UPDATE 1: From the ruling, p. 80, footnote 27:
“The stay pending appeal issued by this court on August 16, 2010 remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate.”
UPDATE 2: The National Center for Lesbian Rights’s senior attorney, Chris Stoll, shares his thoughts with us on the next steps of the trial:
The stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. I expect that the proponents will ask for a further stay from 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court.
It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the 20-something active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral argument and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.
The losing party has up to 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. It then usually takes a couple of months at least for the Supreme Court to decide whether to take a case. The party opposing Supreme Court review gets to file a brief saying why the Supreme Court should not take the case, and amicus briefs can be filed on both sides as well. Also, the Court does not do any business from the end of June to September. If all that briefing is not completed before the Court’s summer recess begins, then it will not even consider whether to take the case until it comes back in September

UPDATE 5: From the AP’s coverage of the decision:
The court crafted a narrow decision that applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states. California is the only one of those states where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded.
“Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question,” the court said. “We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.
UPDATE 6: As Adam points out, the money line from the ruling:
“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground

In my opinion, The Supreme Court and the 9th Circut full court will probably decide not to hear the case since this is a decision limited only to California and the unconstitutional taking away of a previous right; and then marriage in California would be available to same-sex couples once again.

Okay...in my dreams!

BTW... I follow this case because I want everyone to have full equality under the law, in that they can protect their families with the same protections hetro couples receive; but in my case, I believe that also pertains to polyamourous families and "other" types of families wanting to protect their units with legal federal protections. I know that in the United States that day may never come, but isn't that the ideal we should all work to achieve?

Ding dong the witch is dead ? No more prop 8 ? Love and light from the Uk.

It was ruled invalid, but that decision will be appealed so we are still in limbo.

