washington
 

Marriage Equality in Mexico
 

Mexican Supreme Court rules for marriage equality
Posted on December 6, 2012 by swyatt11

In a unanimous ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Mexico has paved the way for same-sex couples to marry in every one of the country’s 31 states before the U.S. has federal marriage equality. Gay marriage has been legal in the Federal District, Mexico City, since 2010, and the Supreme Court had previously ruled that those marriages must be recognized nationwide. Wednesday’s ruling struck down a law in the southern state of Oaxaca that denied same-sex couples the right to marry there.


http://21border.com/2012/12/06/mexic...ity/#more-2838

Wow! marriage equality, virtually with the stroke of a pen. Congratulations Mexico! Finally somewhere warm with marriage equality.

With all the cases before our own Supreme Court. I was hoping we would soon be celebrating a similar recognition of equality in the good old US of A.

Smooches,
Keri

Bearded Love: Larry Duncan And Randell Shepherd Apply For Marriage License In Seattle



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/894619/thu...PLE-570.jpg?18

According US News, Larry Duncan, 56, a retired psychiatric nurse, and Randell Shepherd, 48, a computer programmer, of North Bend, Wash., have been together 11 years. They wore the matching outfits as a "fashion statement."

"We were at a party and we met eyes and fell in love," Duncan said to the news source.

"He came up and asked me out, and I said yes," Shepherd added.

The bearded couple is considering getting married Sunday at a local church that will perform mass ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Although they're not religious, Duncan told NBC, “Enough people have told me, ‘God hates fags'. I want someone in a church to say, ‘God loves fags,’ to have that stamp on it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...issue#comments

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

While I am sad that there are people in my State that must continue to wait to marry the person they choose, I am equally happy that the broader issue of same-sex marriage will finally be addressed by the highest court in our land, both with the issue of DOMA and Prop (hate)8 finally being decided.

I too am happy that the broader issue of DOMA will be addressed. It is long over due, generations over due. Many in our country have paid a personal price.

Civil Rights, Human Rights seem to come by pain, struggle and those at the brunt of injustice refusing to give up the fight, the hope, the action and required fighting, pushing back.

Supreme Court Review of Marriage Cases Has Enormous Impact for Same-sex Couples



Williams Institute Research Shows Far Reaching Economic, Regulatory Effects on Same-Sex Families


“Given that multiple circuit courts have found DOMA’s Section 3 unconstitutional, the Court has an important opportunity to provide nationwide answers regarding the validity or invalidity of this federal statutory provision,” said Nan Hunter, Legal Scholarship Director, Williams Institute, and Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.


http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...e-sex-couples/

I am with you on this one. While I am saddened people are still having to wait the review was necessary and this now will mean and clear up so much more assuming the review is in our favor which I am positive it will be. There are deeper issues here that this will address and the outcome will be far more grand then it would have been had they just denied review. Cmon June....Pride really is going to be crazy this year

I can't even begin to say how much I love this picture. I am regularly overcome with delight over the diversity in our LGBTQ people. They (we) amaze me, amuse me and affirm me. I love you my peeps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Sun this is not directed at you in particular, but is about issues you raised.

Frankly, protesting in front of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is a double edged sword. I'm pretty sure the anti-marriage folks have the same feeling from their perspective and will be out there protesting. Who is SCOTUS supposed to listen to? I prefer they ignore any and all protests and decide strictly on the merits of the cases.

NO civil rights issue is a waste of taxpayers money. It is one of the things my taxes should be paying for.....to promote the general welfare of the people which includes all civil rights issues.

SCOTUS is the last Court appeal. SCOTUS should step into this mess....that is what they are for......think back to the 60's and civil rights for black folk (and other POC). Public debate is a key to democracy and the more public debate, the better off we all will be.

As to our 'poor leaders' who are having trouble processing what a huge fuck-up they presided over.........I got zero sympathy for any of them. They presided over the worst political campaign I have ever experienced in all my years in social justice. They had their collective heads up their asses and ignored what worked in other civil rights campaigns (any political campaign really) our community won....think back to the CA proposition that would have banned gay teachers. They shoud be spending their time figuring out what they did wrong, rather than crying about being traumatized.........

"When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens. While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day. The truth is, I never expected any less from my country." - DOMA litigant Edith Windsor, 83, responding to yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...CyYINqQui2o1ZG

Tired of Being the Bridesmaid and Never the Bride?
 

