADITIONAL. The State has the last word and not the Federal. As a Catholic I don't agree with it, but if that is waht the one then let it be so.
The Affordable Health Care (known as the Obama Care) should be struck down by the Court. I think there is about 2 things that could be save with some modifications.
Yes the Supreme Court is going to be busy. The number one issue is still the Economy.
CC - just replace "Gays" with any other minority: African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and you'll see just how prejudiced your comment sounds. Certainly you'd never deny those minorities the same, basic rights you enjoy, would you? So why do you single gays out?
@Ursula-279622 - Gays, as a class, cannot procreate outside of their marriage and are a drain on society. Every other minority "class" pays their way and improves their "class" status. Gays can only increase their class status by recruiting. Sounds more like a religion, right? and they would better be protected under the freedom of religion, however, their doctrine sucks.
Wow, this topic really brings out the best in conservative opinions. Concern Citizen showed a subtle disdain for gays, but RationalOne shows outright hatred.
RationalOne - Gays are a drain on society, how? The gays I know pay their own way and have pretty lucrative jobs. So, what the h**l is your point? I'm guessing you actually think you have a point?
Rational One -
Funny you should mention the procreation thing. An article about this same topic on another MSNBC site noted that:
"A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in February that the ban discriminated against gays and lesbians and served no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians." It rejected the key argument by ban supporters that Prop 8 furthered "responsible procreation."
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12068323-federal-appeals-court-wont-revisit-californias-prop-8-gay-marriage-ban-likely-headed-to-us-supreme-court?lite
So let me get this straight (no pun intended) - this isn't about civil rights, it's about "responsible procreation"? So answer me this: my ability to procreate - responsibly or otherwise - was taken away by emergency surgery in my childbearing years. Does that make me a "drain on society" too?
Meanwhile, my gay step-brother and his partner have adopted two beautiful, smart, well-adjusted children in the last few years. They own a successful restaurant with a gorgeous two-story apartment above it, so one or the other or both of them are home with the kids every single day. They can afford the best schools, their kids have close family on three continents and have already traveled to more parts of the world than I ever will. Can you explain how they're a "drain on society"?
And while you're at it, please explain how nice "classy" heterosexual folks like the Octomom are NOT a "drain on society". Explain how children who are abandoned and abused are not a "drain on society". Explain how deadbeat but oh so very heterosexual dads are improving their children's "class" status. It should be really interesting.
Oh non-RationalOne, gays are perfectly capable of reproducing, the males have testicles and the females ovaries and they do not recruit, there are no Uncle/Auntie Gay Wants You posters.
JoAnne-
Mitt Romney and the Republicans support "two parent" families, as long as the parents are heterosexual.
There are SO many kids in foster care, orphanages or the "system" that could use the love and stability these parents could bring.
TNSEVOL -
The idea that Romney and "Rational One" and other conservatives would rather have seen these two children brought up by the two young unwed mothers who could ill afford to support them or be dumped into foster care or orphanages is really sad. Sad, and appallingly ignorant of life out here in the real world. The good news is that these kids are our future, and the future is going to be very bright.
ROFL, the firestorm begins.
JoAnne, does having your surgery make you a new class of minority that you are seeking rights for? Are you claiming Octomom is now a new minority class? Should we make laws specifically just for these new minority classes you are creating? We are talking minority classes, not individual cases within a class.
Gays, as a class, are a drain on society because children NEED BOTH a mother AND a father. There are necessary emotional ties that your gay step-brother's children will never be able to form with a mother.
Psychology has proven over and over that children need a father and they need a mother. Period. It's sad when family relationships break down and one parent leaves. That's called dysfunctional. When their children grow up with psychological problems from not having these necessary bonds, society pays for it as a whole.
It's insane that you are not only wanting to legalize the creation of additional dysfunctional families, but calling it normal? It's NOT. It doesn't matter how you want to rewrite biology books, two bulls will never make a family. Nor are there any reported cases of life-long homosexual relationships within nature.
Additionally, homosexuals as a class, are a drain because it is my children and your children, not their own, that will be supporting them when they retire. Are there individual cases within the heterosexual class, sure, but there are no other minority classes that are a built-in drain on society.
