Prop 8 Blog...pins and needles!
 

Supreme Court has not granted Prop 8 case
September 25, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston

The Supreme Court just issued its orders from yesterday’s “long conference”, the conference that takes place after the Court’s summer recess. There were a few cases granted, but neither Perry, the Prop 8 case, nor Windsor, a DOMA case, were granted today. And as of this writing, the Supreme Court docket for both cases still show that the case was distributed for this conference. Whether the Justices re-listed the case for another conference or are planning to deny a writ of certiorari to hear the case is uncertain at this point.

**note from Tinkerbelly

If they are going to deny the case we will hear next Monday.

From Prop 8 blog
 

What’s Next for Prop 8 and the Supreme Court
By Matt Baume

Major Prop 8 news today: the Supreme Court of the United States has released a list of some of the cases it will take in its upcoming term, and AFER’s case is not included.

This doesn’t mean that the court is passing on the case — at least not yet. It either means that they’re going to officially decline to hear it next week, or that they’re holding off on making a decision until later in their term.

If they decide to pass on the case, then our previous victories would stand and marriages could resume in California. And if they do eventually decide to take the case, AFER will defend our victories in court with briefs and oral argument by April 2013. In that case, we’ll expect a final decision by the end of June.

Prop 8 blog
 

Second Circuit hears oral arguments in Windsor case
By Jacob Combs

I’m at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today in Manhattan covering oral arguments in the DOMA case Windsor v. USA. Edie Windsor, an 84-year old New Yorker, was forced to pay more than $363,000 in estate tax after her wife, Thea Spyer, died. A district court judge in New York ruled in Windsor’s favor, and while the ACLU, which is representing her, has appealed the case straight to the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit is still considering the case on its own.

Arguments began today at 10 a.m. Eastern time, and I was unfortunately unable to liveblog the case because laptops and cell phones are prohibited in the courtroom. As this post publishes, I’ll be at the court taking notes the old-fashioned way on pad and paper, and I’ll be posting a complete summary and analysis later in the day. Stay tuned!

Prop 8 Blog
 

Supreme Court has yet to take action on Prop 8, DOMA cases
By Scottie Thomaston

Like last week, orders were expected this morning that could have addressed whether the Supreme Court will take up the constitutional challenges to Prop 8 and DOMA, as well as other gay rights cases. And like last week, no action was taken on these cases. The Court did not outright deny review, and it did not write a summary reversal or a remand in the cases. The docket page for the Prop 8 case still reflects that it was ready for the September 24 conference. The Windsor docket page says the same.

We will have updates if anything changes

PROP 8 NEWS BLOG
 

Supreme Court Waiting to Issue Prop 8 Ruling
By Matt Baume

We could be getting big news from the Supreme Court on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act any day now. Make sure you’re subscribed to breaking alerts for all the latest news. And polling is still very close in Maryland, with marriage on the ballot in just five weeks. We’ll have the latest numbers and show you how to get involved in this crucial race.


There’s still no word from the Supreme Court regarding the Prop 8 case. That means that we now know that court hasn’t rejected the petition for review. The next step is for them to issue a decision on hearing the case at some point in the coming weeks. In the mean time, AFER is preparing for all possible outcomes. And we’re continuing our work towards full federal marriage equality.

It appears marriage will not begin immediately in California as the Supreme Court has indicated with their silence that the case will be reviewed at a later date.

I have mixed feelings...sadness because the people of California are forced to wait if Marriage is what they want and they are after a same sex union, and I am filled with dread that the highest court in the land may also state that we are second class citizens...but I am also filled with the hope that all of these cases; Prop 8, Doma, Winsor....might bring about a Federal change for all of us within my lifetime.

Exciting stuff.

Ms T.
If the supreme court decides against us on prop 8, that will be the death knell of the 14th amendment... a task that the republicans have been trying to accomplish for some time now.

