Same-sex marriage's big day in court: What's at stake?


J. David Ake / AP
Bundled against the cold in Washington, people wait in line Friday so they can get into the Supreme Court for oral arguments next week on challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.
 
By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

It's going to be a big week for the Supreme Court as justices hear two landmark same-sex marriage cases on consecutive days.

One is a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (more commonly known as DOMA), which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The other is a challenge of California's Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage that was approved by voters in 2008.

Here are answers to some of the key questions being asked about these cases -- which could have huge implications for hundreds of thousands of gay families, dozens of state laws and even the national political landscape.

Why is the Supreme Court hearing these cases now?

The Prop. 8 case and several different challenges to DOMA have slowly wound through lower courts over the years. Observers predicted justices would take one of the DOMA challenges but they didn't expect them to grab the Prop. 8 case, too. The thinking is that the justices feel it’s time to address the question of same-sex marriage, so they now have a state and a federal challenge (interestingly, the DOMA case they selected, United States v. Windsor, was the newest of the bunch).

Why are they being heard so close together?

The cases are related because they both address whether gays and lesbians have the right to wed. The federal case is more focused on the benefits that same-sex couples are denied under the Defense of Marriage Act, while Prop. 8 centers around the right to marry. Ultimately, though, gay marriage supporters say they are both about whether gays and lesbians are treated differently because of their sexual orientation.

Could the Supreme Court legalize gay marriage everywhere?

The court can go many ways in its ruling in the California case. It could maintain the narrow focus that a federal court had in overturning Prop. 8, when it ruled that a fundamental right like marriage can't be granted and then taken away (couples were briefly allowed to wed in 2008 in the Golden State before voters approved Prop. 8, ending the practice).

Alternatively, the high court could say state prohibitions of same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, opening the door for gays and lesbians to wed in states where that's banned. Another possibility is that the justices could overturn the lower court's decision and reinstate the ban on gay marriage.

They could also say the group bringing the challenge doesn’t have standing. Yeah, that’s a lot of possibilities.

In the DOMA case, the justices also could address the constitutionality of gay marriage or they could find that the federal government should not be in the marriage business at all and instead leave that up to states to regulate.

If I’m a married gay couple, should I be worried that one of these rulings could affect my marriage?

No. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court would make any ruling that negatively affects laws permitting same-sex marriage in the nine states plus the District of Columbia that allow gays and lesbians to wed. There’s mostly just upsides for already-wed couples.

For example, if the court decides DOMA is unconstitutional, couples would then receive all of the benefits that have been denied to them under that federal law, such as the right to file joint taxes, the protections of the Family Medical and Leave Act, and the ability of surviving spouses to access veterans’ benefits. Edie Windsor, the DOMA plaintiff, said she had to pay some $363,000 in federal estate taxes after her wife died, a bill that she wouldn't have had if they were a heterosexual couple.

Could ministers be forced to preside over gay weddings?

It does not seem so. At this point, most of the laws allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions provide exceptions for religious institutions that object to the ceremonies (New Jersey's civil unions bill does not have such a provision but the state's attorney general has given a clear opinion that such groups would be). This is a key area of concern often expressed by opponents of same-sex marriage.

What about civil unions? Why can't states just have those instead of same-sex marriages?

Well, six states do, and other states, like California, allow for domestic partnerships (these often guarantee the same rights and responsibilities as marriage). The Obama administration, in a legal argument it submitted calling for the end of Prop. 8, said creating such a parallel system was only meant to deny the “marriage” label and was therefore discriminatory against gays and lesbians. Opponents say these kinds of legal arrangements help preserve traditional marriage while giving gays and lesbians a path to be legally recognized as a couple.

I'm confused: civil unions, domestic partnerships, same-sex marriages?

Yes, a patchwork of state laws and constitutional amendments govern marriage across the country.

What does the anti-gay marriage camp argue?

They say the tradition of marriage is thousands of years old and defines a male-female union. They also argue that the state has an interest in promoting traditional families, and that procreation can only happen between a man and a woman. Finally, they say decisions about who can marry should be left up to the voters, not judges or lawmakers.

When are we going to hear from the justices?

In June, stay tuned.

I feel like a lot has been going on around these issues the last month or so. Is that right?

Yes, with the Supreme Court deadlines to file legal briefs in the cases, dozens of businesses, scholars, health experts, religious groups, gay and lesbian advocacy organizations, NFL players and the Obama administration have weighed in.

