Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Illinois Attorney General announces support for marriage equality lawsuits
By Jacob Combs

The upcoming court battle in Illinois over the constitutionality of civil unions and the state’s prohibition on marriage equality looks like it promises to be an intriguing and unusual one. Earlier this week, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois announced that they were simultaneously filing two lawsuits, Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr, arguing that the civil unions the state began offering to gay and lesbian couples last year infringe upon those couples’ equal protection rights under the Illinois Constitution.

David Orr, who is the official government defendant in both lawsuits by virtue of his position as Cook County Clerk, is himself a supporter of marriage equality: in a statement released by his office last week, Orr wrote of his “hope [that] these lawsuits are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all.” Because of Orr’s position, it seems unlikely that he will elect to put forward any strong defense of the status quo once the cases make their way to court.

In another twist, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced over the weekend her plans to intervene in the two marriage cases–on the side of the plaintiffs. Usually, state Attorneys General intervene in court cases when state laws are challenged in order to support those statutes, or, as in the case of Proposition 8 and California Attorney General Kamala Harris (like her predecessor Jerry Brown), they choose to opt out of such lawsuits if they do not support the law in question. Madigan, however, believes that Illinois’s civil unions law does not in fact adequately protect equal protection rights, and plans to intervene on behalf of Lambda Legal and the ACLU in both cases.

With both Orr and Madigan expressing support for the lawsuits, it’s an open question now as to who will actually defend the constitutionality of the civil unions law in court. David Orr would normally be represented in court by Anita Alvarez, the state attorney for Cook County, but it is unclear if the Democratic attorney will opt to defend the law, especially after Madigan’s announcement.

In California, when both the Governor and Attorney General declined to support Proposition 8 in court, the constitutional amendment’s official backers intervened in court to defend it. In Illinois, however, there are no ballot proponents to stand up for the civil unions law (since it was enacted legislatively and not by a popular vote), and Democrats control both chambers of the legislature. It will be interesting to see who steps forward to defend the law, and if the courts decide to allow them to do so

[Wolfsong]

I have to revise my stance on this issue and admit my realization that my position, at least in this issue, was terribly short-sighted. In the beginning, I supported state's right to vote and determine for themselves.

On many issues I opt for state's rights over Federal involvement. Who am I to tell someone a thousand miles away how to live their lives? It is my contention that the Federal goverment has been trying to change America from the Constitutional Republic that we are supposed to be to a Democracy since the 1950's....but that is a discussion for it's own thread.

In this case I see very clearly that we are going to remain disadvantaged until gay marriage is viewed as a legitimate civil rights issue by all, and addressed and approved by the federal goverment. Civil Unions are merely a bone tossed to get both sides to shut-up. Give Civil Unions the same legal rights as marriage and I don't give a damn what it's called....but it will shut me up.

[suebee]

Court will not rehear proposition 8 case.

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: 9th Circuit DENIES request to re-hear Prop 8 case
By Scottie Thomaston

The judges sitting in the Ninth Circuit have issued a new order in the Perry v. Brown case today. The full panel of Ninth Circuit judges have decided that en banc rehearing of the three-judge panel’s decision will not be granted. This comes after a months-long wait: the proponents of Proposition 8 announced their intention to seek en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel decision on February 21 of this year. As we noted yesterday, the decision to deny rehearing of the case with a new, randomly-selected eleven judge panel means that Judge Reinhardt’s opinion, which was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and garnered a dissent by Judge N. Randy Smith, either way, will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court where the proponents will now likely file a petition for certiorari, asking them to review and possibly overturn Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for the Ninth Circuit’s panel of three judges.

An en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is much different from other circuits. Generally, en banc means that the entire court will rehear the case, with all judges in the circuit participating. But the Ninth Circuit has an inordinately large number of judges, so they have a procedure wherein they have an ‘en banc panel’ consisting of eleven judges: ten randomly-chosen judges plus the Chief Judge (at the Ninth Circuit that is Alex Kozinski) presiding. If rehearing had been granted, the randomly selected panel could have heard arguments and issued new briefing in the case or they could have decided to forgo that and issue a new decision without it.