Civil Behavior

Should a Gay Uncle Boycott His Straight Niece’s Wedding?

By STEVEN PETROW
Published: December 11, 2012


My partner and I live in North Carolina, a state whose constitution now prohibits same-sex marriage. We have been together for 25 years and have been to lots of weddings in that time. I used not to mind so much going to other people’s weddings even though we couldn’t make our own union legal. But now I do. I’ve had enough. I’m tired of being polite.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/bo...=tw-share&_r=0

I just saw this link on my Facebook page, from the Huffington Post, and wanted to share this information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...?ir=Gay+Voices

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________


I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?


Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer:mob:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

Greyson
 

It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..:sunglass:

I just read this piece in the NY Times today. It explains what the Supreme Court is doing in regards to Same Sex Marriage two court cases it will be looking at. I will need to read it again but for a layperson such as myself, it really helps clear up some of the above questions.

I gather that "Standing" is one of the issues to be addressed and there is also some variation of States Rights in relation to Federal Jurisdiction. I hope it may offer some understanding to others here in our community.
__________________________________________________ ___________





Standing and Delivering

December 12, 2012
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Is it heretical of me, or merely quirky, to find myself nearly as fascinated by the procedural game the Supreme Court is playing in the same-sex marriage cases as I am by the underlying merits of the two appeals the court has agreed to decide?

After all, same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and public opinion on the issue is evolving rapidly in other parts of the country, with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, the procedural minefield the court has laid around these cases may hold implications reaching well beyond the domain of gay rights — for the relationship of states to their citizens and for the balance of power between the president and Congress.



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...it_ty_20121213

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...r-january-vote

Maybe Illinois will be state 10.

Maine!
 

News from Illinois
 

Illinois Gay Marriage: Senate President Aims For Bill To Pass By Valentine's Day


Valentine's Day might just be particularly poignant this year for same-sex couples in Illinois.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is hoping to see legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois approved by lawmakers in time for the Feb. 14 holiday.

Cullerton told the paper he is hopeful the state Senate will approve the bill next week -- and is confident they have the 30 votes of support needed to do so. The bill would then need to advancing to the House of Representatives, which is considered to be more conservative. Gov. Pat Quinn has already vowed to sign the bill.

Earlier in the week, Cullerton told the City Club of Chicago that those pushing for marriage equality were "getting more support in the public every day," the Associated Press reports.

Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Equality Illinois, told the Windy City Times that he sees Cullerton's announcement as boding well for his and other advocates' push for marriage equality in the land of Lincoln.

"I believe that the Senate president would not have announced a timeline on the bill if he did not think it had the votes to pass," Cherkasov told the Windy City Times on Friday.

With marriage equality advocates ramping up their efforts, so too are the opposition -- but apparently that group does not include the state's Republican Party. According to a Sun-Times column by Capitol Fax blogger Rich Miller, Illinois GOP lawmakers, too, want to see the marriage equality bill approved as quickly as possible.




With Democratic majorities holding the reins in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly, Miller argues that Republicans hope to get the matter out of the way and behind them.

Nevertheless, a group of African American clergy also stepped up this week to push for the matter of marriage equality in Illinois to be left up to voters, WBEZ reported. On the other side of the issue, 250 clergy members in Illinois previously endorsed the marriage equality bill as "morally just."

Marriage equality supporters in Illinois last month reintroduced legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Sponsors had hoped to pass the bill during the lame-duck session in early January, but say they ran out of time to do so, though it was advanced by the Senate Executive Committee for the first time. President Barack Obama has expressed his support for the Illinois marriage equality bill

Outgoing DOD boss Panetta extends some benefits to same-sex spouses, partners of gay troops

By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

Departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended Monday a list of benefits — all previously denied by the Pentagon — to the same-sex spouses of service members as well as to the unmarried partners of gay troops.

The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include hospital child care services, hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said.

While advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families hailed Panetta’s policy switch as “substantive” and “encouraging,” the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still blocks the DOD from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children — most notably medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits.


Also, as NBC News reported Feb. 4, that same federal law mandates that when a gay service member is killed in combat, military officials must first notify that troop’s blood family, not their spouse, as is normally the course of action.

Panetta said DOMA is “now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court" — and he offered his first clear signal that the Pentagon wants that law overturned.

“There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law,” Panetta said. “While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation. Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families."

Same-sex advocates have been pushing the DOD to extend full benefits to the spouses and partners of all U.S. service members since the repeal 17 months of ago of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibited gay troops from revealing their sexual orientation.

