Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Over 70 cities and corporation file amicus brief against DOMA in Golinski case
By Jacob Combs

The Seattle Times reported earlier this week that the city of Seattle is joining seven other cities in opposing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court in the case of Golinski v. OPM. In a new brief filed on Tuesday, over 70 business and municipal employers urged the Ninth Circuit to uphold a district court’s ruling that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution, specifically addressing the impact that the law has on employers in the way it forces them to discriminate against their own workers:

The House of Representatives argues that Congress, through DOMA, sought to impose a uniform rule of eligibility for federal marital benefits.3 The perspective of the American employer who must implement DOMA is very different. Because marriages are celebrated and recognized under state law, a federal law withholding marital benefits from some lawful marriages, but not others, creates a non-uniform rule. Employers are obliged to treat one employee spouse differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful. In this brief, amici show how the burden of DOMA’s dual regime is keenly felt by enterprises that conduct operations or do business in jurisdictions that authorize or recognize same-sex marriage.

Joining Seattle in the brief were the cities of San Francisco, New York, Boston, Cambridge, Santa Monica, Los Angeles and West Hollywood and a wide range of major businesses, among them Levi Strauss, Microsoft, McGraw-Hill, CBS, Starbucks, eBay, Xerox, Viacom, Gap and Google.

What makes the new Golinski brief so powerful is that it addresses specifically the ways that DOMA harms American businesses by straining the relationship between employers and employees and interfering with companies’ efforts to create transparent, fair work places. As the companies wrote in the brief, “DOMA forces amici to investigate the gender of the spouses of our lawfully- married employees and then to single out those employees with a same-sex spouse,” requiring businesses to incur the cost of providing fair and equal benefits to their gay and lesbian employees should they choose to do so.

Perhaps even more significantly, the new brief argues that DOMA essentially prohibit companies from conducting business according to their own corporate missions and instead forces them to affirm discrimination that they disagree with. As the amici brief concludes:

Our principles are not platitudes. Our mission statements are not simply plaques in the lobby. Statements of principle are our agenda for success: born of corporate experience, tested in laboratory, factory, and office, attuned to competition. Our principles reflect, in the truest sense, our business judgment. By force of law, DOMA would rescind that judgment, and direct that we renounce these principles, or worse yet betray them.”

If this employers’ brief demonstrates anything, it shows just how short-sighted and narrow the determination to pass DOMA was in the first place. Congress put the law into place with minimal research and fact-finding, doing it merely to set in stone a government-dictated restriction predicated upon the prevailing morals of the day.

But American society and American business have changed since 1996. Today, over 86 percent of Fortune 500 companies protect their gay and lesbian employees from discrimination. Overwhelmingly, American business is of the belief that gays and lesbians should be treated equally to heterosexuals. It’s past time for our government to do the same

[MsTinkerbelly]

Second-parent adoption upheld in lesbian Georgia couple’s divorce case
By Jacob Combs

The GA Voice reports that the Georgia Court of Appeals has upheld a lesbian couple’s second-parent adoption, although the court declined to address the state’s marriage equality ban on the legality of second-parent adoptions in general. The complex case arose after Nicole Bates, who became pregnant through a sperm donation in 2007, requested that her partner Tina be allowed to adopt the child as a second legal parent. A Fulton County judge approved the adoption. From the GA Voice:

In 2010, the couple broke up and the biological mother, Nicole Bates, went back to Judge Glanville and asked the adoption be voided. Judge Glanville told Nicole Bates that she did not file within the six-month time limit allowed to challenge adoption cases, so the second-parent adoption was still legal.

Not satisfied, Nicole Bates appealed the judge’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which eventually dismissed the case. Nicole Bates went to the state Supreme Court seeking to void the adoption of her former partner, but the state Supreme Court also decided to not hear the case.

Tina then filed for custody of the child, but when the Georgia Supreme Court would not hear the case, Nicole filed a motion asking Henry County to dismiss Tina’s request since Georgia does not allow second-parent adoptions between couples who are not married. A state judge in Henry County sided with Nicole, but Tina requested that an appeals court invalidate the ruling, arguing that the case had already been decided in Fulton County. The Court of Appeals sided with Tina, but stated clearly in its decision that it decided “nothing in this case about whether Georgia law permits a ‘second parent’ adoption.”