Now that en banc rehearing was denied, the proponents have 90 days to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision striking down Proposition 8. It’s likely that Justices at the Supreme Court would have their conference to take up the petition and decide whether to grant review or not sometime after their summer break in October. Oral argument would follow a few months later, and then a final decision would be issued by June or July 2013.

Judge O’Scannlain has filed a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing joined by Judges Bybee and Bea, and in it he discusses his belief that Judge Smith’s dissent was correct. He says that “we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia.”

No one is certain if the Supreme Court would grant review of the case as it currently stands. Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel is very narrow and the holding is specific to California’s unique legal circumstances. A denial of rehearing in this case leaves the decision California-specific and there may not be four Justices – the number needed to grant certiorari – who want to visit an issue that’s so limited in scope. On the other hand, the panel’s decision did strike down an amendment to a constitution of an enormous state involving a contentious issue. And allowing gay couples to marry in California would nearly double the amount of people in the United States who live in an area that allows same-sex marriage.

This process has gone on for so long. The complaint was initially filed on May 22, 2009 and the trial began on January 11, 2010. Judge Walker didn’t issue a decision in the case until August 4, 2010. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling came much later, with the three-judge panel issuing its ruling on February 7 of this year. Now the Perry case is entering its final phase.

Now that the Ninth Circuit has denied en banc rehearing of the three-judge panel’s decision, the case will face its final test soon, at the Supreme Court, as the proponents are widely expected to seek review of the three-judge panel’s decision. If the proponents do file a petition for certiorari the Justices will look at the petition in a conference later this year where the final decision will be made: review the case or let the Ninth Circuit’s decision be the final word in this long journey to decide the fate of the odious Proposition 8. It promises to be an exciting year


UPDATE (Jacob): Some more details. The original three-judge panel voted 2-1, along the same lines as the decision, to deny en banc rehearing, with Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins voted to deny it and Judge Smith voting in favor of it.

As expected, Judge O’Scannlain (who has written in favor of en banc rehearing on LGBT cases before and has excoriated the Ninth Circuit for its rulings favorable to gays and lesbians), wrote a dissent, joined by Judges Bybee and Bea, explaining why he supported the rehearing. Here is his brief dissent, in full:

A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same- sex marriage as a policy matter. Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”1

Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.

For many of the same reasons discussed in Judge N.R. Smith’s excellent dissenting opinion in this momentous case, I respectfully dissent from the failure to grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins also filed a response to Judge O’Scannlain’s dissent today, concurring in the denial of rehearing:

We are puzzled by our dissenting colleagues’ unusual reliance on the President’s views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion. We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage. That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time

[MsTinkerbelly]

Questions and answers on next steps as the Prop 8 case heads towards Supreme Court
By Scottie Thomaston, Adam Bink, and Jacob Combs

Yesterday was the big news of the Ninth Circuit’s decision not to rehear the case with an 11-judge en banc panel. The staff here at Prop8TrialTracker.com have seen a steady stream of comments and questions about today’s decision and the future of the Perry v. Brown case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Here we will try to answer some of these questions. Updates with new questions from the comments or elsewhere will be added at the bottom.

1. Is there still a stay? What’s the story with that?

Yes. Yesterday’s 9th Circuit order says: “The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.”

A petition for writ of certiorari means to request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the case. If the proponents of Proposition 8 (those who put it on the 2008 ballot and helped pass it, and now are defendants in the lawsuit) decide to seek review by the Supreme Court – and they have already indicated they will indeed file a petition for certiorari – the decision will remain stayed if the Supreme Court takes the case until a final decision by the Supreme Court, likely in the summer of 2013. If the Supreme Court does not take the case, the decision will become final and Prop 8 will end.