More than 131 Republicans, almost all out of office and some who once opposed same-sex marriage, submitted their argument on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed. Former President Bill Clinton recently penned an op-ed saying DOMA, which he signed into law, was unconstitutional and should be repealed. Days later, Hillary Clinton publicly announced her support for gay marriage, with some observers suggesting this may signal her presidential ambitions for the 2016 campaign.

Any idea how the justices will go?

Nothing is for sure (look at last year's health care decision), though pundits believe Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the swing vote. Some observers think DOMA's days as federal law could be over, but what the justices decide to do with Proposition 8 -- the California gay marriage ban -- is impossible to predict.

Related:

Gay rights timeline: Key dates in the fight for equality

Couples leading Prop. 8 fight: We are very excited to have the end in sight

Rush to the altar: Public figures proclaim support for gay marriage before Supreme Court arguments

PORTMAN: Coming out

By Will Portman

Monday, March 25, 2013

 

Jay LaPrete / AP

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, wearing the red jersey, riding in Columbus with his son Will in August 2012. Rob Portman said his views on gay marriage began changing in 2011 when Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told his parents he was gay.

I came to Yale as a freshman in the fall of 2010 with two big uncertainties hanging over my head: whether my dad would get elected to the Senate in November, and whether I’d ever work up the courage to come out of the closet.
I made some good friends that first semester, took a couple of interesting classes and got involved in a few rewarding activities. My dad won his election. On the surface, things looked like they were going well. But the truth was, I wasn’t happy.
I’d make stuff up when my suitemates and I would talk about our personal lives. I remember going to a dance in the Trumbull dining hall with a girl in my class and feeling guilty about pretending to be somebody I wasn’t. One night, I snuck up to the stacks in Sterling Library and did some research on coming out. The thought of telling people I was gay was pretty terrifying, but I was beginning to realize that coming out, however difficult it seemed, was a lot better than the alternative: staying in, all alone.
I worried about how my friends back home would react when I told them I was gay. Would they stop hanging out with me? Would they tell me they were supportive, but then slowly distance themselves? And what about my friends at Yale, the “Gay Ivy”? Would they criticize me for not having come out earlier? Would they be able to understand my anxiety about all of this? I felt like I didn’t quite fit in with Yale or Cincinnati, or with gay or straight culture.
In February of freshman year, I decided to write a letter to my parents. I’d tried to come out to them in person over winter break but hadn’t been able to. So I found a cubicle in Bass Library one day and went to work. Once I had something I was satisfied with, I overnighted it to my parents and awaited a response.
They called as soon as they got the letter. They were surprised to learn I was gay, and full of questions, but absolutely rock-solid supportive. That was the beginning of the end of feeling ashamed about who I was.
I still had a ways to go, though. By the end of freshman year, I’d only come out to my parents, my brother and sister, and two friends. One day that summer, my best friend from high school and I were hanging out.
“There’s something I need to tell you,” I finally said. “I’m gay.” He paused for a second, looked down at the ground, looked back up, and said, “Me too.”
I was surprised. At first it was funny, and we made jokes about our lack of gaydar. Then it was kind of sad to realize that we’d been going through the same thing all along but hadn’t felt safe enough to confide in each other. But then, it was pretty cool — we probably understood each other’s situation at that moment better than anybody else could.
In the weeks that followed, I got serious about coming out. I made a list of my family and friends and went through the names, checking them off one by one as I systematically filled people in on who I really was. A phone call here, a Skype call there, a couple of meals at Skyline Chili, my favorite Cincinnati restaurant. I was fortunate that virtually everyone, both from Yale and from home, was supportive and encouraging, calming my fears about how they’d react to my news. If anything, coming out seemed to strengthen my friendships and family relationships.
I started talking to my dad more about being gay. Through the process of my coming out, we’d had a tacit understanding that he was my dad first and my senator a distant second. Eventually, though, we began talking about the policy issues surrounding marriage for same-sex couples.
The following summer, the summer of 2012, my dad was under consideration to be Gov. Romney’s running mate. The rest of my family and I had given him the go-ahead to enter the vetting process. My dad told the Romney campaign that I was gay, that he and my mom were supportive and proud of their son, and that we’d be open about it on the campaign trail.
When he ultimately wasn’t chosen for the ticket, I was pretty relieved to have avoided the spotlight of a presidential campaign. Some people have criticized my dad for waiting for two years after I came out to him before he endorsed marriage for gay couples. Part of the reason for that is that it took time for him to think through the issue more deeply after the impetus of my coming out. But another factor was my reluctance to make my personal life public.
We had decided that my dad would talk about having a gay son if he were to change his position on marriage equality. It would be the only honest way to explain his change of heart. Besides, the fact that I was gay would probably become public anyway. I had encouraged my dad all along to change his position, but it gave me pause to think that the one thing that nobody had known about me for so many years would suddenly become the one thing that everybody knew about me.
It has been strange to have my personal life in the headlines. I could certainly do without having my sexual orientation announced on the evening news, or commentators weighing in to tell me things like living my life honestly and fully is “harmful to [me] and society as a whole.” But in many ways it’s been a privilege to come out so publicly. Now, my friends at Yale and the folks in my dad’s political orbit in Ohio are all on the same page. They know two things about me that I’m very proud of, not just one or the other: that I’m gay, and that I’m Rob and Jane Portman’s son.
I’m grateful to be able to continue to integrate my two worlds, the yin and yang of Yale and Ohio and the different values and experiences they represent in my life. When you find yourself between two worlds — for example, if you’re navigating the transition between a straight culture and a gay identity — it’s possible to feel isolated and alone, like you don’t fit in with either group that makes up a part of who you are.
But instead of feeling like you don’t belong anywhere, or like you have to reject one group in order to join another, you can build a bridge between your two worlds, and work to facilitate greater understanding between them.
I support marriage for same-sex couples because I believe that everybody should be treated the same way and have the same shot at happiness. Over the course of our country’s history the full rights of citizenship have gradually been extended to a broader and broader group of people, something that’s made our society stronger, not weaker. Gay rights may be the civil rights cause of the moment, but the movement fits into a larger historical narrative.
I’m proud of my dad, not necessarily because of where he is now on marriage equality (although I’m pretty psyched about that), but because he’s been thoughtful and open-minded in how he’s approached the issue, and because he’s shown that he’s willing to take a political risk in order to take a principled stand. He was a good man before he changed his position, and he’s a good man now, just as there are good people on either side of this issue today.
We’re all the products of our backgrounds and environments, and the issue of marriage for same-sex couples is a complicated nexus of love, identity, politics, ideology and religious beliefs. We should think twice before using terms like “bigoted” to describe the position of those opposed to same-sex marriage or “immoral” to describe the position of those in favor, and always strive to cultivate humility in ourselves as we listen to others’ perspectives and share our own.
I hope that my dad’s announcement and our family’s story will have a positive impact on anyone who is closeted and afraid, and questioning whether there’s something wrong with them. I’ve been there. If you’re there now, please know that things really do get better, and they will for you too.
Will Portman is a junior in Trumbull College.