UPDATE 8: Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal, just sent in his reaction:
The opinion is wonderful. It goes right to the dark heart of Proposition 8 — the measure had no purpose other than withdraw from lesbians and gay men the right to designate their committed relationships as marriages in order to deprive us of a societal status that affords dignity to those relationships. That is simply not a government objective the federal Constitution allows. It also brilliantly explains why it matters so much. “We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries. The designation of ‘marriage’ is the status that we recognize. It is the principal manner in which the State attaches respect and dignity to the highest form of a committed relationship and to the individuals who have entered it” and that’s what Prop 8 wrongly tried to take away.
UPDATE 9: At the AFER press conference, attorneys Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson spoke about their ideas of whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case. Boutrous pointed out that the 9th Circuit’s decision today is deeply founded in previous Supreme Court rulings, particularly Romer v. Evans, and doesn’t raise any thorny issues that conflict with a decision from another circuit, the Supreme Court may be less inclined to take the case for those reasons. On the other hand, Ted Olson argued that part of California’s constitution, the largest state in the country (representing around 1/8 of the total U.S. population), has now been struck down by two courts, so the Supreme Court may wish to weigh in on those grounds. Both arguments are intriguing, and of course we won’t know anything until the case makes its way to the Supreme Court.
UPDATE 10: Also at today’s conference, attorney Ted Olson addressed the stay that is currently prohibiting Judge Walker’s now-upheld ruling from going into place. According to today’s ruling, the previous stay placed on that ruling by the 9th Circuit in August 2010 is in effect until the appeals court’s mandate is final. What this means is that the proponents of Prop 8 now have 14 days to ask for a rehearing by an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit. If they do not, the stay will be lifted. It is likely the proponents will ask for further appellate review, and ask for the 9th Circuit to place an extended stay on its decision pending that review. If the 9th Circuit were to deny that stay, the proponents could then go to the Supreme Court to ask for a stay pending appeal. The following guidelines for an en banc rehearing can be found after Judge Smith’s concurring and dissenting opinion in today’s ruling:
Purpose (Rehearing En Banc)
A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist:
Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or
The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.
UPDATE 11: Today, at 5 p.m., Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs, Chair and Founder, and Adam Bink, Director of Online Programs, will attend a community event at Los Angeles City Hall. L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be in attendance, as well as AFER board members Rob Reiner and Dustin Lance Black and a broad range of community and advocacy organizations. The event will take place at City Hall, on the 3rd floor of 200 N. Spring St. More information can be found on AFER’s Facebook page.
UPDATE 12: NOM’s reaction, which was itself predictable:
“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”
UPDATE 13 (Jacob): I got to listen in to AFER’s press call this afternoon about the 9th Circuit decision. Here are some highlights:
Ted Olson spoke in a little more detail about the stay. Essentially, in its decision today the 9th Circuit set it up so that the stay would expire when it issues a mandate affirming Judge Walker’s ruling. The proponents of Prop 8 have 14 days from today to request further appellate hearings. If they don’t, the mandate goes into effect 7 days later, and the stay is lifted (that would happen on Feb. 28). If they do seek a rehearing or Supreme Court review, the mandate cannot be issued until that process is complete, and the stay would remain in place.
AFER’s attorneys were very clear that while the specific decision the 9th Circuit came to today is carefully crafted and applies only to California (following the principle of judicial restraint), the reasoning the judges use to make their decision is much broader and could have major repercussions. In essence, today’s decision says that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional. On p. 77 of the decision, Judge Reinhardt writes, “Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.” This kind of reasoning follows that made by AFER’s attorneys in trial, and as AFER President Chad Griffin points out, it could have ramifications in other states with marriage equality, such as New York (and possibly Washington, later this year), in which marriage opponents wish to seek to rescind previously enumerated marriage rights through a popular referendum or by changing the makeup of the legislature.
To further prove this point, attorney David Boies pointed to this quotation from p. 60: “There is no rational reason to think that taking away the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex couples would advance the goal of encouraging California’s opposite-sex couples to procreate more responsibly.” Again, because of the scope of today’s decision, that sentence technically only applies to California. Nevertheless, that sentence (and its explicit rejection of the ‘responsible procreation’ argument made against marriage equality) can be cited and expanded upon by other courts in the future.
Ted Olson noted that when it decided Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court (in a majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy) argued that it was not making any decision about the validity of gay relationships, and only ruling about private sexual conduct. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia blasted the majority and argued that Lawrence could some day used in support of marriage equality. He was correct, of course–the Perry decision cites Lawrence and Justice Scalia’s dissent specifically. In Olson’s mind, today’s ruling demonstrates unequivocally that marriage is a centrally important American institution, and that it is unconstitutional to call gay couples’ relationships civil unions or domestic partnerships, because doing so implicitly classifies those relationships as less valid than heterosexual marriages. In his mind, today’s decision lays the framework for further expansion of marriage rights in other courts.
UPDATE 14: Over on Twitter, “Modern Family” stars Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet ask a very good question.
UPDATE 15: GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney released this statement regarding the 9th Circuit’s decision:
“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”
UPDATE 16: When asked about the appellate ruling, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had no official response from the administration, saying, “I don’t have a comment on litigation in general and in this litigation to which we are not a party. Beyond that, I can say that the President has long opposed, as you know, divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”
UDPATE 17: From the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, James Taranto writes:
The Ninth Circuit has a poor batting average in Supreme Court appeals, and this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who is notoriously liberal. Those facts are likely to inspire optimism among conservative commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. They shouldn’t. Reinhardt’s decision was expertly crafted to appeal to his former Ninth Circuit peer Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose view of the matter is all but certain to prove decisive.
In August 2010, this column ventured a prediction: “When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger–perhaps under the name Brown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry [it will be Perry v. Brown if today's opinion is appealed]–the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Although we still think that is Justice Kennedy’s inclination, we hereby walk back our prediction a bit. The court will not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in this case, but it will strike down Proposition 8 and thereby reimpose same-sex marriage in California. Reinhard’s decision lays out a way in which Justice Kennedy can do so–and indeed makes it very difficult for Kennedy to uphold Proposition 8.
The trial judge in the Perry case held that same-sex marriage was itself protected by the U.S. Constitution. But the Ninth Circuit judges set aside this holding and decided the case on “narrow grounds.” They found that Proposition 8 was analogous to Amendment 2, a Colorado ballot measure that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer v. Evans (1996).
Amendment 2 barred state and local government in the Centennial State from official actions “designed to protect the status of persons based on their ‘homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.’ ” In a 6-3 ruling, the high court held that the amendment violated equal protection by “imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group.” The author of that decision was Anthony Kennedy.
UPDATE 18: Towleroad’s Ari Ezra Waldman has a long, detailed reaction and analysis piece to the 9th Circuit’s ruling. His fundamental argument, though, is crystal clear:
More than any single vote, more than any single veto, more than any single legislative majority, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown is the most significant advancement in the fight for marriage equality in American history to date. Consider this: Never before has a federal appellate court affirmed any of the conclusions that the Ninth Circuit did today:
that denying committed gay couples their right to marry cannot encourage opposite sex marriages;
that when a state denies the right to marry while allowing gay couples all the rights and privilges of marriage, it cannot base the marriage ban on any rationale that denigrates gay parents;
that domestic partnerships are unequal to marriage;
that, as a matter of law, marriage rights do not hinge on natural procreative ability;
and, of course,
that a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional

And yet in most states its legal to marry your cousin ?

Is that right ?

Posted in the The Advocate online, 2/2/12
 

Couple in Landmark California Case Getting Divorced

Robin Tyler has confirmed that she and Diane Olson, the first couple to legally marry in Los Angeles County, where they sued for the right, are now getting divorced.