2. What will the proponents do next?

The proponents of Proposition 8 will file a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court. They will argue that the Ninth Circuit wrongly decided the legal issues presented in the case and they will suggest the Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision. It takes four votes out of the nine Justices to grant review of cases and set the case up for arguments before the Supreme Court.

3. Is super en banc at the 9th Circuit still possible?

“Super en banc” means review at the 9th Circuit by all the judges on the court, rather than a 3-judge panel or 11-judge panel. It’s theoretically possible under the current rule 35-3. However the wording of the rule seems to suggest that so-called “super en banc” is only possible after the en banc panel hearing with 11 randomly-selected judges, and that rehearing for an 11-judge panel was just denied by the Ninth Circuit judges. So it seems highly unlikely that this case is headed anywhere except straight to the Supreme Court.

4. When do Prop 8′s proponents have to appeal or go home by?


Proponents have 90 days to file for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court. After that, if there is no petition filed, the mandate will issue (meaning that the Ninth Circuit’s decision will come into effect, Prop 8 will end, and same-sex marriages will resume in California.)

5. If Prop 8′s proponents appeal, when will the Supreme Court decide whether or not to take the case?

The Supreme Court heads into summer break soon, and given the timeline for appeal, it is unlikely the Court will decide in conference whether or not to take the case until they return from their summer break around October 2012.

6. By when would the Supreme Court issue a decision if they took the case?

Oral arguments are usually heard within 4 months or so if certiorari is granted, and the Court almost always issues its decisions by July 4th. So a decision would be expected by July 2013.

7. What issues will the Supreme Court decide on appeal if they take the case?

It’s up to them. The Supreme Court has broad discretion to decide which questions it will take up in each case. In the petition for certiorari, there is a list of “questions presented” which are the legal issues the petitioners want the Supreme Court to take on. But just because proponents ask doesn’t mean the Supreme Court has to take those specific questions.

Having said that, it’s likely that the Supreme Court would decide whether or not proponents have ‘standing’ to appeal the case in federal court, and it’s of course likely that the Supreme Court will rule one way or the other on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Beyond those key issues, Supreme Court review is typically limited to the issues raised in the court below. Since the opponents of Proposition 8 raised the issue of subjecting laws against gays and lesbians to a higher form of scrutiny and since they addressed the possibility of a broader ruling on marriage equality, the Supreme Court could decide to accept those questions if they are raised, or introduce the issue. It seems more likely that they would want to decide the narrow issue of Proposition 8′s constitutionality, but that’s just speculation until the Court has their conference and agrees on the questions it will hear.

8. Is it better or worse for the opponents of Proposition 8 if the Supreme Court does or does not review the case?

It depends on one’s goals and predictions. The Supreme Court is of course a mostly conservative court. On many issues, it is made up of four moderates and four conservatives with Justice Kennedy as the ‘swing vote’ on a few social issues. Justice Kennedy is, for the most part, fairly conservative. He did write the opinions in the two most recent pro-LGBT cases to come out of the Supreme Court: Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, however. If the Supreme Court reviews the case, that presents the possibility that they might uphold Proposition 8. If they deny the petition for certiorari, the Ninth Circuit decision stands and California will have marriage equality as the law in the state.

If the Supreme Court reviews the case, though, there is a real potential of having at least five votes to uphold the Ninth Circuit decision striking down Proposition 8. Since Justice Kennedy has written pro-LGBT opinions, it is not outside the realm of possibility he would apply his own logic from those opinions (especially Romer, on which the Ninth Circuit’s opinion heavily relies) to this case and decide things in our favor. Even if we ended up with a narrow Supreme Court opinion striking down Proposition 8 in a way that only applies to California, the case could be used as precedent to build on in the future.