Chief justice's lesbian cousin will attend landmark gay-marriage argument

 By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

 

A lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the landmark Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage and says she is confident he will see that gays deserve “dignity, respect, and equality under the law.”
Jean Podrasky told the Los Angeles Times that she will sit in a section of the courtroom reserved for relatives and guests of the chief justice. She said that her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, whom she wants to marry, will attend with her.
Podrasky, an accountant who the Times said is a first cousin of the chief justice on his mother’s side, wrote about Roberts in a column Monday for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
“I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law,” she wrote.
The court is hearing two gay-rights cases this week. On Tuesday, it will consider Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage approved by California voters in 2008. Podrasky lives in San Francisco.

On Wednesday, the court will take up the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks federal recognition of gay marriages sanctioned by states and prevents legally married gay couples from receiving certain federal benefits.
Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. He generally sides with the court’s conservative wing, but last year he sided with liberals on the court in upholding President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Podrasky told the newspaper that she usually sees the chief justice only on family occasions and that he knows she is gay. She hopes he will meet her partner during their visit to Washington.
Supreme Court justices can give tickets to family and other guests. The seats are to the justices’ left as they face the courtroom.
Podrasky told the newspaper that she got the coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, then going through his secretary. She said Roberts knows she is attending.
In the weeks before the 2008 election, Podrasky carried a sign opposing Proposition 8 at a transit station and handed out fliers on a college campus, the Times reported.
In her column, she wrote that she believes Roberts understands that ruling for gay marriage will not be “out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit,” and hopes that most of the other justices will join him.
“I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings,” she wrote.
Pete Williams of NBC News contributed to this report.
Related:
Same-sex couple wins $100,000 dream wedding
Gay marriage's big day in court: What's at stake?
Timeline: Key dates in the struggle for gay rights

Supreme Court takes up historic gay marriage battle

In their first ever review of same sex marriage, laws, the Supreme Court will hear two cases testing if state and local governments can limit their acceptance of marriage for gay couples. NBC's Pete Williams reports.