“At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy,” Panetta said. “It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country ...

“Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."

Advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families praised Panetta’s policy shift although they said that the move is not groundbreaking due to the DOMA legal blockade.

“Secretary Panetta’s decision today answers the call President (Barack) Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation's journey toward equality, acknowledging the equal service and equal sacrifice of our gay and lesbian service members and their families,” said Allyson Robinson, an Army veteran and executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an association of actively serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender U.S. military personnel with more than 50 chapters and 6,000 members.

“We thank him for getting us a few steps closer to full equality — steps that will substantively improve the quality of life of gay and lesbian military families,” Robinson said.

The American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a support network for LGBT military families, released the following statement today in response to Panetta's announcement:

“We’ve waited far too long for this, and it’s fantastic news that our dedicated military families will now have access to some of the benefits and support services they need and deserve,” said Stephen Peters, the group's president. “However, (DOMA) continues to undermine our military families who sacrifice so much for our nation. This summer, we hope that the Supreme Court will make it clear that our families are just as important and deserve the same protections, benefits, and support that federal recognition brings.”

To offer the new benefits to partners, DOD will ask gay and lesbian service members to sign a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” in which they will attest that they are in a committed relationship, and intend to remain so indefinitely, and that neither is legally married, according to OutServe-SLDN.

The changes will take “several months to complete, Pentagon officials said. The extra time is needed so that military leaders can offer a chance for the public to comment on the new rules and also to allow an opportunity for each of the branches to update its IT system, develop new processes for issuing ID cards, and train their personnel on the refreshed benefits package.

Panetta did stop short on offering a full slate of benefits that gay advocates have been requesting for two years: on-base housing and burial at Arlington National Cemetery and other items that don’t fall under DOMA, according to OutServe-SLDN. (The organization’s lawyers drafted an explanation outlining the policy shift for gay service members and their families.)

DOD officials have explained to OutServe-SLDN that “policy for burial at Arlington National Cemetery is under review. At issue is how to verify eligible same-sex relationships for the surviving spouse in order to ensure equitable policy implementation."

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA
The Huffington Post | By Anjali Sareen

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense Of Marriage Act in a brief that calls the law unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues in the brief that Section 3 of the 1996 federal law prohibits the marriage of same-sex couples and should get the court's close scrutiny.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

DOMA, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, has been found unconstitutional by lower courts. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in one of those cases, U.S. v. Windsor. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27.

Verrilli argues in his brief that gays and lesbians have been historically discriminated against. He describes how DOMA should proceed if the Supreme Court does not apply the increased scrutiny:

"The government has previously defended Section 3 under rational-basis review, and does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 under that highly deferential standard."

The administration argues that the court may consider a higher level of rational-basis review. The brief states that the increased consideration would be valid in order to "guard against giving effect to a desire to harm an 'unpopular group.'"

The brief wraps up with an argument against the view advanced by the House Republicans in the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group: the issue is not for the courts to decide.

"This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jo...e-cause-90589/

Jon Huntsman (R) who probably could have defeated Obama in 2012 supports gay marriage and calls it a conservative cause.

TV documentary about the United Methodist Church and marriage equality. There is a U-Tube link to watch it....it's 27 minutes long.

http://www.kqed.org/news/bayarea/ach...ided/index.jsp

Just in....
 

Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court





By Pete Williams, Chief Justice Correspondent, NBC News

Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California, wading into the protracted legal battle over Proposition 8 and giving gay-rights advocates a new court ally.

After first suggesting it would not get involved, the Obama administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief late today in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago, the officials said. Today is the last day for filing briefs in support of the couples' position.

The administration last year signaled it might stay on the sidelines. In May, when President Obama first said that "same-sex couples should be able to get married," he added that it was not a matter for the federal government.

But he appeared to express a different view in January during his inaugural address when he said, "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."


The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in late March to decide the fate of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 gay couples were legally married earlier that year

They went a step further...
 

Obama administration steps into gay marriage battle


By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

The Justice Department Thursday urged the US Supreme Court to uphold same-sex marriage in California and went even further, suggesting it is unconstitutional to block gay couples from getting married in half a dozen other states.

States violate the Constitution, the administration argued, if they offer civil unions to gay couples but deny them the right to marry.

While that position clearly applies to the legal dispute in California, it would also apply to at least seven other states -- Delaware, Hawaii Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Each offers civil unions but not same-sex marriage.