[Kobi]

BOSTON—Civil unions for gay couples in Vermont must be treated as "the equivalent of marriage" in Massachusetts, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled Thursday.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a couple who enters into a civil union in Vermont must dissolve that union before either person can marry a third party in Massachusetts.

The ruling came in the case of two gay men who married in 2005 in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage.

During divorce proceedings several years later, one of the men found that his partner had previously been in a civil union in Vermont. The man then argued that the Massachusetts marriage was invalid because of the earlier Vermont civil union.

The SJC agreed.

"We define marriage as `the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.' ... This is the relationship established by Vermont civil unions. ...By that definition alone, a Vermont civil union is the functional equivalent of a marriage," Justice Roderick Ireland wrote for the court in the unanimous ruling.

The case went to the high court after a Probate and Family Court judge handling the divorce case asked for a ruling on whether the Massachusetts marriage was invalid.

Todd Elia-Warnken entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2003. Even though that union was never dissolved, he married Richard Elia in Massachusetts in 2005.

In 2009, Elia-Warnken filed for divorce from Elia.

Elia filed a counter-claim for divorce in 2010. At some point, Elia learned that Elia-Warnken had an undissolved civil union in Vermont. He then moved to dismiss the divorce complaint and counterclaim on the grounds that his Massachusetts marriage was void.

The SJC found that because the high court considers the Vermont civil union the equivalent of marriage, the Massachusetts marriage was void because it would constitute illegal polygamy if Elia-Warnken had a spouse in Vermont and another spouse in Massachusetts.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to recognize same-sex unions, with civil unions, giving gay and lesbian couples some rights and benefits of marriage. In 2009, the state Legislature passed a gay marriage bill. Same-sex couples can no longer get a civil union, but existing civil unions are still recognized.

Elia-Warnken argued that because the law did not convert civil unions into marriages, civil unions were different and not equal to marriages.

The SJC, however, did not agree with that argument and said it wanted to avoid the "uncertainty and chaos" that could result if the civil union was not dissolved.

"Here, if we do not recognize the plaintiff's civil union, he would have two legal spouses, each of whom could expect virtually the same obligations from him, such as spousal or child support, inheritance, and healthcare coverage," Ireland wrote.

"Preventing complications such as these is one of the purposes of the polygamy statutes."

Ben Klein, a senior staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who represented Elia, said Massachusetts laws have always said that a person can have only one spouse at a time. He said the SJC ruling simply applies that law to the legal relationships of same-sex couples.

"They were not saying that civil unions are constitutionally acceptable under the Massachusetts constitution; they were only saying that because Vermont has created this as a legal mechanism that provides all the rights and benefits of marriage, we will respect that Vermont law for the purposes of how we treat civil unions here," Klein said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...--+Latest+news

[Little Fish]

Thanks for this update kobi--one step closer......:-)

[MsTinkerbelly]

Final ballot language released for Maine marriage equality referendum
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, the AP reported that Charlie Summers, Maine’s Secretary of State, had released the final ballot wording for the referendum that will ask Mainers whether or not to bring marriage equality back to their state. The final wording is short and to the point: “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

Summers, a Republican who opposes marriage equality, had originally proposed a different ballot question which read, “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?” Equal marriage advocates in the state had opposed that wording, saying that it was misleading and withheld vital information from Maine voters since it did not represent the part of the law that protected religious institutions who are opposed to marriage equality. A 30-day comment period was held during which the public could respond to the proposed language.

Advocates on both side of the issue said they were pleased with Summers’s final wording. Supporters of equal marriage rights said the final wording makes it clear that the law concerns only civil marriage and has no effect on religious institutions’ decisions to recognize marriages between gay and lesbian couples. Protect Marriage Maine also said that it considered the language a good middle ground, although the group’s chairman, Rev. Bob Emrich, said he wished it had included language asking voters whether they wanted to “redefine” marriage.