By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

The U.S. Supreme Court this week takes its first serious look ever at the issue of same-sex marriage, considering two cases that raise a fundamental issue: does the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection allow legal distinctions between same-sex couples and those of the opposite sex?
The greatest potential for a ruling with nationwide implications comes in a case from California, to be argued Tuesday, brought by proponents of Proposition 8. The following day, the court will hear a separate case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where they are legal.

NBC's Pete Williams joins The Daily Rundown for a preview of the upcoming legal battle over same-sex marriages.

Approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008, Prop 8 amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. It was placed on the ballot after 18,000 couples had been legally wed there.
A federal judge in San Francisco declared the ban unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling. Once a state grants a fundamental right like marriage, the appeals court said, it cannot later take it away, even by voter initiative.
Urging the Supreme Court to reverse those rulings, Prop 8's defenders argue that the state has a legitimate reason for treating same-sex couples differently: only couples consisting of a man and a woman can produce children.
"This indisputable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships demonstrates that Proposition 8 is constitutional, for the Constitution requires only that a state treat similarly situated persons similarly," they argue in their legal brief filed with the court.

Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, one of two gay couples fighting to strike down California's ban on gay marriage will have their case heard Tuesday at the Supreme Court.

"California has simply reserved a special form of recognition and support to those relationships that have long been thought to uniquely further vital societal interests," they say.
What's more, Prop 8's supporters argue, marriage is such an important institution that the courts should proceed with caution before changing the rules. "It is plainly reasonable for the people of California to be concerned about the potential consequences of such a profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution."
The case began three years ago when a gay couple, Jeff Zarillo and Paul Katami in Los Angeles, along with a lesbian couple from the Bay area, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, filed a lawsuit to challenge Prop 8. Their cause took on added notoriety when two of the nation's most prominent lawyers, conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies, agreed to take the case.
Olsen and Boies have been on opposite sides more often than not, most notably in the battle over counting disputed ballots from Florida in the presidential election of 2000.
They agree with the Prop 8 proponents on one issue. "Marriage is a unique, venerable, and essential institution."
The two couples, they say, "simply want to be part of it."
They argue that Prop 8 cannot meet the legal test required of a law that discriminates -- having a legitimate government purpose.  Its proponents, they argue, "have never identified a single harm that they, or anyone else, would suffer as a result of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry."
Banning same-sex marriage "does not increase the likelihood that opposite-sex couples capable of procreating will decide to get married, nor would permitting gay men and lesbians to marry decrease that likelihood," they say.
President Obama, after first saying that marriage was an issue for the states to decide on their own, changed course last year.  As a result, his administration's Justice Department has weighed in supporting the two couples.
"When it comes to marriage, the basic principle that America is founded on -- the idea that we're all created equal -- applies to everybody regardless of sexual orientation," MObama said at a White House news conference earlier this month.
If the Supreme Court invalidates Prop 8 based on the reasoning of the federal appeals court, the ruling would affect only California, permitting marriage for same-sex couples to resume there. No other state has granted and then withdrawn the marriage right for gay couples. But Olson and Boies urge the justices to go further and rule that because such an essential right is at stake, no state can refuse to permit same-sex couples to get married.

Thea Spyer describes her 44-year relationship with same-sex spouse Edie Windsor, and how Windsor's death inspired her to fight for gay marriage rights in a case that will be heard in the Supreme Court Wednesday.