Rational One,
How are gays a drain on society? I read your post 4 times and none of it makes sense.
JoAnne,
Octomom , Talk about a drain on society, what a great example. FYI, did you hear she is now stripping to promote her adult film coming out in July?
Non-Rational1 ... a dysfunctional family exists when either parent is abusive and the other is acquiescent but they stay together for the 'sake' of the children. Your poorly masked hatred hints strongly that you are a product of such a family.
Hey, thetotas -
Don't know if you saw it, but I gave you a shout-out over on the Condoleezza Rice thread. Thanks again, it meant a lot.
"Rational" One: "Additionally, homosexuals as a class, are a drain because it is my children and your children, not their own, that will be supporting them when they retire."
Oh, where to even start? "As a class"???? Homosexuals come in the same classes as the rest of us, and many - like my relatives - are far wealthier than I'll ever be. They will need support neither from your children, my children, nor their own children when they retire, because - how many times can I say this? - they're wealthy! In fact, their kids are more likely to be supporting YOU when you retire, because they're going to be growing up wealthy themselves. Oh, and somewhere in there, I think you even implied that adopted children aren't the same as "real" children, or at least that they wouldn't support their parents like they would support "real" parents. You should be ashamed.
In two years of posting here, I've never stooped to calling someone a blithering idiot. I'm stopping now before I tarnish my record.
Exactly!! So, why do you want to create MORE dysfunctional families when the ones we have are in trouble??????
Really??? Just because they are wealthy they are going to be growing their own food, generating their own electricity, maintaining their yards, homes, healthcare, finances, etc, etc, etc. Money provides FOR services. PEOPLE provide SERVICES. It will be MY children who will be providing those services to those who are too selfish to have and raise children of their own to help maintain and improve society.
"Exactly!! So, why do you want to create MORE dysfunctional families when the ones we have are in trouble??????"
Heterosexuals are no less dysfunctional than Gays, both are human and with all that that entails, ergo, there would not be "MORE" dysfunctional families if there were fewer gays and hence more straights.
Heterosexuals who decide not to have children are selfish?
Rational One - your though processes are pathetic as well as simply being wrong on all points.
poorly written sentence on my part ... should read fewer instead of MORE
The Ninth Circus doesnt have a stellar reputation in the Supreme Court. Has a batting average below the Mendoza line...
No court has a stellar reputation in the Supreme Court based on cases that are taken.
Over the past several terms, the Supreme Court has reversed (depending on the year) between 65 and 80% of the cases that it heard.
During that same time period, (depending on the year), the Supreme Court has reversed between 70 and 80% of the cases that it has taken from the Ninth Circuit.
Some years, the Ninth Circuit does better than the average Circuit and, some years, it has done worse.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court refuses to take most of the cases presented from any court, and no party even asks the Supreme Court to take a case in a minority of cases.
Lastly, most of the Ninth's "bad reputation" comes from federal habeas cases in which the Ninth Circuit is not sufficiently deferential to lower court decisions (especially State courts). Since the findings in the Prop 8 case by the District Court favored the opponents of Prop 8, that problem is not applicable to this case.
Let's just tell it the way it is - the only thing Supreme in the US anymore is led by Diana Ross. When the far right bought the court with Scalia, Alito, and Roberts it lost it's Supreme status. They will vote whichever way Karl Rove directs them. What a pity - the Supreme Court used to stand for something.
To Ursula-279622 who writes:
Excuse me Ursula, besides being black/Hispanic/female myself as I have mentioned many many times, is it not call Gay Marriage by all?. Please go bark at another tree. Please read carefully and let me know what words do you want me to use. Incredible Bruja.
Ah, when the truth hurts, let the name-calling begin!
the 9th is the worst court in the nation. The law should be decided by the state courts since this is a States Rights issue. The Government has no enumerated power to legislate any marriage rules and the Supreme Court has no right to rule on the legality of any state law or ruling by a state court unless there is a violation of the bill of rights. There are no "rights" conferred to gay persons in the bill of rights.
Oh, Chief Justice Roberts, what to do, what to do...pay back your corporate masters or understand that the Equal Protection Clause means exactly that!