They applied for a marriage license every year since 2001 and were rejected until June 16, 2008, finally being given the right when the state's Supreme Court found a California ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

"When we took the oath, the clerk who gave us our license had tears in her eyes," Tyler remembers in a 2008 op-ed about the moment for The Huffington Post. "She had turned us down so many times earlier that she could not hold back her emotions."

Tyler and Olson were two of the four original plaintiffs in the case that led to the landmark ruling, which was eventually overturned by California voters with the passage of Proposition 8.

When they were married, they'd been together for 15 years and known each other for 35.

Sad.

Marriage is a huge step, and it changes EVERYTHING...sometimes for the better, and sometimes not.

Marriage equality bill to receive full Washington House vote at 1 p.m.
By Jacob Combs

Following yesterday’s historic news of the 9th Circuit striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, today brings another monumental event for marriage equality: the Washington House is scheduled to vote on a marriage equality bill at 1 p.m. PST. The bill passed the state Senate last Wednesday on a 28-21 vote, with four Republican senators voting in favor of the measure.

According to The Olympian, Democratic Rep. Jamie Pederson believes there are 54 to 56 votes in the House to pass the bill, significantly more than the 49-vote majority needed to approve the bill. Observers have expected the bill to easily pass the House, and Governor Chris Gregoire has pledged to sign it into law. That law would take effect on June 7.

You can watch tomorrow’s House proceedings live on TVW, Washington’s state version of C-SPAN. And, of course, we’ll have the news here on Prop8TrialTracker.com when it breaks!

Ah yes..... your 1st cousin in California....pretty much your 1/2 sibling if you want to get technical. :jester:

From the Prop 8 Blog...rather long but informative!
 

Top 10 questions on next steps in the Prop 8 trial
By Adam Bink

After major rulings like yesterday, there are always many questions that surface in the comments here at Prop8TrialTracker.com and elsewhere on what this means and what next. The Prop8TrialTracker.com staff took at look at many of those questions, consulted with our friends in the legal community and put together a list for your perusal (and if we’ve missed any, feel free to add in the comments and we’ll do our best to answer them).

1. Everyone says the losing side (Prop 8′s proponents) can now appeal to the 9th Circuit en banc. I thought the 9th Circuit just ruled?

A randomly selected 3-judge panel made up of 9th Circuit judges just ruled 2-1 that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. But the 9th Circuit is made up of several dozen judges. En banc is a term referring to when all the judges hear a case. When it comes to the 9th Circuit, if the request for an en banc hearing is granted, 11 judges from the 9th Circuit will convene to take a look at the case, which may involve a hearing.

2. What’s the timeline for that?

It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral arguments and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.

3. What happens if the 9th Circuit doesn’t take an en banc appeal?

The losing side can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. If the 9th Circuit takes the case en banc and they rule, what happens after they rule?

The losing side can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

5. Can the losing side from the 9th Circuit panel decision just go straight to the Supreme Court and not appeal to the 9th Circuit en banc at all?

Yes.

6. Will the Supreme Court take the case?

There are many different opinions about that. Many legal experts note the limited scope of yesterday’s 9th Circuit panel decision. Note that the Court explicitly said it was not making a ruling on same-sex marriage in general, but instead ruled on this one constitutional amendment (Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008). In fact, Judge Reinhardt, writing for the majority, wrote:

Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. Of course, when questions of constitutional law are necessary to the resolution of a case, courts may not and should not abstain from deciding them simply because they are controversial. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds.

Note also that the Court did not apply its ruling to the states covered in the 9th Circuit to say “all of the laws banning same-sex marriage do not comply with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional.” Instead, the 9th Circuit panel limited the scope of its ruling to Prop 8.

What does that mean with respect to the Supreme Court? It means, according to many legal experts, that the Court is less likely to take the case. That combined with the fact that over 99% of all cases filed for Supreme Court review are rejected for consideration means the Court may not take the case, in which case, yesterday’s 9th Circuit panel decision (or the decision of a full en banc review panel, if there is one) would stand. Of course, other legal experts believe the Court would take up the issue.

7. So what does that mean for same-sex marriage in California if the Supreme Court does not take the case?

If the Supreme Court does not take the case and there is no 9th Circuit en banc review (or there is a ruling from en banc review that Prop 8 is unconstitutional along the lines of yesterday’s decision), yesterday’s decision would become final, Prop 8 would fall, the stay would be lifted and same-sex couples in California can marry once again.