Moving ahead, marriage equality supporters in the state will bear some of the burden of explaining the laws religious protections, since they will not be explicit in the wording. Nonetheless, it’s a good sign that this ballot language doesn’t include any mention of “redefining” marriage, or of limiting marriage to “one man and one woman.” On both those fronts, the Maine language is simple, balanced and easy to understand

[Toughy]

“Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

“Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

Seems to me the addition of the word 'civil' makes it very clear that this has no effect on what organized religion does or does not about gay marriage.

I think it should read something like this: 'any two consenting adults may be issued a civil marriage license'. It certainly goes a long way towards equality for gender/sex variant individuals.

[UofMfan]

PARTY PRIDE: DEM PLATFORM TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

The news, first reported by the Washington Blade, represents a historic and phenomenal win for LGBT rights groups, which could hardly have envisioned progress being made so quickly on this front.

[iamkeri1]

Toughy, not intended as an attack on you, just a sign of my own frustration.

I am sick of the constant ass-kissing of the Christian Right that has become a requirement for the passing of almost any law these days. Why do we constantly have to reassure them that they will be allowed to continue to discriminate against us and that the law will continue to support that discrimination? Churches/religions, whatever that choose to not follow federal law regarding civil rights, (for example, churches are exempt from handicapper accessibility laws under both the 1973 Handicapper Civil Rights Act, and the ADA) should lose their tax exempt status.
The consitution allows no law which prohibits the free exercise of religion, but it doesn't say we have to pay for their prejudices. This would not only clear things up regarding religious objections to marriage equality, it would resolve all the issues over birth control, abortion etc that are so contentious in the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), and other civil rights conflicts as well. There are hundreds; don't want to list them here .

"Of course, pastor, bishop, rabbi, imam, monk, or whatever you call yourself, we would not even consider forcing you to obey any law that would interfere with the practice of your belief. Go right ahead and refuse to cover birth control under your health care, and don't hesitate at all to keep your doors locked to queers, it's all good. In fact we, the Federal Government, want help you maintain the purity of your beliefs. We will, therefore, immediately stop giving you the special religious tax exemptions that might make you feel dependent upon the government, as well government funding for any programs you maybe running. We are sure this heathen money has been a distraction for your followers. Removing it will free you up to generate income for your group in whatever way is allowable under your faith principles"


Should the suggestions above fail to find congressional approval, here's my easy solution. Take legal marriage completely out of the hands of the church" and place the transaction of this legal contract where it belongs - in the courthouse.

ALL marriages are to be performed by the state through whatever vehicle currently required by a particular state for hets who chose a civil ceremony; Judges, justices of the peace, notary publics, etc. Since religion has been taken out of it and all individuals have equal protection under the law, queers will of course be granted marriage licenses and the ability to marry civilly. Churches may continue to perform whatever religious ceremony they now provide for their followers. BUT these are religious ceremonies only with no legality attached. If you haven't been married civilly by the state, you ain't married legally. If religious leaders wish to maintain the autonomy of their religions, they shouldn't be providing legal services like signing and filing or marriage licenses.

Keri has spoken. Make it so,

Smooches!

Originally Posted by Toughy

Seems to me the addition of the word 'civil' makes it very clear that this has no effect on what organized religion does or does not about gay marriage.

I think it should read something like this: 'any two consenting adults may be issued a civil marriage license'. It certainly goes a long way towards equality for gender/sex variant individuals.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Nevada’s marriage equality lawsuit: could it be bigger than the Prop 8 trial?
By Jacob Combs

This morning, at 9 a.m. Pacific time, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hear arguments in Sevcik v. Sandoval, a marriage equality lawsuit filed by a group of committed gay and lesbian couples challenging the constitutionality of the state’s domestic partnership law. And although the Sevcik case may not make big news headlines the way that the Prop 8 trial has throughout its journey through the courts, it may end up being a even more important decision in the long-term fight for full federal LGBT equality.

Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich of Carson City, the lead plaintiffs in Sevcik who are represented in court by Lambda Legal, have been together for more than 40 years, and have raised three children together. Along with the seven other couples included in the filing, Sevcik and Baranovich argue that Nevada’s domestic partnership law, which provides gay and lesbian couples with many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the title itself, violate their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

As I wrote in April when the case was announced, the Sevcik case is certainly a sibling case to the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Brown, in that argues that laws denying gays and lesbians full legal recognition of their committed relationships is a practice abhorrent to the federal constitution. Unlike the Prop 8 case, however, in which lawyers argued that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage (a right that the Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental, albeit not explicitly for gay couples, many times in the past), the Sevcik case focuses only on making an equal protection claim.

Tomorrow’s hearing may not be a headliner because it is somewhat procedural: the court will consider two motions, one filed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval seeking to dismiss the lawsuit (citing the antiquated Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, which we’ve written about before on this site), and another by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the main proponent of the state ballot initiative that banned marriage equality in Nevada. In its brief, the Coalition seeks to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant.

Three years ago, though, the Prop 8 case itself had similarly modest beginnings. Today, it is a major lawsuit followed closely by the media, and it will most likely garner even more headlines this fall when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take up the case for review in its next term. If it does, the stage will be set for a landmark ruling that would huge ramifications for gay and lesbian couples across the United States.

But there are many court-watchers, myself included, who believe that the Supreme Court will in fact decline to review the Prop 8 case, opting to put off until a later date any decision on the issue of whether or not there is fundamental right to marry for gay and lesbian couples. If that were to occur, the Ninth Circuit’s narrow ruling, which expressly limits its effect (and its legal reasoning) to California only, would stand. That would be a major victory, since it would bring equality back to the nation’s largest state and the thousands of gay and lesbian couples whose relationships are currently treated as second-class in California.

But once Prop 8 is history, the central question of the Perry lawsuit, the one the Supreme Court may likely choose to avoid answering, will remain: is it constitutional for gay couples’ relationships to be denied the same recognition and respect as straight couples? And just as importantly, what is the road to equality for gays and lesbians who are not living in states like California, where public opinion is by and large favorable to marriage equality? When the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the Prop 8 lawsuit in 2009, they made clear that their goal was nothing less than full federal marriage equality: they wanted their case to be the marriage equivalent of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

If Perry doesn’t end up being a sweeping victory for the LGBT equality movement like Lawrence was, that future landmark case will still be waiting in the wings. Besides Sevcik, there is only one other case in the country regarding a federal right to marriage that is currently making its way through the court system, Jackson v. Abercrombie, in which a district court judge ruled just this week against gay couples seeking full equality in the state. If either case makes its way to the Supreme Court, it won’t do so for several years, by which time the marriage equality situation in America may look quite different, with more states offering marriage rights and, potentially, a Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Today’s hearing in Sevcik v. Sandoval is important because it is an incremental step in a larger legal and socio-political movement that looks likely to outlast the Prop 8 trial. And while it may not make headlines today, it just might make history some day soon.

[blackboot]

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld today Hawaii laws banning same-sex marriages-By Ken Kobayashi-The Star-Advertiser-Hawaii-Aug 08, 2012 -

"The judge issued a 117-page decision which throws out the lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and a gay man who contended the state laws violate the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection provisions.

Kay ruled in favor of state Health Director Loretta Fuddy and the Hawaii Family Forum, and against the three plaintiffs and Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who contended the law violated the Constitution.

Hawaii’s marriage laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman “are not unconstitutional,” Kay said.

“Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue,” he said.

“If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.”

Abercrombie said he “respectfully” disagrees and will join in an appeal of the ruling.

“To refuse individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation or gender is discrimination in light of our civil unions law,” he said.

“For me this is about fairness and equality.”

John D’Amato, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, who were denied a marriage license here, and by Gary Bradley, against Abercrombie and Fuddy.

Abercrombie, however, agreed that the law violated the constitutional protections, which resulted Attorney General David Louie’s office providing one team to represent the governor and another representing Fuddy, who defended the marriage laws.