My fear is that SCOTUS will make a limited decision with a state by state resolution, when I am hoping for a decision that will have a much broader reach. The reason I was so excited about the approach that was taken in this court action is that it is based on equal protection under the law. If forbidding marriage to same sex couples is not legal in California (under the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution) then it follows in my mind that forbidding these marriage is against the constitution in all states.

The only reasonable decision in my book.
Smooches,
Keri

and let us not forget that affirmative action is on SCOTUS docket...........it could mean the end of affirmative action..........as well as same sex (/gender) marriage

Prop 8 Blog update
 

Quick update on Prop 8 case
By Scottie Thomaston

On Friday, the Supreme Court held another conference to determine which cases it would take up this term. Since the Prop 8 case is still outstanding, along with Windsor v. USA – a DOMA case – and Brewer v. Diaz, a case related to domestic partner benefits in Arizona, the Court could have considered those cases at its conference. Normally, the Court releases a list of orders from its conference the following Monday. Yesterday, though, was a federal holiday. The order list is out today, and no action has been taken on any of the gay rights cases.

The next conference is on October 12, and the dockets remain unchanged, still reflecting the cases were ready for the September 24 conference.

The next list of new “distributed” cases that are ready to be taken up at the next conference will be released tomorrow. The list tomorrow will reflect cases that are ready for distribution at the October 26 conference.

Right now the Prop 8 case as well as all the DOMA cases except three with responses due next week (two in Pedersen, one in Windsor) are ready for a conference to decide if the Supreme Court will take them up. Of course, responses are not mandatory, but it can be reasonably assumed that there will be responses filed. It seems more and more likely that the Court is simply waiting for all the DOMA cases to be ready before it takes any action on those or on Prop 8. We could see the cases taken up at the November 9 or November 20 conference

In the news DOMA
 

Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by second appeals court
Andrew Kelly / Reuter


By NBC News staff and wire services
Updated at 4:34 p.m. ET: A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday became the second appeals court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joins the 1st Circuit court in Boston, which handed down its ruling in May, in rejecting a key part of the law. The 2nd Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that DOMA unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.

The constitutionality of same-sex marriage could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which may take up the issue in its current term.

"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the 2-1 majority.

"Even if preserving tradition were in itself an important goal, DOMA is not a means to achieve it," he said.

USJudge Chester Straub dissented, arguing that the federal definition of marriage should be left to the political process. "If this understanding is to be changed, I believe it is for the American people to do so," he wrote.

Appeals in several DOMA cases are pending before the Supreme Court.

"Next stop, Supreme Court," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign, a California-based progressive advocacy organization. "Politicians and judges have no business telling anyone who they can love and who they can marry."

The appellate panel ruled in favor of Edith "Edie" Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian whose partner, whom she married in Canada, died in 2009. Windsor argued that the 1996 law discriminates against gay couples in violation of the Constitution.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled today the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gay couples. Legendary attorney David Boies and Zach Wahls join The Last Word to look at the case that could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Six states have legalized same-sex marriage, including New York in 2011. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal law and government programs do not recognize those marriages.

Windsor had to pay $363,000 in federal taxes after inheriting property from Thea Spyer, to whom she was married. The IRS stated the marriage was not recognized at the federal level and imposed the estate tax.

"Given her age and health, we are eager for Ms. Windsor to get a refund of the unconstitutional tax she was forced to pay as soon as possible," Roberta Kaplan, her legal counsel, said in a statement.

"This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish," added Windsor. "I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity."

The Obama administration said last year it considered DOMA unconstitutional and would no longer defend it. Instead, a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is defending the law in courts across the country.

The appeals court rejected the group's arguments that the law was necessary to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it was necessary to encourage procreation.

Referring to the House Republican leadership, which is defending the law in court because it holds a 3-2 majority on the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Jacobs wrote:

BLAG argues that, unlike protected classes, homosexuals have not "suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded." But whether such discrimination existed in Babylon is neither here nor there. BLAG concedes that homosexuals have endured discrimination in this country since at least the 1920s. Ninety years of discrimination is entirely sufficient to document a "history of discrimination."