I have read that you are becoming concerned about your legacy, Roberts, and you should be. Citizens United tells us a lot about you.
But it says nothing that you should be proud of.
NewDay---the best thing for Roberts' legacy is that fact that he wasn't Chief Justice for Bush v. Gore.
How about how he incorrectly administered the oath of office to President Obama, requiring a second swearing in.
No kidding, SF. That should have been the easiest part of his job.
But newday, think of all the country clubs he will become an honorary member of.
I need to start paying more attention, I guess. Why in the world are the federal or state governments mucking about in an issue concerning who marries who?
I do wonder, though, how many right wingers will bring up the term 'nanny-state' in response to this thread....
what ever happened to the idea that everyone is created equal and all have the freedom of choice
Hey, ideo! Missed reading what you have had to say!
Yep, he will be welcome in the Country Club set for sure!
DBO:
and yet the republicans want to regulate and stop abortions, which btw would make Government bigger
kinda hypocritical if you ask me
By the way, RationalOne: you are WRONG! What Psychologists know is that children of same sex couples do as well as children of heterosexual couples. One study, by Gartell/Bois, followed children of same sex couples through adolescence. That study is easily found on the internet, as are a gazillion more that give the same information.
Quit using Psychologists to further your bigotry. The only people that run off at the mouth about children needing both a mom and dad to be successful are right wing bigots.
"Why in the world are the federal or state governments mucking about in an issue concerning who marries who?"
Your state and every other state in the Union has injected themselves into the regulation of marriage when they started issuing marriage licenses. If the States had not regulated marriage in the first place (for the sole reason to collect a new tax) then anyone could marry anyone, or anything. All states have found it unacceptable for multiple wives or husbands, the marriage of humans to animals, and marriage of brothers to sisters, and other such things. The state has gounds to do this based on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which gives the right to regulate anything not in the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. If you choose to not have your state involved in the business of regulation of marriage at all, then you have to agree to beastiality, and the other things that can happen when some people prefer other choices in their idea of marriage. You can't have it both ways inb this case. If the state regulates some, but not all things in marriage, then there is no equal protection under the law and THAT is unconstitutional. For the Supreme Court to say that DOMA is legal would be WRONG since there is no enumerated power of the Federal Government to regulate marriage. To let the ruling of the 9th District Court to stand is also incorrect since that is ALSO the Federal Government regulating marriage; also unconsitutional. The state of California has made it's law and that law should stand.
annoyedperson said "and yet the republicans want to regulate and stop abortions, which btw would make Government bigger. kinda hypocritical if you ask me."
I agree with your statement but you need to remember that the Supreme Court mad law from the bench when they ruled on Roe v Wade. That ruling was unconstitutional since there is no enumerated pwoer in the Constitution to regulate childbirth or any aspect of childbirth including the termination of pregnancy. This was an over reach of the court and since there is no-one that has the guts to challenge the members of the court within the Congress, the ruling will stand no matter how unconstitutional it is.
States have the power of childbirth since the 10th Amendment gives that power to them. I can agree with your statement in the Constitutional standing, but do not agree that the termination of pregnancy for other than reasons of saving the mother is moral. Morality and Constitutionality are two different things.
The Supreme Court should not, by its own standards, take the Proposition 8 case. Whether the Ninth Circuit decision is correct or not, the Ninth Circuit did not find a right to gay marriage. Instead, they found that, under the unique circumstances of the enactment of Proposition 8, the repeal of gay marriage was motivated by an intent to discriminate against homosexuals. Because the decision was fact-based and is applicable only to California, it does not present a question that would apply to any other cases. Under the standard for taking cases, the United States Supreme Court does not take cases to correct errors by lower courts but rather to clarify legal issues of general applicability. As the Ninth Circit has stripped the case of any legal issue of general applicability, it does not fit within the standards set forth by the Supreme Court for taking the case (which is why the NInth Circuit ruled as it did).
Hooray for the Ninth Circuit!
If the pro side loses the con side will appeal and if the con side wins the pro side appeals. Who cares what the voters think anyway. What matters is what some old judge thinks. What has this nation come to?