Kay earlier allowed the Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, to intervene in the case and defend the laws.

He heard more than two hours of arguments in the case on July 24.

In his decision, Kay granted requests by Fuddy and the forum to immediately rule in their favor without the case going to trial. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling declaring the marriage laws unconstitutional."

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Federal judge agrees to hear Nevada marriage equality lawsuit
By Scottie Thomaston

A hearing was held today in Nevada on two motions in Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal’s marriage equality lawsuit. The judge has just agreed that the case can proceed:


(Las Vegas, August 10, 2012)—The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada today agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, joined by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover, had moved to dismiss the case. Today, the Court agreed to hear that motion at the same time as hearing argument in the parties’ motion for summary judgment.

The two motions discussed in the hearing today were: (1) a motion to intervene by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, and (2) a motion to dismiss by Governor Brian Sandoval based on Baker v. Nelson. Prop 8 Trial Tracker reader Greg in SLC attended the hearing, and he noted in a comment that, “Nevada district court right now. Hearing has ended. Judge seems clearly conservative. He was skeptical of entering any expert testimony to support plaintiffs. Mary and Beverly are dear beautiful people, as are the other plaintiffs we met. Next court date on this case set for Monday after thanksgiving in Reno, NV.”

Lambda Legal’s Tara Borelli comments:


“This is an important first step in bringing the freedom to marry to Nevada,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli. “These loving couples, burdened by the stigma of Nevada’s marriage ban, will have the chance to demonstrate in court that their relationships and their families are worthy of equal dignity and respect.”

We will have more as this story develops, and see this post for an introduction to our continuing coverage of this trial.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Democrats approve marriage equality in party platform
By Jacob Combs

This Saturday, the Democratic Party’s full platform committee, a body of around 120 Democrats, approved draft platform language that includes a full-fledged endorsement of marriage equality. The marriage language was accepted without dissent and with little debate, a sign of just how established the position has become in the party since President Obama announced his personal support of marriage equality in May.

Last Thursday, BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner exclusively reported on the draft platform language established by the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, which read:

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Also included in the draft language (and also reported by Geidner) is an endorsement of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit hiring and firing based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and language regarding bullying and support for LGBT youth. The platform’s immigration reform section was amended as well to include new language which reads: “the administration has said that the word ‘family’ in immigration includes LGBT relationships in order to protect binational families threatened with deportation.”

The approved platform will be sent to delegates for a final vote at the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Charlotte, North Carolina from September 3-6

[MsTinkerbelly]

South Australia likely to move towards marriage equality along with Tasmania
By Jacob Combs

Earlier this month, I wrote that Tasmania looked likely to become the first Australian state to offer equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians following a speech by Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings to her party conference vowing to introduce marriage equality legislation in the government’s next term. This week, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill followed Giddings’s lead, according to The Australian, telling a rally in Adelaide that he will push for marriage equality in his state:

On the steps of Parliament House, Mr Weatherill said he would support a Greens bill and allow Labor MPs a conscience vote.

“People should be entitled to express their own identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t become a barrier to prevent them from doing that,” he said.”So, from my perspective, it’s a simple question of the dignity of the individual.

“People should be entitled to express their identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t get in the way.”

Also this week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard surprised Australia’s LGBT community by agreeing to deliver the keynote speech at a national meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby, an anti-gay group that has made statements in the past comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles and Nazis.

Marriage equality at the national level in Australia faces a major hurdle in Prime Minister Gillard, who opposes equal marriage rights even though her majority Labor Party changed its platform last year to include marriage equality. Because of Australia’s parliamentary system, it is incredibly difficult for marriage legislation to pass without Gillard’s stamp of approval, which is why state-level governments are stepping in to be at the forefront of LGBT equality in the country.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Tasmania’s lower house passes marriage equality, New Zealand bill survives first vote
By Jacob Combs

While marriage equality may be on hold at the federal level in Australia right now, the issue is moving apace in a few of the state legislatures. Sky News reports today that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 “sailed” through Tasmania’s lower house, the Legislative Assembly, paving the way for an upper house vote to allow full marriage equality in the state. From Sky News:

Labor and Greens members and onlookers, including Australian Marriage Equality chief Alex Greenwich, erupted into applause as the bill was passed.