On the other hand, there are reasons to hope the Supreme Court does not take the case. Perhaps chief among them is, as Adam noted here back in February, there is a big chance that supporters of marriage equality could lose. No one knows where Anthony Kennedy, nor other Justices, stand on same-sex marriage, although the 9th Circuit decision is tailored in such a way to make it more likely to turn a favorable ruling. Why risk it, especially with another case in Nevada that may reach the Court after more states have legalized same-sex marriage, public opinion keeps moving and the composition of the Court grows perhaps more favorable? Take a strong ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, legalize same-sex marriage in California, and on to the next fight. Second, for the sake of couples who have waited a long time to marry, waiting another year could lead to serious harm (such as, in the case of Ed and Derence, one’s unfortunate passing). So it depends on one’s goals and predictions regarding the future of same-sex marriage in California and the nation.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Opponents of marriage equality in Washington state file signatures required for ballot referendum
By Jacob Combs

The Washington state law passed earlier this year to bring marriage equality to the state is officially on hold now that opponents of the measure have submitted a raft of signatures to the Secretary of State seeking to put the issue on the November ballot. The ballot measure, known as Referendum 74, would ask Washington voters to uphold or overturn the legislature’s law allowing same-sex couples to wed in the state while protecting the religious freedoms of places of worship who do not recognize marriage equality. The proponents of Referendum 74 told reporters that they had collected 241,000 signatures, about twice as many as the 120,577 required by law.

Before the ballot initiative becomes official, the Secretary of State will have to verify the accuracy of the signatures, but it is extremely likely the proponents will have required the requisite number even if a chunk of signatures are found to be invalid. According to the Secretary of State’s office, the referendum could be officially certified by the middle of next week.

It goes without saying that marriage equality’s past record at the ballot box looks unpromising–32 out of 32 states have voted against marriage rights in the past. In reliably blue Washington, though, opponents of marriage equality face a tougher road than they have in some other states. Washington is the only state where a popular vote has uphold expanded rights for LGBT citizens: in 2009, voters upheld a law passed by the legislature that extended domestic partnerships to gay and lesbian couples. According to Matt Barreto, a political science professor at the University of Washington who has conducted extensive polling on the issue, support for equal legal rights for same-sex couples has grown since 2009.

That means that marriage opponents must walk a fine line in the state as they try to avoid making it seem like they are against legal equality for gays and lesbians while striving to preserve the definition of marriage as a union of opposite-sex partners. Speaking to the New York Times, Joseph Backholm of the anti-marriage equality group Preserve Marriage Washington said that Washington voters this year will have a chance to make a decision on marriage only, and could repeal the new law without feeling like they’ve taken rights away from gay couples. In a way, the fact that Backholm has to frame the issue this way is in itself a victory for our side, since it shows that the island of exclusion he and his colleagues stand upon is being steadily eroded as public opinion changes. (Of course, this does mean that Backholm’s position is becoming increasingly tenuous and, in a sense, desperate, since it is essentially only a matter of semantics.)

The facts on the ground in Washington look good for our side: a recent independent poll found that 54 percent percent of Washingtonians approve of the legislature’s law, with only 33 percent opposed. Support among independents was also strong, with 52 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed. Obama carried Washington easily in 2008, and he enjoyed a 54 percent approval rating in the state just last week. In addition, marriage equality advocates have a big cash advantage so far: they’ve raised over $700,000, while opponents have so far raised only a little over $110,000.

Finally, another anti-marriage equality group in the state, the awkwardly named Marriage Equals One Man Plus One Woman, is seeking signatures for another ballot amendment that would institute a mini-DOMA in Washington limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only. That group must obtain 242,000 signatures by July 6, and has collected approximately 100,000, according to the Chicago Tribute. If both ballot measures qualify for the November election, it could create a bit of chaos for all sides, the effects of which are unclear, but which could bode well for marriage advocates if opponents are split between two measures.

When it comes to popular votes on marriage equality, it’s always wise to be cautious. We can be sure that our opponents will be out in droves between now and November, and its going to take both manpower and money for us to win. Still, in Washington state, we will be able to conduct perhaps the most aggressive campaign on the most positive ground that we’ve had so far. That in itself is enough of a reason for us to give it everything we’ve got.

[Quintease]

This is sad, the cost of same sex marriage.