The Supreme Court could reverse the lower courts and uphold Prop 8 as a legitimate exercise of the people's right to amend their state constitution, an outcome urged by the ballot measure's backers.
The Court also gave itself a way out of reaching the merits of the California case.  It directed lawyers for both sides to address an unusual aspect of the controversy.
After voters approved Prop 8, California officials declined to defend it, and the legal battle was picked up by the initiative's backers.  The Supreme Court must decide whether they had the legal authority to stand in for the state and pursue the battle.
The case has attracted an unusually large number of friend-of-the-court briefs. Among those filing in support of Prop 8 are the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and 20 of the 38 states that forbid same-sex marriage either by statute or constitutional amendment.
On the other side, 130 prominent conservatives urge the court to strike Prop 8 down, including former Republican party chairman Kenneth Mehlman, actor Clint Eastwood, and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Among major corporations taking the same position are Alcoa, Apple, Nike, Verizon, and Xerox.
The court will decide the case sometime before its term ends in late June.

Arizona Voter Registration Laws

Oral Argument and Transcript

No. 12-71

Title:    Arizona, et al., Petitioners
             v.
            The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al.

Docketed:    July 18, 2012
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Nos.:    (08-17094, 08-17115)
Decision Date:     April 17, 2012



Oral Argument - Audio
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz. Inc.
Docket Number: 12-71
Date Argued: 03/18/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

MP3	Download	Play
Windows Media	Download	Play
RealAudio 10	Download
Transcript (PDF)	View

   12-71 Voting Rights by Peggy Satterfield

Filings in the Defense of Marriage Act  and California’s Proposition 8 cases

Listed below are live links to the orders, case filings, and other information pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 cases.  Click on each item to access further information.

DOMA  - Oral Argument  March 27
Prop 8 -   Oral Argument March 26

March 19, 2013

Kathleen Arberg (202) 479-3211

The Court will provide the audio recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, March 26, and United States v. Windsor, scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, March 27, on an expedited basis through the Court's Website.
The Court will post the audio recordings and unofficial transcripts as soon as the digital files are available for uploading to the Website. The audio recordings and transcripts should be available no later than 1 p.m. on March 26 and no later than 2 p.m. on March 27.
Anyone interested in the proceedings will be able to access the recordings and transcripts directly through links on the homepage of the Court's Website. The homepage currently provides links to the orders, briefs, and other information about the cases. The Court's Website address is www.supremecourt.gov.
 

Orders
12-7-12	Grant Order
12-11-12	Amicus Appointment Order
12-14-12	Briefing Schedule
Case Filings
12-144	Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry, et al. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Brief in Opposition filed by Kristin M. Perry Brief in Opposition filed by City and County of San Francisco Reply Brief Brief of Petitioner on the Merits Brief of Respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffery J. Zarrillo Brief of Respondent City and County of San Francisco Reply Brief of Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al.
12-307	United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, In Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Brief in Opposition of Edith Schlain Windsor Brief in Opposition of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Supplemental Brief of United States Supplemental Brief of Edith Schlain Windsor Supplemental Brief of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Reply Brief Brief on the Merits for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives Brief for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Addressing Jurisdiction Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction) Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) Brief of Petitioner United States (Merits) Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Merits) Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) Reply Brief of Court appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) Reply of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction) Reply Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)

^*Disclaimer: We have provided a link to this site because it has information that may be of interest to our users.  The Supreme Court of the United States does not necessarily endorse the views expressed or the facts presented on this site.

First Lady Michelle Obama Honors 14 Women Veterans as Champions of Change

Posted by Captain Todd Veazie on March 21, 2013 at 03:50 PM EDT

Earlier this week, First Lady Michelle Obama and Joining Forces recognized 14 extraordinary women veterans as Champions of Change. The event, which took place at the White House, honored women veterans who have made a tremendous impact on our nation’s communities, businesses, and schools.

First Lady Michelle Obama delivers remarks during a Champions of Change event honoring women veterans, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building of the White House, March 19, 2013. Mrs. Obama spoke to the group on behalf of her Joining Forces initiative. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Mrs. Obama spoke to the honorees and highlighted the need for companies to hire transitioning women veterans. “Right now, we have so many talented, highly skilled veterans who have so much to offer this country. And they're going to need that opportunity to make that happen,” said the First Lady. “We need that service operating here at home.”
Through Joining Forces, Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden are determined to serve veterans and military families and make sure that they receive the benefits, support, and respect they have earned and deserve. The First Lady spoke to the incredible skills and hard work that women veterans possess and bring to every job they do:

“You are the leaders in our businesses and schools in our communities. You're mothers raising your kids with that same sense of honor that defines your own lives every single day. You're volunteers in your neighborhoods, on the PTA, your houses of worship, always finding ways to keep lifting folks up.
Long after you stop serving this country, you don’t stop serving it after you hang up your uniforms. And that’s something that we say all the time about our veterans. It's important for the nation to understand that you all keep working.”

