Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

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

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

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

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

[iamkeri1]

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

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

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

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

Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

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

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

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

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

Smooches,
Keri

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

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

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

[iamkeri1]

T Y
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Here’s what happens next.

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

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

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

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

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