Jacobs was appointed in 1992 by by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the Second Circuit. He was joined in his opinion by Judge Christopher Droney, an Obama appointee. Straub, who wrote the dissent, is a Clinton appointee.

The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.

Lawyer Paul Clement, who had argued in support of the law on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives, was traveling and did not immediately return a message for comment to The Associated Press.

James Esseks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "a watershed moment in the legal movement for lesbian and gay rights."

"It's fabulous news for same-sex couples in New York and other states," he said.

Esseks said the 2nd Circuit went farther than the appeals court in Boston by saying that when the government discriminates against gay people, the courts will presume that the discrimination is unconstitutional.

In striking down the law, Jacobs wrote that the law's "classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest" and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo praised the decision:

"In June 2011, New York State inspired the rest of the nation by becoming the largest state to achieve marriage equality. Today’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides further momentum for national progress on this important civil rights issue. What we did here in New York can only be the beginning, and we must continue to work together until all Americans are free to marry whom they love and are entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage equally, regardless of sexual orientation."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated $250,000 to support same-sex marriage backers in Maryland, added:

“Today’s decision affirms that DOMA deprives same sex couples of equal protection under the law. This ruling is an important step in ensuring the rights of men and women are not dependent upon who they love and who they chose to spend their lives with. We have much more to do, but we are another step further on the road to a more perfect union for all Americans.”

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said it looked forward to a Supreme Court ruling:

“This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote."

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

At last
 

Supreme Court to Review DOMA and Prop 8 Cases Next Month
by Jason St. Amand
Web Producer / Staff Writer
Tuesday Oct 30, 2012

LARGEMEDIUMSMALL The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it would meet privately in late November to discuss whether to hear cases that challenge California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, San Diego Gay & Lesbian News reports.

On Nov. 20, the justices will meet in private to decide if they will review Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s Prop 8 -- a measure that was enacted in 2008 that bans same-sex marriages in the state. The judges will also review a number of cases that challenge DOMA, a federal law put into effect in 1996 that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"For far too long, gay and lesbian couples in California have been waiting to exercise the fundamental freedom to marry that the United States Constitution already tells them they have," Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sponsor of the Perry case, said. "With the distribution of our case for the Court’s consideration, we move one step closer to the day when the nation will be able to live up to the promise of liberty and equality enshrined in our Constitution, and all Americans will be able to marry the person they love."

In 2009, the Perry case was filed in federal District Court on behalf of two same-sex couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. In February of this year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an August 2010 ruling from the District Court that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. In July, however, those who back Prop 8 asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

The justices will decide whether to hear a number of other cases related to DOMA as well. At least four judges need to agree whether the Supreme Court will hear a specific case.

If the court decides against hearing the Prop 8 case, same-sex couples in California will once again be allowed to marry just a few days after the decision. The high court is expected to make its announcement on Nov. 26.

"For generations, Americans have looked to the Supreme Court to uphold the fundamental tenets of our constitution and on November 20th, the court will face those questions once again for the LGBT community," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who is also the co-founder of American Foundation for Equal Rights, said in a statement. "Never before have the justices confronted so many cases critical to the lives of LGBT people and our families. With truth and justice on our side, I know that we will prevail in knocking down the dark walls of discrimination known as Prop 8 and DOMA."

Historic
 

Very, very closely watching the MD vote since they're our most significant neighbor. ::nail biting::

Vote update - Marriage Equality
 

Historic
 

I'm so happy for the states that now have same-sex marriage. It's getting there. Equality is coming, I can feel it. Still, I wish the Hoosier State would wake up. Ah well, I'm still happy.

....
 

Same sex marriage with 57 % of votes in, Washington State.......

Aprroved 959,857 52%

Reject 893,953 48%


Looking Good!

Yes, Washington!!! Do it, neighbor!!!

Marriage Equality Upheld in Washington State

I know not all votes are counted yet, but some are calling it a win.