The 14 women are truly the living embodiment of that spirit of service. Those honored include:

1. Tia Christopher, United States Navy veteran, serves as Chief of Staff for the Farmer Veteran Coalition in Davis, CA
2. Stacy L. Pearsall, a combat disabled Air Force veteran, plays a pivotal role in policy at Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center
3. Brigadier General Wilma L. Vaught, President of the Women In Military Service For America Memorial Foundation
4. Kayla Williams, author of Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army, current Truman National Security Project fellow and member of the Army Education Advisory Committee
5. Natasha Young, United States Marine Corps veteran, a Fellowship Recruitment Associate at The Mission Continues
6. Ginger Miller, Founder and CEO of Women Veterans Interactive
7. Michelle Racicot MSN FNP-BC, a former Army Nurse Corp officer, a Family Nurse Practitioner at an Urgent Care Center in Albuquerque,
8. Captain Glenna Tinney, Military Advocacy Program Coordinator for the Battered Women’s Justice Project, for the Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women
9. Dawn Halfaker, United States Military Academy Graduate and combat veteran, formed Halfaker and Associates and serves as President  of the Board of Directors for the Wounded Warriors Project
10. Priscilla Mondt, Chaplain Mondt serves as Chief of Chaplain Service at Veterans Affairs Medical Center
11. Sharie Derrickson, a disabled service-connected US Navy veteran, Vice President of New Wind Energy Solutions in Nashville, TN
12. Marylyn Harris, a former Army Nurse and Disabled War Veteran, founded the nation’s first and only Women Veterans Business Center (WVBC) in Houston
13. Becky Kanis, an Officer in the US Army, founding chair of Knights Out
14. Marsha Four, a former Army nurse in Vietnam, founded a transitional housing residence for homeless vets.

CAPT Todd Veazie is Executive Director of Joining Forces in the Office of the First Lady.

On Tour for the Third Anniversary of "Let’s Move!"

Celebrating the Third Anniversary of "Let’s Move!"

February 12, 2013[looking at 2012 pictures and stories]

 These are official White House Photos with lots to look at

 First Lady Michelle Obama participates in a “Let’s Move!” Recipe Roundtable in the China Room of the White House, Feb. 19, 2013. Five of America’s largest media companies, as well as Pinterest, announced a new collaboration in support of "Let’s Move!," identifying and promoting thousands of nutritious recipes that meet the USDA’s MyPlate guidelines on their most popular cooking websites. Seated clockwise from the First Lady are: Michelle Buffard, FoodNetwork.com; Colleen Curtis, White House Director of Digital Content; Esmee Williams, AllRecipes.com; Kristina Schake, Director of Communications; Allison Lowery, CookingLight.com; Siobhan Adcock, Epicurious; Sam Kass, Senior Policy Advisor for Healthy Food Initiatives; and Elizabeth Shepard, Hearst Digital. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Students clap as First Lady Michelle Obama and Rachael Ray film the “Let’s Move! Cafeteria Cook Off” kick off competition at Eastside and Northside Elementary Schools in Clinton, Miss., Feb. 27, 2013. The Clinton Public School District in Mississippi mobilized the entire community to make healthy schools a top priority and implemented district-wide changes to bring physical activity and nutritious choices to students – all with no additional funding. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

 First Lady Michelle Obama greets students following during a “Let’s Move! Active Schools” event at McCormick Place in Chicago, Ill., Feb. 28, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

First Lady Michelle Obama tours the Walmart Neighborhood Market in Springfield, Mo., Feb. 28, 2013. The tour highlighted healthy eating, nutrition labeling, and the efforts Walmart has made to make healthier food more affordable. Joining the First Lady, from left, are: Andrea Thomas, Senior Vice President, Sustainability for Walmart, and shoppers Stephen Roberts, Stephanie Kennedy, Jennifer Sickinger, and Camielle Famous. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

The President's Trip To The Middle East

These nine pictures are only a select few of the 61 that you can look at at the link above.  