Interesting article in the local newspaper yesterday about the many families who are resorting to fund raising to cover their children's medical bills. The specific case they mentioned was a young boy at my son's school who has had to have two surgeries to remove brain tumours. The family in question has insurance but their out-of-pocket expenses are in the hundreds of thousands. The young mother had to quit her job and can't work because the boy has doctor's appointments almost daily. The family is also concerned about reaching their "lifetime maximum" for healthcare bnefits.
I don't know the answer, but there is something wrong with a healthcare system when a hard-working family man who plays by the rules and pays for health insurance finds himself facing almost insurmountable medical bils and has to rely on fund-raising to make ends meet. Thank God for the local Catholic school and parish who pitched in and held several fund-raising events.
It does seem that the oft touted 'unalienable right to life' doesn't include being healthy unless you are wealthy enough to afford it...
Dear Friends:
This article was stated right. Same Sex! Same Sex! Same Sex!
Marriage man and woman legally able to betroth and religious cermony and children and not be accused of same sex, adultry, whoredom, bigamy, polygamy, insest, deviant sex, and other
ow, or why, is it that any group no matter how small can claim some sort of previously unheard of right to be allowed to do whatever it is they want. They always use the term discriminatory or violation of, but it's at most a specious claim if not downright a lie. The Constitution did not (and as far as I know it hasn't be re-written) give an infinite laundry list of rights other than to obligate the majority to respect the minority. That doesn't mean that at the merest peep from some far-out group should automatically be granted some sort of Constitutional right backed by the legislative power of the Congress of the United States which is there to represent ALL the people.
We get rightfully upset when we find any specific group be it public or corporate has somehow been given preferential treatment at the top levels of government but seem to quiver in our boots if this same kind of beneficial treatment is given to some group whose demands are specious at best and downright anti-social at worst yet contain the words 'civil rights'.
What will marriage come to mean after a generation or two of being defined as being some sort of legal recognition of a pact between some number of living entities. It certainly won't be a commitment before God to bind a man and a women together to have and to raise children, or to work together to strengthen the social fabric. After all when you get right down to it the nuts and bolts it all comes down to just one thing. The social acceptance by society of sex between two people of the same sex. It can't be about having children and it certainly can't be as healthy an atmosphere in which to raise children regardless of the loud protestations of various groups who defend homosexual behavior. It has to lead, as has been my experience, to even more confusion and lack of a center in the life of a young child, and there's no question but that it denigrates the views and beliefs of a vast majority of the population who describe themselves as Christians by totally destroying their understanding and definition of 'marriage'.
So despite all the negatives attached to such a movement we counter by saying that its this minorities 'right' to trample the beliefs of the majority (which have existed across centuries among a vast array of civilizations), because what...they say so? The passage of a national law that recognizes 'Civil Unions' and gives to them all of the legal rights that would pertain to a normal heterosexual couple would have been acceptable years ago by a large majority of Americans and probably most Christians, but as it's being pushed now it will do way more harm to society then any possible good.
All because something like 2-3% of the population finds sex between members of the same sex to be their preferred lifestyle ????
All of your arguments are compelling but most are based in emotion. The fact of the matter is not based in emotion but in the FACT that the Federal Government has this little document that is called the Constitution. It lays out the enumerated powers of all three branches of the government and then in the 10th Amendment that states that all powers that are not spelled out are given to the States or the People to regulate. Since all the states regulate marriage within their borders by the licensing of marriage they are the sole regulators of marrige, NOT the Congress, the Supreme Court, the President or the Federal 9th District Court. DOMA should be overturned based on Constitutional principles that do not give power to regulate marriage. The California law should be allowed to stand based on the same argument. The 9th District Court should have thrown out the case based on the rights of the State to regulate what the voters decided to do within their borders.
Google First Scandal.
As I have said on many occasions, the regulation of marriage is not within the enumerated powers of the Federal government in any of the three branches. The Supreme Court should hear both the California case and the DOMA case. In the case of DOMA, it should be overturned by the court since the law is unconstitutional on he grounds that they cannot make law in an area that is covered by the 10th Amendment. In the case of the California law, the Court should overturn the 9th District on the same grounds. It is within the perview of the States to make laws regarding marriage since it is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government.