6 chapters across the catalog
The United States Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, affecting federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Originally signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the law defined marriage as between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The ruling allows legally married same-sex couples to access federal benefits and file joint taxes, though the hosts question the role of the judiciary in creating law.
The Supreme Court's review of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discussed, noting that Bill Clinton originally signed the act into law. A Dutch writer's surprise at this fact serves as a jumping-off point for a discussion on how the U.S. Constitution is misunderstood abroad. The hosts argue that many modern debates involve issues that fall outside the original scope of the Constitution.
Justice Elena Kagan's questioning during the DOMA hearings is highlighted, specifically her hypothetical regarding marriage licenses for people over age 55. The argument challenges the notion that marriage is strictly for procreation. The hosts react to the courtroom's laughter and the absurdity of the government's interest in regulating biological functions through legal marriage.
A segment from MSNBC is criticized for referring to "states' rights" as a "legal technicality" in the context of the DOMA debate. The hosts argue that this framing is a form of media programming designed to diminish the importance of the 10th Amendment. They contend that the federal government's involvement in marriage definitions is a secondary issue to the constitutional authority of individual states.
A legal analysis by a listener explores the distinction between rights and privileges regarding marriage under American common law. Specific financial disparities caused by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are detailed, including the inability for same-sex couples to file joint federal taxes, pass on Social Security benefits, or avoid inheritance taxes. These issues represent a significant revenue stream for the government, which may explain the resistance to federal recognition.
Barney Frank, Antonin Scalia, and The Persistence Mantra
Representative Barney Frank criticized Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, calling him a "homophobe" during an interview regarding same-sex partner benefits for federal court employees. Meanwhile, the hosts identify "persistence" as the new mantra for the Obama administration's domestic policy. They compare this branding effort to the rhetorical style of the previous Bush administration.
