Page 3 - Upper Case News Today

Today was its clear these justices havent resolved the fundamental questions in their mind, even kennedy. kennedy said the trend toward equality may reach a magnificent end or go over a cliff. thats a chill statement it gave insight that even kennedy isnt too clear. >> scalia seems to have had more of an antigay rights agenda on decision making on the court. i want to play a little exchange between him and ted olson, talking about whether or not gay marriage has been deemed unconstitutional. let...

That would have been illegal. we had a case in california that decided that marriage -- interracial marriage, much earlier than the rest of the country. let me say also to this point about where california is, you know, four years prior to prop 8, there was an initiative on the california ballot that didnt change the constitution, it changed the statute and made a definition of marriage. the vote in california was i think in the 60% -- over 60% of californians voted in that initiative to define ...

You may argue that the legalization of gay marriage is relatively new. but the idea of two people wanting to join themselves in holy matrimony as is old as time. what you said is exactly right. and we should put aside the words gay marriage forever. were not talking about gay marriage. were talking about the freedom to marry. something the supreme court has recognized in at least 14 cases, as something very important and justice thurgood marshall said one? one of the cases, the case of loving vs...

Marriage will have real-world consequences and its possible and to see the future accurately enough to know exactly what the real-world consequences would be. and among those real-world consequences, your honor, we would suggest adverse consequences. >> if traditional marriages suffer at the hand of crazy, new-fangled gay marriages, it says who knows? it might be bad. will that be strong enough cause to deny a fundamental right. court for today indicated it may not even try to wade into all of t...

Court. justice kagan and others asked questions, and the attorneys on the anti gay side were unable to come up with a good reason and thats exactly what court after court and now state after state have found. >> eric, thats a great point that evan brings up, is that those who are in support of proposition 8 and against marriage equality have found themselves painted into the weird corner where they have to make the case where gay people getting married is somehow harmful to the institution of ma...

Unconstitutional? >> it was constitutional when we -- as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control. >> i see. when did that happen? >> there is no specific date and time. >> how am i supposed to know how to decide a case when you cant give me a date when the constitution changed? >> this seems to be a bit of a brilliant sort of scalia judicialujitsu, he is trying to undermine the argument the constitutionality of gay marriage, as no ...

By most standards, pedro quezada was already living the american dream. in the 1980s, he left the dominican republic and came to the united states to find work. he eventually settled in new jersey where he and his wife inez raised their five children. he opened his own bodega, often putting in 18-hour days. a fire restored must of the bodega three years ago, and on saturday he found himself with the winning $338 million powerball ticket. the fourth largest jackpot in powerball history. if quezad...

Fundamental questions in their mind, even kennedy. kennedy said the trend toward equality may reach a magnificent end or go over a cliff. thats a chill statement it gave insight that even kennedy isnt too clear. >> scalia seems to have had more of an antigay rights agenda on decision making on the court. i want to play a little exchange between him and ted olson, talking about whether or not gay marriage has been deemed unconstitutional. lets take a listen to that. >> when did it become unconsti...

We had a case in california that decided that marriage -- interracial marriage, much earlier than the rest of the country. let me say also to this point about where california is, you know, four years prior to prop 8, there was an initiative on the california ballot that didnt change the constitution, it changed the statute and made a definition of marriage. the vote in california was i think in the 60% -- over 60% of californians voted in that initiative to define marriage in a man and a woman ...

Addicting hundreds of years of juris prudence, we only involve in one direction, toward greater equality and greater in collusion, the acknowledgment to loving vs. virginia, is right on point. the supreme court managed to come back to the reinvague ration of principles of equal justice under law and due process and open the door a little wider. we were debating marriage equality in new york. there were a lot of arguments about its effect on religious institutions it it doesnt create problems for...