President Barack Obama participates in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem, March 20, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama views the Dead Sea Scrolls at The Israel Museum in Jerusalem, March 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority participate in a bilateral meeting at the Mugata Presidential Compound in Ramallah, the West Bank, March 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

 President Barack Obama participates in a youth roundtable at the Al-Bireh Youth Resource Development Center in Ramallah, the West Bank, March 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) 

 Members of the audience listen as President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Jerusalem Convention Center in Jerusalem, March 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority talk following their tour of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the West Bank, March 22, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

 President Barack Obama visits the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, March 22, 2013. Standing with the President, from left, are: Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau; Israeli President Shimon Peres; Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu; and Avner Shalev, Chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) 

 Members of the White House press corps pass in front of Jordanian soldiers mounted on camels during the official arrival ceremony at Al Hummar Palace in Amman, Jordan, March 22, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

President Barack Obama views the area near the Treasury during a walking tour of the ancient city of Petra in Jordan, March 23, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) 

First Lady Michelle Obama Visits Military Families at the Fisher House and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Posted by Captain Todd Veazie on March 22, 2013 at 11:20 AM EDT

 First Lady Michelle Obama visited the Fisher House at Walter Reed Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, to celebrate Easter early with military families. Accompanied by First Dog, Bo, and an Easter basket full of cookies, the First Lady decorated Easter cards with military children.

 

In her work with Joining Forces, Mrs. Obama applauds organizations which aid active and veteran service members and military families. “The Fisher Houses, as you all know, are just so important to families who are recuperating,” said the First Lady in her remarks. “And all around the country, they are as beautiful and as welcoming and as comforting as you guys are experiencing here.”
The Fisher House is a program established to assist families in need and to ensure that they are provided with the comforts of home in a supportive environment while their loved ones receive care.
Mrs. Obama invited the participating families to this year’s Easter Egg Roll, which takes place on the South Lawn of the White House.
Following her visit with the military families at the Fisher House, Mrs. Obama visited wounded warriors at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
CAPT Todd Veazie is Executive Director of Joining Forces in the Office of the First Lady.

Senate Passes $3.7 Trillion Budget, Setting Up Contentious Negotiations

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
Senator Elizabeth Warren, left, at the Capitol in Washington on Friday before the final vote on the budget resolution.

By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Published: March 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — After an all-night debate that ended just before 5 a.m., the Senate on Saturday adopted its first budget in four years, a $3.7 trillion blueprint for 2014 that would provide a fast track for passage of tax increases, trim spending modestly and leave the government still deeply in the red a decade from now.

The roll call voting records for the amendments to the budget resolution were placed on a table at the Senate Press Gallery. 
 
 

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
The roll call voting records for the amendments to the budget resolution were placed on a table at the Senate Press Gallery.

The 50-to-49 vote in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, sets up contentious — and potentially fruitless — negotiations with the Republican-controlled House in April to reconcile two vastly different plans for dealing with the nation’s economic and budgetary problems. No Republicans voted for the Senate plan, and four Democrats opposed it: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska and Max Baucus of Montana.
All four are from red states and are up for re-election in 2014.

“The Senate has passed a budget,” Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman, declared at 4:56 a.m.

The House plan ostensibly brings the government’s taxes and spending into balance by 2023 with cuts to domestic spending even below the levels of automatic across-the-board cuts roiling federal programs now, and it orders up dramatic and controversial changes to Medicare and the tax code.

The Senate plan, by contrast, includes $100 billion in upfront infrastructure spending to bolster the economy and calls for special fast-track rules to overhaul the tax code and raise $975 billion over 10 years in legislation that could not be filibustered. Even with that tax increase and prescribed spending cuts, the Senate plan would leave the government with a $566 billion annual deficit in 10 years, and $5.2 trillion in additional debt over that window.

“The first priority of the Senate budget is creating jobs and economic growth from the middle out, not the top down,” Ms. Murray said. “With an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery.”

Republicans were harshly dismissive of the Democrats’ priorities. “Honest people can disagree on policy, but where there can be no honest disagreement is the need to change our nation’s debt course,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s ranking Republican. “The singular truth that no one can escape is that the House budget changes our debt course while the Senate budget does not.”

Passage of the competing spending plans does advance a more orderly budget process after nearly three years of crises and brinkmanship. If House and Senate negotiators can agree on a framework for overhauling the tax code and entitlement programs like Medicare, Congress’s committees could go to work on detailed legislation, possibly under special rules that protect the bills from a Senate filibuster.

