Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Strappie]

I'm so damn proud of the state I call home

Minnesota Defeated the Marriage Amendment!!!

I couldn't be prouder... 30 States tried before us and We DID IT!!!

[Soon]

[MsTinkerbelly]

Gay couples anxiously await High Court decision on Prop 8

By: Dan Schreiber | 11/19/12 8:45 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Thom Watson was turned away along with his fiance, Jeff Tobaco, in 2010 after trying to get married. Wedding bells could be ringing for same-sex couples in San Francisco and across California as soon as the holidays, depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court responds to an appeals case for the state’s gay marriage ban later this month.

In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a lower court ruling that 2008’s voter-approved Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Proponents of the same-sex marriage ban then took the case to the high court, which could rule as early as Nov. 30 on whether to take up the matter.

If federal justices decide not to hear the case — thus leaving the issue in the realm of individual states — the 9th Circuit ruling would effectively become the law of the land in California. Alternatively, the court could decide to make a more definitive federal ruling on the issue, which would take months more to be settled.

Interestingly enough, many local couples said they would prefer the quicker but less definitive resolution.

“I suspect we will be in line at the courthouse that day,” said Thom Watson, 50, of Daly City.

Watson and his fiance, Jeff Tobaco, said while they could have obtained a legal marriage in another state, it’s important to them to make their vows close to home.

“We’ve been waiting ever since Prop. 8 first passed, and given that the state had already overturned some marriages previously, we didn’t want to be in that situation,” Watson said. “There’s a symbolic importance to have marriage recognized here in the state we’ve chosen to make our home.”

Stuart Gaffney, one of the two plaintiffs in the original 2008 state Supreme Court challenge of Prop. 8, said celebrations would ignite in The City’s Castro neighborhood if the 9th Circuit ruling stands. Although it could take the appeals court a few days to finalize its ruling, Gaffney said some couples plan to exchange symbolic vows that would be legally finalized soon thereafter.

“It has been a very long wait for many couples who simply want to say ‘I do,’” Gaffney said.

But Gaffney cautioned that justices could also delay a decision, leaving the situation in limbo. Anti-Prop. 8 attorney David Boies recently predicted a U.S. Supreme Court hearing that ends in a 5-4 decision affirming same-sex marriage rights, but some eager couples would like to see the situation in California rectified sooner than later.

With three states having passed voter-approved same-sex marriage laws in the recent election, the momentum should be built up more before a federal ruling, Watson contends.

“I think right now there are better paths than the Supreme Court for this decision,” Watson said. “It makes it much more likely that once the right case makes it to the Supreme Court, we’ll have more states on board and right now, I don’t think the court is ready to make that decision.”

[UofMfan]

[MsTinkerbelly]

San Francisco asks Ninth Circuit for advance notice regarding Prop 8 decision mandate
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, Therese Stewart, San Francisco’s Deputy City Attorney, wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit asking for advance notice “if and when the mandate will be issued in the event the United States Supreme Court denies certiorari in the Perry case.” This involves a bit of legal intricacy, but essentially the issue is this: if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision of the Prop 8 case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling becomes the final legal say on the matter. But the circuit court’s ruling doesn’t go into effect the very instant the Supreme Court issues its order denying certiorari in the case; rather, the high court essentially returns the case to the Ninth Circuit for final dispensation in the case. The circuit court must then issue what is called a ‘mandate,’ or a formal declaration that its decision should go into effect. (The ruling is currently stayed ‘pending issuance of the mandate.’)

In Stewart’s letter, she outlines two reasons for the City’s request:

“As the Court is aware, this case has generated extremely wide interest. In prior instances when decisions were issued in this and other cases relating to marriage for same-sex couples, there have been large gatherings, including protestors, in the Civic Center area of San Francisco…. To ensure the health and safety of San Francisco’s residents and visitors, the San Francisco Police Department would be grateful if the Court could provide advance notice of its intention to issue its mandate in this case so that the Department can plan for and deploy an adequate number of officers to the areas where protests are likely to occur.

“Equally important, if the Supreme Court denies certiorari and the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit issues the mandate, the City anticipates there will be immediate and substantial demand from same-sex couples for marriage licenses and ceremonies…. The logistical efforts the City undertook to accommodate the couples as promptly and seamlessly as possible were substantial.”

Naturally, if the Supreme Court does deny certiorari in the Prop 8 case next week, the first question for everybody will be when same-sex couples can wed again in California. In the past, the Ninth Circuit has provided advance notice to the media and the public before issuing its decisions, so it looks like there’s a good chance it will grant Stewart’s request to ensure the end of Prop 8 goes smoothly

[MsTinkerbelly]

Federal judge rules against gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Nevada marriage equality case
By Scottie Thomaston

A federal district court judge in Nevada has ruled against same-sex couples in Nevada seeking access to marriage. Sevcik v. Sandoval is a legal challenge to Nevada’s constitutional regime with respect to same-sex couples, filed by Lambda Legal. The state allows same-sex couples to have most of the rights and benefits associated with marriage but denies them and only them use of the word marriage. The plaintiffs in this case say that denying them marriage violates the equal protection of the laws.

The judge disagreed, writing that the 1972 summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson forecloses the issue. He suggested a broad reading of Baker (which concerned an equal protection challenge based on gender), writing that “The equal protection claim is the same in this case as it was in Baker, i.e., whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from refusing to permit same-sex marriages. Although the judge found that the amendment does indeed draw a dividing line between two groups and that “for the purposes of an equal protection challenge, the distinction is definitely sexual-orientation based”, he applied the most lenient form of judicial review for equal protection challenges, rational basis review, where “a court does not judge the perceived wisdom or fairness of a law, nor does it examine the actual rationale for the law when adopted, but asks only whether “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”” Under this standard, he wrote, “[t]he protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest.” Thus there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Regarding the allegation that Nevada’s constitutional regime denying gays and lesbians marriage rights is based on animus toward the group, he wrote, “[t]he conceivable benefits to society from maintaining a distinction between traditional marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships provide a rational basis for the State of Nevada to maintain the distinction, even if one result of the distinction is the stigmatization of same-sex relationships or if bias was one motivating factor.”

The judge’s ruling against the plaintiffs was anticipated after he expressed skepticism about their case at the initial hearing. As we reported:

[]Judge Jones seemed skeptical in general about allowing any such expert testimony, saying that to do so would require him to sit “as a legislature” (14). ”This area you’re talking about,” he said, “is so broad it’s across the entire United States. You’re asking them to summarize thousands of incidences.” Attorneys, he said, should tell courts what the law is, and he specifically questioned the course of action taken by Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop 8 case in California with regard to allowing expert opinion on the changing shape of marriage in the United States and the difficulties faced by LGBT individuals.

An attorney for the state of Nevada raised the point that there are currently several petitions pending with the Supreme Court on the issue of marriage equality and the Defense of Marriage Act, to which Judge Jones responded, “It makes sense to get this decided and off with the circus train.” In particular, Judge Jones noted that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Prop 8 case, in which it singled out the fact that California had extended and then withdrawn equal marriage rights from gay and lesbian couples, differentiated that case from Sevcik, since Nevada had never extended such rights.

The case will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.