8. What’s the timeline for the Supreme Court?

The losing party has up to 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. It then usually takes a couple of months at least for the Supreme Court to decide whether to take a case. The party opposing Supreme Court review gets to file a brief saying why the Supreme Court should not take the case, and amicus briefs can be filed on both sides as well. Also, the Court does not do any business from the end of June to September. If all that briefing is not completed before the Court’s summer recess begins, then it will not even consider whether to take the case until it comes back in September. That all sets up for a decision in 2013 at the earliest.

9. Is there any indication of how the Supreme Court might rule?

Many legal minds have remarked how both Judge Walker’s decision as well as Judge Reinhardt’s opinion yesterday were along the lines of Justice Kennedy’s arguments with respect to cases like Romer v. Evans, the landmark case that struck down Amendment 2 in Colorado. Attorney Adam Bonin, writing at DailyKos, best encapsulates this widely remarked opinion as he notes:

This is a decision which the Supreme Court—if it hears the case at all—will affirm. It’s written in Justice Kennedy’s sweet spot, and I would not be surprised to see the Chief Justice and even Justice Alito potentially adhering to a precedent that said that if Romer remains good law, Prop 8 cannot stand.

On the other hand, there is a good chance same-sex marriage advocates will lose, and lose big. Adam goes on to note:

Am I disappointed this panel didn’t go further? Not really. No one knows where the Supreme Court as a whole is on marriage equality. And, in particular, we can’t be sure just where Justice Kennedy is on marriage equality, and on this he is the key vote. He has made clear that he believes in the role of the Supreme Court to be a leader on issues of social justice—whether in expanding gay rights or in looking to international norms to scale back America’s death penalty—and in this case Kennedy’s grandiosity could be marriage equality’s best friend.

But I wasn’t willing to take that chance. For all we know, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg might not be ready to go that far. Moreover, you can’t always rely on Justice Kennedy, who is a conservative, after all. Maybe he recoils from changing the national definition of marriage.

The bottom line is, no, there is never a “sure” indication of how the Court will rule, though yesterday’s opinion helps solidify various guesses. Does the 9th Circuit panel’s decision “set up” for a favorable ruling at the Supreme Court if it takes the case? Most likely, yes. Does that mean the Supreme Court will affirm yesterday’s ruling? There is a better chance. Does it mean the Supreme Court will “go big” and strike down laws across the country banning same-sex marriage, if it takes the case at all? Not necessarily.

10. So while this is all happening, the stay on yesterday’s decision is still in effect and same-sex couples cannot marry?

Yes, the stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 in the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after a petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. It’s generally expected that proponents will ask for a further stay from the 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court.

More questions can be submitted in the comments and we’ll keep an eye out and do our best to answer them here for you as well as in the comments. As such this post may update

The bill passed in the house and is awaiting the Governor's signature. Yay Washington State!

BREAKING: Washington legislature passes marriage equality
By Jacob Combs
As anticipated, a proposed marriage equality bill passed the Washington House tonight, with a final vote tally of 55-43. The bill passed the state Senate last week, and now moves to Governor Chris Gregoire, who has pledged to sign it into law. Because there is no emergency clause in the bill, the law will take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, meaning gays and lesbians would be able to marry on June 7, unless opponents of marriage equality collect enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot in November, in which case the law would be suspended until the referendum was complete.
In his speech this afternoon on the House floor in support of the bill, openly gay Rep. Jamie Pedersen read from Judge Reinhardt’s 9th Circuit opinion yesterday striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, sharing the following words from the decision:
“We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word ‘marriage’ in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significant…. The name ‘marriage’ signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships.”
Congratulations, Washington!

Same Sex Marriage
 

I am in Washington Anybody wanna get married (lol) Washington is a great state to live in very liberal Many ride there bicycles all year and recycle Im proud to say I live here

I did not reply yesterday because I was really too sleepy to read all the info you provided, Ms T. Not only that, but I was really dis-spirited by the narrowness of the decision that the court made. I have been hoping for a long while now that a decision would be forthcoming that would have a national effect. I guess it is good in its limited way. It does protect queers who have once had rights from losing those rights. Good for them, but it actually makes it more difficult for those who have no real hope of their state (like my state of Florida) actually ever passing an equity law in the first place. Glad if it helps you guys, though.
Smooches,
Keri

I never thought that I would see equal marriage in my lifetime anywhere in this country...I bet there were women who never thought they would ever vote...interracial couples that were afraid to be seen together let alone marry...people owned that had no hope. You get my point.

It will take a while, and it wil take the Government to get it done, but it is building steam and will keeping moving forward until someday our children and grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about.:rrose:

State sanctioned marriage has never held any interest for me....even when I was a kid. And it still holds no interest.

It is the military that leads the way for the entire country, as it did with integration of black soldiers. The first step has been taken for civil rights. When the military (which it must) finally forces equal rights the rest of the country will follow.

