Two federal court decisions in the last week make it likely that same-sex marriage will have its day at the U.S. Supreme Court, probably next year.
In the first case in Boston, a unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the main part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. This is the section of DOMA that is wide reaching and prevents the U.S. government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples. It affects tax filings, immigration, and a host of other benefits that straight married couples receive.
Then in San Francisco on Tuesday, the next chapter of the federal Proposition 8 case unfolded when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced that it would not rehear the case. A three-judge panel upheld in February a district court judge's decision that Prop 8, the state's same-sex marriage ban, is unconstitutional. Proponents of Prop 8 had appealed to the whole 9th Circuit for an en banc review (meaning a panel of 11 judges would reconsider the three-judge panel's decision). But it turned out that a majority of 9th Circuit judges rejected that option, so now officials at Protectmarriage.com can petition the Supreme Court and they are expected to do so.
The high court could choose to hear both cases, accept only one of the cases, or – although it's highly unlikely – hear neither of the cases. Most legal observers are of the opinion that the issue of same-sex marriage will be heard by the court. And even non-legal experts know that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the swing vote and the one to watch when it's time for oral arguments.
And when the case reaches the court, it will be a different landscape: In the three years since the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown , was filed, public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of marriage equality. That will only continue in the months ahead.
Park vandalism is deplorable
Like irresponsible dog owners who don't pick up after their canine companions, the vandals and taggers who have defaced children's play areas at San Francisco parks should be ashamed of themselves. A San Francisco Chronicle story this week detailed the recent incidents of graffiti, stolen metal keys from a giant xylophone at Dolores Park, and other misdeeds that occurred just days after the opening of the play areas. The Helen Diller Playground at Dolores Park is a jewel and $3.5 million (mostly from private donors) was spent on the overhaul. Yet now the play items are broken and graffiti defaces the area, including the ubiquitous, ugly stenciled koi fish graffiti that have popped up around town masquerading as art. The park itself is in the midst of a complete facelift; one can only cringe at the thought of what vandals will do when it's completed.
In the case of Duboce Park in the Castro, the city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars creating a new Youth Play Space – one step toward a complete renovation of the park – only to see it covered with graffiti just one day after the May 19 dedication.
Neighborhood leaders are upset and frustrated, and rightfully so. The Recreation and Parks Department is cleaning up the mess, but as the Chronicle reported, there are only two full-time workers to clean up thousands of tags in a park system that includes 220 parks, 178 playgrounds, 25 recreation centers, and nine swimming pools. The sad part about this vandalism is that it's the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for the constant cleaning and repairs. And every hour spent scrubbing sidewalks is one less hour that could have been spent on other critical tasks.
The vandalism has other implications, too. It could prove difficult for city officials to secure private donations for future park restoration, if the properties are immediately vandalized. Additionally, San Francisco already has a reputation of not being a kid-friendly city and the regular destruction of public property does little to reverse that image. When the city and community join to step up and build beautiful, modern areas for kids to have fun in, a few lousy jerks deface it overnight.
In a follow-up story Wednesday, the Chronicle noted that there's no easy solution to the vandalism. Surveillance cameras aren't an option – the law prevents city officials from monitoring people in public spaces.
But we have a suggestion for parks chief Phil Ginsburg: he should get in touch with officials at the graffiti abatement program. We're willing to bet that some of the tags include signatures of people known to the authorities and could lead to identifying the person or persons responsible in at least some of the incidents. When that happens they should be sent a bill for the cleanup and reimburse the city.