If the negotiations prove fruitless, the next budget crisis looms this summer when Congress must again raise the government’s statutory borrowing limit or risk defaulting on the federal debt. On Thursday, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio revived a rule — breached in January — that any increase in the debt ceiling must be accompanied by equivalent spending cuts.

Final passage of the Senate budget was upstaged by the process that got the senators to it, a marathon session known since 1977 as the budget “vote-a-rama.” More than 500 amendments were filed, and 70 were voted on. Those numbers dwarf previous marathon voting sessions, reflecting pent-up Republican demand for votes and a new, uncompromising view of procedure on the part of Tea Party-backed senators.

The amendments were advisory only, but they put the Senate on record on a dizzying variety of subjects, including limiting the regulation of sage grouse, preventing the United Nations from infringing on Americans’ right to bear arms, repealing a tax on medical devices that helps finance the president’s health care law and building the Keystone XL pipeline.

By 4 a.m., the senators were sitting quietly in their seats, plowing through amendments like sleepy schoolchildren, breaking only to give the Senate pages a standing ovation and to grumble when a senator demanded a roll-call vote if a voice vote would suffice. As the senators recorded their final votes, they hastily left for a two-week spring recess.
But the sleepy bonhomie did not bridge the divide between the parties. Senate Republicans and Democrats could not even agree on what was in the Democratic budget. Ms. Murray said the plan matched its $975 billion in revenue increases with cuts and interest savings of equal size. But Republicans said it did not, since it reversed $1 trillion in across-the-board cuts but did not count that against their spending cuts.

Those differences did not lend themselves to much optimism about the coming budget negotiations. “The only good news is that the fiscal path the Democrats laid out in their budget resolution won’t become law,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

Senate Passes Budget, Calls For Nearly $1 Trillion In Tax Increases

  Kelly Phillips Erb Contributor

3/23/2013 @ 10:59PM 

WASHINGTON - DECEMBER 16: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to reporters after a meeting with Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill December 16, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

After an extraordinary four year dry spell, the Senate has passed a formal budget proposal. It now goes to the House where, mark my words, it has zero chance of passing.

Despite all of the back-slapping, the bill wasn’t all that popular in the Senate. The final vote resulted in a slim victory: 50-49. All Republicans in the Senate voted against the bill, as did four Democrats: Sen. Baucus (D-MT), Sen. Begich (D-AK), Sen. Hagan (D-NC) and Sen. Pryor (D-AR). One Democrat, Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) did not vote.

The sticking point for most Senators was a series of tax increases worth a trillion dollars over ten years. Those tax increases, while largely unspecified, would target taxpayers at the top. To make that happen, the budget calls for special fast-track rules to overhaul the tax code (*insert fit of coughing here*).

The Senate budget is very different from the one passed in the House this week. That budget, penned by former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI) focuses on cutting spending, including popular health care and social programs. The significant inconsistencies make the chances of a quick reconciliation between the two unlikely.

Just before the vote, however, the Senate embarked on a so-called “vote-a-rama” addressing a number of amendments. And by “a number”, I don’t mean a few. I mean nearly 500.

Not all of the amendments made it to the Senate floor. Those that did were a mixed bag.

One amendment that had considerable support was the repeal of the tax on medical devices. The tax, which was created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has been at the center of controversy since it was first introduced. In particular, the tax was heavily criticized from the medical industry for potentially driving up the cost of health care and possibly sending even more jobs overseas.

Also passed? An amendment asking Senators to donate 20% of their salaries to charity to make themselves feel better about getting paid this year. You may remember that, after getting a raise at the end of 2012 despite not passing a budget or a tax deal, Congress agreed to cut their pay if they couldn’t agree on a new budget by April 15. Er, only there was a slight problem with that: it’s unconstitutional. Of course, you’d expect Congress to know that before passing such a nonsense law to begin with but it’s apparently too much to expect Congress to understand the laws that govern their own pay. So, Congress can happily proceed with budget talks with no real consequences to themselves in sight.

While we’re likely to see fierce politicking between the House and Senate over their competing plans, Congress has some breathing room as the next “crisis” won’t emerge until summer (likely, August) when Congress has to address the debt ceiling or risk a default.

Why A Vote on the Medical Device Excise Tax Is The Biggest Deal Ever for Obamacare

 

 

IRS Announces 2013 Tax Rates, Standard Deduction Amounts and More 

 

 

 Senate Fails To Push Through Last Minute Measures To Avoid Sequestration