The military is forcing federal benefits and has the absolute best case in the court systems for equal rights.

it's damn hard to look someone in the eye, who has lost half a leg or two and more, and say your marriage sucks and your benefits, should you die, cannot go to your same sex life partner.

Maureen Walsh Washington State Congresswoman speaks on same sex marriage bill. FANTASTIC! She deserves some major props.
Smooches,
Keri

From joemygod
 

Gov To Sign WA Marriage Bill On Monday

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire will sign her state's marriage equality bill on Monday morning, thereby setting the clock ticking on the rush to collect referendum signatures to block gay marriage at the ballot box.
A statehouse signing ceremony in Olympia, Washington's capital, was slated for 11:30 a.m. local time on Monday. The bill won final legislative approval from the state House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 55-43. The measure will not take effect before early June. Opponents have vowed to seek its repeal at the polls in November, but they cannot begin collecting signatures for a petition to overturn the measure by referendum until it is signed into law.

By GEOFF MULVIHILL -AP

TRENTON, New Jersey — New Jersey lawmakers gave their blessing to legalizing gay marriage for the first time Monday as the state Senate passed a bill that would allow nuptials for same-sex couples. Gov. Chris Christie has said he will veto such legislation.

..The Senate's vote sends the bill to the Assembly, which is expected to pass it Thursday.

Six states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage, and Washington state will join that list when Gov. Christine Gregoire signs legislation legalizing same-sex marriage Monday.

New Jersey's governor, a Republican, announced his veto intentions last month. He has said he does not believe marriage laws should be changed, but he does support New Jersey's civil union law, which grants gay couples the legal protections of marriage.

Christie said he wants to put a change in the definition of marriage to a public vote.

But gay rights groups oppose a referendum. They see gay marriage as a civil rights matter and argue that it should not be up to the masses to protect the rights of a minority group.

Five years ago, New Jersey's state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In response, the Legislature created civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage. A lawsuit seeking to do that is in the state court system.

From the Prop 8 Blog...I'm okay with this myself
 

Love Honor Cherish cancels Prop 8 ballot repeal initiative
By Jacob Combs

Last night, some big Prop 8 news came out of California as Love Honor Cherish, which had begun the process to collect signatures and place a repeal of Prop 8 on the November ballot, announced that it is canceling that effort. In an email to its supporters, LHC wrote:

Following last week’s victory in the 9th Circuit, we are now hopeful that weddings of gay and lesbian couples will resume by the end of this year, or even, at the end of this month. And what an incredible day that will be when gays and lesbians are able to marry again in California!

In the meantime, our “backup plan” to put the repeal of Prop 8 on the ballot this November is no longer feasible. Although we have had success so far–our wonderful volunteers, significant donor commitments, our campaign office, and support from numerous leaders and organizations around the state–collecting the 807,615 valid signatures required will likely not happen by mid-April as required to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

We would need more than $1.5 million in donor commitments to hire a paid signature gathering firm to assist us in this massive effort. In view of the 9th Circuit victory and the narrowness of the ruling, making Supreme Court review less likely, raising the additional funds needed is now not realistic. And, as we have stated, we had no illusions that the initiative could qualify based solely on our statewide volunteer signature gathering effort

(((Miss T,)))
I know you were committed to this proposition. I hope you are not too disappointed about the decision to halt the process. From your lips to God's ears that Cali folk will be back in the marriage business by years end.
Smooches,
Keri

I was really crushed by the people of California voting in Prop 8...I spent weeks grieving for the slap. Ideally I would love for people to change their minds, vote Prop 8 down and have a Kumbaya moment where we are all as one, but pffffttt that one is never going to happen and no one should get to vote on my civil rights anyway.

I firmally believe that even if everyone has to wait a while, the Government is going to have to force this issue for it to be something that is available to all that want it. I'm already married in my State, but Federal recognition and the benefits that go along with marriage are what I am really after.

News from Washington State...Prop 8 Blog
 

Marriage equality opponents file referendum paperwork in Washington
By Jacob Combs

As expected, opponents of marriage equality have filed paperwork in Washington state to put a referendum of the state’s recently passed marriage bill on the November ballot. SeatllePI reports:

Opponents of same-sex marriage, seeking to force a referendum on Washington’s new law, filed the paperwork in Olympia about three hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed marriage equality into law.

They have until June 6, a political D-Day for collecting and submitting 120,577 valid voter signatures to put marriage equality on the November ballot. The right of same-sex couples to wed would be blocked until voters decide the issue.

…

Sponsors of Referendum 73 include groups at the right end of the political spectrum such as Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage. The campaign is being mounted under the banner of a group called Preserve Marriage Washington. Backholm predicted that the campaign will be “expensive”, with estimates in the $2-4 million range for each side.