This is a huge personal victory for many stuck in the nightmarish legal loophole of gay divorce. Washington has no residency requirements, and as such, it will be the first state to legalize gay divorce for all couples, regardless of where they live.


I will be very happy to close that chapter of my life





Yay, Washington!

Minneapolis has 14 precincts which haven't been counted yet due to ballot issues. At least three of these have to be hand counted later today. Minneapolis has the bulk of the voters and the bulk of the GLBT population and supporters. *keeping my fingers crossed*

--Currently 49% of voters are FOR the amendment. They need 51% to get it into the state constitution. With so many Minneapolis precincts yet to be counted we are all very hopeful that this amendment will not pass.

MN Vote NO! Won out! The amendment has been struck down!

Last night the people of 4 States voted on same-sex marriage and the people of 4 States proved that the time will come when everyone will be free to marry the person (maybe someday the persons) of their choice.

I am filled with hope.

Prop 8 trial tracker
 

Marriage equality passes in Maine; Politico calls MD marriage equality initiative, says it will pass
By Scottie Thomaston

Updated at midnight

Maine has voted to allow marriage equality in the state. Freedom to Marry writes:


Portland – Maine today became the first state to approve the freedom to marry for same-sex couples through a majority vote on a ballot measure. Maine is expected to begin issuing marriage licenses in mid-December.

“Today, a majority in Maine voted in favor of loving and committed same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry,” said Freedom to Marry National Campaign Director Marc Solomon. “Now the commitment gay and lesbian couples have made in life will be respected equally under the law, celebrated before their loved ones, and called what it is: marriage.”

“It’s hard to overstate the national significance of this vote,” Solomon continued. “For years, our opponents have argued that we could not win a majority vote at the ballot. Today, Maine voters proved them wrong, standing up for the Golden Rule and for freedom for all Mainers.”

The centerpiece of the three-year campaign was a robust field effort. Volunteers and organizers made more than a million telephone calls, knocked on nearly 300,000 doors, and had 275,000 one-on-one conversations with voters.

“We congratulate Mainers United for Marriage Campaign Director Matt McTighe for the extraordinary effort he has run, as well as all the coalition partners, and particularly Equality Maine and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, for their steadfast commitment to this fight,” said Solomon.

For the first time in history the voters have passed marriage equality.

Politico has called the marriage equality initiative in Maryland, projecting that it will pass.

Politico says:

Yes 58.0% 1,138,135
No 42.0% 823,931

We will have more.

Update 12:15ET
The AP has called Washington, Maryland, and Maine.


Anthony De Rosa
✔@AntDeRosa RT @kxly4news: (AP) Washington voters are narrowly approving gay marriage in the state, following the lead of voters in Maryland and Maine
6 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavoriteUpdate 12:20

Apparently the politico results for MD are incorrect – they switched the results of two initiatives. However, the end result is the same: Maryland is won. The marriage equality campaign issued a statement:


Free State approves marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples at ballot box

BALTIMORE – Voters approved Question 6, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to receive a marriage license beginning in January. Tonight is the first time in history any state has voted on and passed marriage equality on the ballot.

“Fairness and equality under the law won tonight,” said Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality. “We’re sure to feel the ripples of this monumental victory across the country for years to come.”

Question 6 protects religious freedom of churches and clergy. No church or clergy member will have to perform any marriage they don’t want to.

Legislatures and courts have legalized marriage equality in six states and the District of Columbia. Maryland is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through a vote of the people.

“This victory would not have been possible without the unparalleled leadership of Governor O’Malley, resolve of the LGBT Caucus in the legislature, and the full-court press by the Human Rights Campaign, which has been here day in and day out for more than a year working for full equality.”

Welcome the state of Washington to the Marriage Equality club!! We will not be denied!!

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!!!



http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...c0-ddW7nxOs5GS

Now it's Nov 30th...jeez
 

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.”

Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

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

PROP 8 BLOG-NEVADA NEWS
 

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.

West Point chapel hosts its first same-sex wedding
 

Yet another delay at the Suprene Court for California....stay tuned:candle: