Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

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!

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[iamkeri1]

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

[Toughy]

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

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."

[SelfMadeMan]

5 days until Minnesota votes on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man/one woman, I'm so nervous, and hoping that our state does the right thing!

[Sun]

One of the amazing aspects of the complicated Prop 8 appeals process is that CA leaders will not defend the case.

Interesting in its historic nature.

[Hollylane]

Maryland Question 6 allows voters to decide whether to approve a state law passed earlier this year legalizing same-sex marriages.
For 698,804 51%
Against 665,972 49%

52% reporting

[Hollylane]

It passed in Maryland!!!! OMG!!!!! YES!!!! I'm on the phone with Gaige, and she is so amazingly excited! At least that is what they just said on the radio

[Dance-with-me]

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

[Strappie]

As of 10:24 pm.... No Vote for the Marriage Amendment in MN was 54%...

Woooop Wooooooop!! It's close but looking good!!

[Sun]

Marriage Equality wins in Maine, Maryland
and Amendment 1 is going down in MN.

Washington State has not reported yet.

Great work everyone!!

[Hollylane]

Passing in Washington so far, and in Maine!!!

Politico reports 58% of voters in Maryland voted yes!!!

[Sun]

Maine & Maryland called it. Marriage is now legal for everyone.

MN close on Amendments.

Washington still counting but looks good.

Congratulations Hollylane! I know you are watching Maryland closely