Conservatives forced a statewide referendum in 2009 in a bid to roll back the a domestic partner law, nicknamed “Everything but Marriage,” after it was passed by the Washington Legislature. Voters by a 53-47 percent margin voted to sustain the rights of domestic partners.

News from maryland...Prop 8 blog
 

Maryland’s marriage equality bill heads to full House after passing committee vote
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, two Maryland House of Delegates committees which heard testimony on a proposed marriage equality bill last Friday voted as a joint body to advance the bill to a full House vote. The joint committee vote required a majority of the 45 legislators to move the bill to the House; it passed 25-18.

As the Baltimore Sun reported, yesterday’s vote did hold a few surprises. Delegate Robert Costa, who represents a conservative area in Anne Arundel County, took supporters of marriage equality by surprise when he voted yes, becoming the only Republican so far to do. Del. Sam Arora, whose relationship with the LGBT community has been on rocky ground, abstained from the vote. Arora included marriage equality in his platform when he ran for office, garnering cash and political support from progressives and the LGBT community, co-sponsored last year’s marriage equality bill, and then later issued a statement saying he had changed his mind about marriage rights but would still vote for the bill.

Last year, two delegates who had co-sponsored the legislation, Jill Carter of Baltimore and Tiffany Alston of Prince George’s County, stunned supporters by dropping their support for the measure. Alston voted against moving the bill out of committee this year, and also introduced an amendment that would delay the bill’s effective date to allow for a voter referendum before it would go into effect. That measure failed. Carter has not co-sponsored the bill this year, saying her support for marriage equality had “diminished,” but did vote to move it to the House floor.

Supporters of the bill have expressed optimism, saying they believed House leaders would move the measure to a full floor vote only if they thought it could pass. Last year, the Judiciary committee, which was the only one to hear testimony on a marriage equality bill, voted to send it to the full House, only to have it sent back to committee when support dried up, killing the measure. This year, only 11 of the 21 Jucidiary committee members voted in favor of the bill, although 15 of the 23 members on the health committee, a majority, voted yes.

What does this all mean? Essentially, if marriage equality does come up for a full House vote in Maryland this year, which it looks like it will, it’s going to be a very close vote that will probably come down to the few legislators still sitting on the fence. If you live in Maryland or know anyone who does, it’s time to contact those representatives! Maryland could be another win for 2012, but it’s going to be an uphill battle getting there

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

The 9th Circut Court left the stay in place until their Mandate could be put into effect, or until another appeal was filed by the other side.
From post 881:
UPDATE 1: From the ruling, p. 80, footnote 27:
“The stay pending appeal issued by this court on August 16, 2010 remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate.”
UPDATE 2: The National Center for Lesbian Rights’s senior attorney, Chris Stoll, shares his thoughts with us on the next steps of the trial:
The stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. I expect that the proponents will ask for a further stay from 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court

Prop 8 Blog...a busy day!
 

Civil union bill passes Colorado House panel
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-2 to advance a civil union bill to the Senate floor. One Republican joined the committee’s four democrats to vote yes on the measure. The bill is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, but its passage is unclear in the House, where Republicans hold a majority by a margin of one vote. From the Washington Post:

The bill addresses parental rights and child support when a same-sex couple separates. The bill would also grant same-sex couples other rights similar to what exist in a traditional marriage, such as the ability to be involved in their partner’s medical and end-of-life decisions. It also would enhance inheritance and property rights.

Colorado banned marriage equality in 2006, when voters amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Last year, a similar bill passed the Senate, only to be killed in a House committee on a party-line vote. Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a gay legislator who supported the 2011 bill, told reporters that he was confident the measure would have passed a full house vote. This year could prove differently, with more Republicans in the state expressing support for the measure. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper also mentioned the bill in his State of the State speech in January, urging lawmakers to pass it and provide protections for Colorado’s gay and lesbian couples

WOW--prop 8 blog
 

Marriage equality bills to be considered today in New Jersey, Maryland legislatures
By Jacob Combs

Starting at 1 p.m. EST, the New Jersey General Assembly will debate and then vote on the marriage equality bill that passed the state’s Senate on Monday. The Assembly is expected to pass the bill, which Gov. Chris Christie has promised to veto. A link to the Assembly’s media stream can be found here.

Also today, the Maryland House of Delegates will begin debate on a proposed marriage equality bill, which passed out of a joint House committee on Tuesday. A procedural move in the House on Wednesday delayed consideration of the bill until today to buy more time for supporters to lobby legislators. Debate was scheduled to begin this morning, but was pushed back to a special session late this afternoon which will begin at 5:30 p.m. EST. Audio of the session will be available here. A final vote in the House could occur later this week.

We’ll have updates here on P8TT when the votes occur in either state!