And while the administration takes no position in its brief beyond those states, its reasoning would have even broader implications.

If the administration's legal theory were ultimately accepted, no state could, under constitutional guarantees against discrimination, deny same sex couples the right to marry.

After first suggesting it would not get involved in the California case, the Obama administration late Thursday filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago.

In a statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law ... The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole."

The Supreme Court hears oral argument in late March to decide the fate of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 gay couples were legally married earlier that year.

A federal judge declared the ban unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court last year upheld that ruling, though on narrower grounds that apply only to California. In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue.

The Justice Department is not directly involved in the case, because the gay couples that brought the lawsuit are challenging a state restriction, not a federal one. But each side had urged the government to file a brief in support of its position.

After voters approved the measure stopping same-sex marriage, state officials in California declined to defend it in court. That defense has been carried on by the original proponents of Prop 8.

The Obama administration last year signaled it would stay on the sidelines. In May, when President Obama first said that "same-sex couples should be able to get married," he added that it was not a matter for the federal government.

"This is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level because historically this has not been a federal issue. Different states are coming to different conclusions," he said in an interview with ABC News.

But he appeared to express a different view in January, urging legal equality for same-sex couples during his inaugural address.

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he said.

In a separate case the administration is urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a law passed by Congress in 1996 that prohibits federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where they are legal. As a result, married gay couples are denied over 1,000 federal benefits available to traditional couples.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples," Solicitor General Verrelli wrote last week in urging the court to overturn DOMA.

The law is unconstitutional, he said, "because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest."

Nine states currently permit same-sex couples to marry -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington. It is also permitted in Washington, D.C.

Ellen DeGeneres:
 

"I’ve never filed a brief to the Supreme Court, so I thought I would post mine here. I’m sure someone will tweet it to them. Portia and I have been married for 4 years and they have been the happiest of my life. And in those 4 years, I don’t think we hurt anyone else’s marriage. I asked all of my neighbors and they say they’re fine. But even though Portia and I got married in the short period of time when it was legal in California, there are 1,138 federal rights for married couples that we don’t have, including some that protect married people from losing their homes, or their savings or custody of their children.

"The truth is, Portia and I aren’t as different from you as you might think. We’re just trying to find happiness in the bodies and minds we were given, like everyone else. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, 'We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.' And there’s another famous quote that says 'A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members.' I couldn’t agree with that more. No one’s really sure who said it first, so if anyone asks, tell them I said it." - Ellen DeGeneres, writing on her website.

Arguments next week DOMA and Prop 8
 

Supreme Court Plans Same-Day Release of Oral Argument Recordings in Marriage Cases

By ADAM LIPTAK 3/19/13-New York Times


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would release same-day audio recordings of oral arguments in two same-sex marriage cases scheduled to be heard next week.

The last time the court allowed same-day access to such recordings was a year ago, when it heard three days of arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law. The court’s general practice in recent years has been to release audio recordings of arguments at the end of the week.

The court said the recording of the hourlong argument in the first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, would be available on its Web site by 1 p.m. on March 26. That case is a challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The recording of the argument in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, will last almost two hours and will be available by 2 p.m. on March 27, the court said. The case is a challenge of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The court’s statement did not address television coverage, which almost certainly means it will not be permitted.

Besides the health care arguments, the court has released same-day audio recordings 21 times, starting with two in the case that came to be known as Bush v. Gore and ending with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Until recently, recordings in other cases were not released until the end of the term.

In September 2010, the court announced that the same-day release of recordings would be discontinued and that recordings of the week’s arguments would be released on Fridays. The court ordinarily hears arguments on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

The new system took the court out of the business of making judgments about which arguments are newsworthy, a practice that raised First Amendment concerns. The significance of the arguments over the health care law and same-sex marriage apparently overcame those concerns

One of my dearest and oldest friends, her wife and my faerie godchild will be on the CBS Evening News tonight at 5:30pm (5:30pm nationwide).

They were interviewed by John Blackstone as the "human face" of families impacted by Prop 8!

Tune in if you can.

Edited to add: they got bumped from tonight's broadcast. They're hoping it will be run tomorrow night.

Big day the next two days. ��I'm anxious. I'm not certain all of the public and political declarations of support for marriage equality is indication that the court will rule in our favour on either case. Scalia is a bastard.
And he has a powerful whip on that court.

But I'm hoping!