Liberal Leader Will Hodgman was the lone voice against the bill, saying his team was united in believing marriage was between a man and a woman, and a matter for the commonwealth.

For the first time in the state’s history, a bill in the lower house was co-sponsored, by Ms Giddings and Greens Leader Nick McKim.

‘I do not believe that the personal moral disapproval that some individuals may feel towards same-sex marriage is a valid reason to allow discrimination to continue in the 21st century,’ Ms Giddings said.

The bill’s fate in Tasmania’s upper house is uncertain: 13 of the 15 independents in the chamber have not yet taken a position on it. Intriguingly, Tasmania was the last state in Australia to decriminalize homosexuality, which it did in 1997. Legislators in South Australia look likely to make it the next state after Tasmania to make a move towards full marriage equality.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, legislators passed a marriage equality in the first of three votes by an overwhelming margin of 80 to 40. The bill needed only a simple majority, so the AP notes that the numbers are a good sign of the bill’s future success. A poll of lawmakers just this week found only a slim majority of 61 members said they would vote for the bill. Notably, politicians in New Zealand cited President Obama’s May announcement in support of marriage equality as a reason for moving forward with legislation in their country:

The proposed changes can be directly traced to Obama’s declaration in May in support of gay marriage. That prompted center-right Prime Minister John Key to break his long silence on the issue by saying he was “not personally opposed” to the idea. Then lawmaker Louisa Wall, from the opposition Labour Party, put forward a bill she had previously drafted.

“If I’m really honest, I think the catalyst was around Obama’s announcement, and then obviously our prime minister came out very early in support, as did the leader of my party, David Shearer,” Wall told The Associated Press. “The timing was right.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Prop 8, DOMA cases have been distributed for September 24 conference at the Supreme Court
By Scottie Thomaston

The Supreme Court docket page for Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case, has a new notice that the case has been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.” The September 24 conference is the first time this term that the Justices will meet privately and look at petitions for certiorari to decide which cases they will accept for review. Usually, the Court announces its orders from conferences on the Monday following the conferences, however if they do take up the Prop 8 case on September 24, they could announce as early as the next day whether the full Court will review the case. It takes four votes to grant review.
If the Court denies the petition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision stands, and Proposition 8 will be invalidated, though the case won’t set a nationwide precedent. If they decide to review the case, they’ll reach a final decision on the merits at the end of June 2013.

The Court could also potentially ‘relist’ the case for a later conference. This would mean instead of making a decision at the September 24 conference, the case would be held and listed for a subsequent one.

Also distributed for the September 24 conference is Windsor v. USA, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. Windsor was petitioned to the Supreme Court for review before judgment at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral arguments are currently scheduled for September 27.

SCOTUSBlog lists the Golinski v. OPM and all of the Massachusetts DOMA petitions as distributed for the September 24 conference, however, the Supreme Court docket page for those cases does not reflect this yet

[iamkeri1]

Ms T
I don't understand why Prop 8 would not have national significance if SCOTUS lets the decision stand. Didn't the challenge to the law come from a 14th amendment perspective? Equal justice under the law and all that? If SCOTUS refuses to overturn the 9th district position, why would that not have national ramifications? Is there something so specific about Prop 8's wording that the decision could only apply to Prop 8 and not to ALL laws banning same sex marrriage?

But aside from that, I'm realy excited about this coming before the supreme court. Since we now know that money equals free speech it seems only reasonable that marriage vows would also equal free speech and that same sex couples be able to have the freedom to speak their vows of marriage to each other. A different way of looking at it, an appeal with back up from two constitutional amendments.

Can you tell I'm anxious for this to happen? Freedom for my peeps!!!!

As always, thanks so much for the update and the good feelings you give me as we take each little teensy step toward equality.

Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Ms T
I don't understand why Prop 8 would not have national significance if SCOTUS lets the decision stand. Didn't the challenge to the law come from a 14th amendment perspective? Equal justice under the law and all that? If SCOTUS refuses to overturn the 9th district position, why would that not have national ramifications? Is there something so specific about Prop 8's wording that the decision could only apply to Prop 8 and not to ALL laws banning same sex marrriage?

But aside from that, I'm realy excited about this coming before the supreme court. Since we now know that money equals free speech it seems only reasonable that marriage vows would also equal free speech and that same sex couples be able to have the freedom to speak their vows of marriage to each other. A different way of looking at it, an appeal with back up from two constitutional amendments.

Can you tell I'm anxious for this to happen? Freedom for my peeps!!!!

As always, thanks so much for the update and the good feelings you give me as we take each little teensy step toward equality.

Smooches,
Keri

In a nutshell, the lawsuit to invalidate Prop 8 wasn't about marriage for all, it was about striking down a Consitutional Amendment in the State of California which took away rights already granted to its citizens.

The decision (should the Supreme Court grant review) could be USED by other people to argue for rights in their states, but the issue being decided is a very narrow one, not meant to be Federally applied.

My gut tells me that the Supremes will refuse to review, thus beginning marriages in California again. My hope is they review so that others can use this case in their search for equality.

[iamkeri1]

T Y
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

September 14, 2012
Prop 8 at Supreme Court: What To Expect
By Matt Baume

This is it. The moment of truth for Proposition 8.

In just a matter of days, the Supreme Court of the United States will meet to consider hearing AFER’s case against Prop 8. There are a number of different potential outcomes. So let’s take a minute to talk about what’s going to happen, and when.


First, a few basics. Prop 8 passed in 2008 by a narrow margin, changing the California state constitution and taking away the freedom to marry from committed gay and lesbian couples.

In response, AFER sued the state in federal court, pointing out that there is no rational basis for Prop 8, and that the law now denies Californians equal protection under the law.

And we won. Twice. First in District Court in 2010, and then at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. Both courts agreed that Prop 8 violates the United States Constitution, and should be struck down. But even though we won, the law will remain in place until its proponents can exhaust their opportunities to be reheard.

And now they’re down to their last opportunity for that rehearing: the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here’s what happens next.

The Justices will meet on Monday, September 24th, to discuss all the cases before them. At that meeting, they’ll chose some of the cases that they’ll hear during their upcoming term, which will run from November to June of 2013. Other cases, they’ll decide not to hear.

If they decide to take our case, they’ll announce it in a list that’s released on Tuesday, September 25th. Then we’ll file briefs, have oral arguments, and get a decision from the court by next June.

If we’re not on that list, it means one of two things. Either they won’t hear our case, or they’re simply holding off on making a decision until later.

If they’ve rejected the petition to hear our case, then they’ll announce that on the following Monday, October 1st. In that case, our previous victory will be the final, decisive word. In other words, Prop 8 will be unconstitutional forever, and marriages can start back up again in California.

So there you have it. It’s taken a while to get here, but we’re finally approaching the end the case

[MsTinkerbelly]

Justice Ginsburg Sees DOMA Ruling In Her Near Future
By Josh Voorhees
|
Posted Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012, at 9:46 AM ET

During a Q-and-A with students at the University of Colorado yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that the high court will likely decide soon whether the law that bars federal recognition of same-sex couples is constitutional.

How soon? Likely within the year.


Ginsburg was asked a question about whether the equal-protection clause would be applied to the Defense of Marriage Act. The Associated Press with her answer, or rather lack thereof:

Ginsburg said with a smile that she couldn't answer the question. She said she could not talk about matters that would come to the court, and that the Defense of Marriage Act would probably be up soon. "I think it's most likely that we will have that issue before the court toward the end of the current term," she said.
Congress passed DOMA in 1996 when Hawaii seemed close to legalizing gay marriage. The law effectively halted the movement at the time but more than a half-dozen states have legalized it since, and a growing number of lower courts have taken issue with key provisions in the law. Several other states, meanwhile, have passed their own, individually-crafted bans on same-sex unions.