UPDATE: The Baltimore Sun reports that a second GOP lawmaker has announced his support for marriage equality in Maryland:

Del. Wade Kach, a Baltimore County Republican, told The Sun this morning that he will switch his vote and throw his support behind Gov. Martin O’Malley’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Kach said the change in heart came after considerable deliberation. He plans to put out a statement at 10:15 a.m.

The move puts O’Malley closer to the 71 votes he needs for passage in the 141-member chamber, but it is still unclear that supporters have the numbers they need. Lawmakers will begin debating the marriage bill this morning. A final vote could come as soon as Friday.

Kach’s decision is stunning since he voted against the same-sex marriage bill in committee on Monday night and is a co-sponsor of a different measure that would define marriage as between a man and a woman

Oh jeez, you were asking about Washington! I believe that the side wishing to force a vote has until June to gather enough signatures to put it to a vote to repeal it in November. I think they call it a referendum.

At the earliest, Marriage cannot begin until the legislature finishes their session...I think that is June as well.

Prop 8 blog...
 

New Jersey Assembly passes marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

Updated at 6:15 to reflect accurate vote count–apparently one assembly member’s button was broken during the vote.

In a late afternoon vote, the New Jersey General Assembly passed marriage equality on a vote of 42-33. The measure passed the Senate earlier this week by a 24-16 margin. The bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Chris Christie, who has promised to veto it.
The Washington Post reports on supporters’ next move should Christie keep true to his veto threat:

The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor; Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won’t happen.

With that in mind, Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a longer view. They say there’s no rush for an override vote, especially because the Legislature has been unsuccessful in every prior attempt to override Christie, most notably to reinstate a surcharge on millionaires.

Instead, they plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage — currently 52-42 percent in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll — will continue to grow.

“Civil rights is incremental, civil rights is long range, and you take one achievement at a time,” said Steven Goldstein, head of the state’s largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality.

In case same-sex couples can’t win gay marriage through legislation, they have engaged in a parallel fight in the courts. Seven gay couples and several of their children have sued, claiming that the state’s civil union law doesn’t work as intended

Any chance that a supreme court justice (preferably Thomas or Scalia) will retire (or die) before prop 8 is advanced to the supreme court? The new justice might not vote due to "newness", but at least one of the bad old votes would be gone.

I can dream can't I
Smooches,
Keri

The Loving Story
 

Excellent documentary on the case of Virginia couple Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple arrested, jailed and banished from Virginia for marrying in the 1950's.

As I listen to it, I can't help but replace interracial with gay and realize I am listening to the same exact excuses for not allowing lesbians and gays to marry.

Their love was not illegal. Their marriage was, a violation of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act banning interracial marriage.

Richard and Mildred Loving were both sent to jail, charged criminally, convicted of felonies and banished from Virginia, the harsh beginning of a nine-year journey in which the couple would fight all the way to the Supreme Court, for the right to go home as husband and wife. 18 other states also had similar laws.

June 12,1967, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, struck down the laws banning interracial marriage:

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/1...#storylink=cpy

RANDALLSTOWN, Md. (WJZ)– Same-sex couples are one step closer to walking down the aisle legally in Maryland. The Civil Marriage Protection Act narrowly passed in the House of Delegates.

The bill will now head over to the Senate where it is expected to pass just as it did last year. But both sides believe it will then go to referendum in November so it could be Maryland voters who make the final call.

If voters approve the measure, the earliest a gay couple could wed in Maryland is January when the law would go into affect.

Prop 8 Blog...West Virginia
 

West Virginia legislator introduces civil unions bill
By Jacob Combs

Delegate John Doyle, a Democrat, has introduced a bill in the West Virginia House to provide gay and lesbian couples with the same legal rights and protections as their heterosexual counterparts. The AP reports:

Delegate John Doyle says he introduced the bill Thursday to start a conversation about family equality. The Jefferson County Democrat says that gay and lesbian couples should have the same safety net to deal with the death of a parent or the loss of a job as married couples.

Fairness WV, which advocates on behalf of the gay, lesbian and transgender community, says this is the first time a civil union bill has been introduced in the West Virginia Legislature.

Doyle also sponsored a bill that would prohibit workplace and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. That bill has not advanced since it was introduced

Prop 8 Blog...expected news
 

The problem with Gov. Christie’s veto
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, just like he promised to, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the marriage equality bill that passed the state legislature earlier this week.

Along with his veto, Christie has called for a referendum on the issue in November while simultaneously issuing insert-foot-here arguments suggesting that African-American civil rights leaders would have been “happy” to have a referendum on their rights. While the governor has accused Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature of political theater, the truth is that either both sides of the issue in New Jersey are guilty of that charge, or neither are.

Supporters of the bill are taking a long-term strategy towards bringing marriage equality to the Garden State with a plan to gain enough support by 2014 to override the governor’s veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature. Assembly Democrats have stated that they would have had two more votes in favor of marriage equality if two Republican members who were on vacation had taken part in Thursday’s vote. That means supporters will have to court 10 more votes in the Assembly and three more in the Senate to override the veto.

Christie’s calculus on the issue is not difficult to ascertain. As Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality, said in a statement:

[Christie] won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay. He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay. And if I get flooded with letters now from Charleston, so be it.

But despite Gov. Christie’s perhaps wise political choice regarding his future career, his veto threat may in fact be an dereliction of the duty pertaining to his current career. As Tobias Wolff, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, astutely pointed out in an e-mail to Prop8TrialTracker.com’s Adam Bink:

The New Jersey Supreme Court decided, unanimously, that same-sex couples are entitled to fully equal treatment under the New Jersey Constitution. Experience has demonstrated that civil unions fail to provide that fully equal treatment. In enacting a marriage equality bill, the New Jersey legislature is fulfilling a constitutional mandate from the State’s highest court.

The case that Professor Wolff is referring to is Lewis v. Harris, a 2006 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay and lesbian couples in the state were entitled to the same equal protection as heterosexual couples. In its ruling, the court stated:

We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage.

This week, the Legislature did just that, determining that keeping the term ‘marriage’ from gay and lesbian couples is an unfair burden on those couples’ relationships. In 2008, a Civil Union Review Commission comprised of clergy, lawyers, lawmakers and marriage equality activists unanimously recommended that New Jersey provide marriages to same-sex couples, saying that “civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey.”

By vetoing the marriage equality bill that the New Jersey legislature passed this week, Gov. Christie has expressly reneged on his constitutional responsibility to confer “every statutory right and benefit” to same-sex couples, and he has thwarted the power of the Legislature, provided by the state’s Supreme Court in 2006, to make the decision to provide the equal rights that Lewis mandated.

With his conditional veto, Christie is clearly trying to have it both ways on the issue of marriage equality. In his statement, the governor said, “I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits.” He also called for creating an ombudsman position that would look into complaints lodged by couples that they have been discriminated against despite having entered into civil unions.

But as Judge Stephen Reinhardt so eloquently put it in his ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 at the 9th Circuit, it is impossible to claim that gay and lesbian couples in civil unions deserve “the very same rights and benefits” as couples in marriages, while simultaneously arguing that they do not have the right to the term ‘marriage.’ The math here is not complex: either gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples, or they have all the same rights minus one–the right to call their unions what they really are.

Gov. Christie’s veto is not merely a matter of personal choice or a difference of opinion. It is one man, disagreeing with other two branches of government in his state, making a conscious decision to withhold equal protection from a class of its citizens

Prop 8 Blog...written last night
 

What tomorrow’s (today) 9th Circuit deadline means for the Prop 8 case
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow (today), February 21, marks a big deadline in the Prop 8 case that those of us who have been counting the days since the 9th Circuit’s decision have been eagerly anticipating: the last day that the proponents of Prop 8 can file a petition for rehearing with the 9th Circuit. The proponents have 14 days from the initial decision to do so, meaning that if they do not request an en banc review of the February 7 decision with a larger panel of the appeals court, the 3-judge panel’s ruling will be the last word at this level of appeal.

At this point, there’s no reason to speculate whether or not the proponents will actually file for a rehearing tomorrow, as they may be waiting until the last moment to do so. One question that is probably on many minds though is what happens to the stay depending on the proponents’ actions tomorrow.

In its ruling on February 7, the 9th Circuit wrote that the mandate (that is, the official notice of the decision) will not go into effect until 7 days after the deadline for a rehearing petition expires, or 7 days after a rehearing is denied. What that means is that the 9th Circuit’s stay on Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 will be lifted 7 days after tomorrow’s deadline (February 28), should the proponents choose not to file for rehearing. If the proponents do file for a rehearing, the stay is automatically extended until that rehearing is either denied or it is accepted and then ruled on, both of which could take some time.

Even if the proponents do not file for a rehearing tomorrow, however, it’s important to note that it is only the 3-judge panel’s initial stay that will expire on the 28th. Regardless of what they do tomorrow, the proponents have a full 90 days following the decision to seek Supreme Court review. Should they choose not to petition for rehearing, the proponents could still request an extension of the stay from the 9th Circuit pending Supreme Court review. Should that request be denied, they could petition the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy, who is responsible for petitions from the 9th Circuit, could then either grant a stay on his own or refer it to the full court.

Tomorrow is certainly an important day no matter how the proponents of Prop 8 decide to act, because it gives us insight into their strategy moving forward. Nonetheless, it is too soon to say when marriages could resume in California