Leave a Comment Gregory in Salt Lake City
What’s Next for Prop 8 and the Supreme Court
September 25, 2012
By Matt Baume
We have big news coming from the United State Supreme Court on the Prop 8 case. Plus: major advances in some of the other challenges to state and federal bans on the freedom to marry. We’ve got the latest tally on surveys showing a majority of Americans favor marriage equality.
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.
No matter what happens, AFER is ready.
And while the Supreme Court deliberates, our work for marriage equality continues to move forward. We now count sixteen national surveys that show a majority of Americans support the freedom to marry. This shift in public opinion over the last three years coincides with increased public awareness of the issues that gay and lesbian couples face.
In other national news, one of the lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act will advance on Thursday of this week. An appeals court in New York is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case Windsor vs. United States.
And a federal case challenging Hawaii’s ban on marriage equality is on course to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this year, a Federal District Court ruled that the ban could be legally justified. Plaintiffs and Governor Neil Abercrombie have appealed that decision, which will now be heard by the same court that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
32 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Carpool Cookie | September 25, 2012 at 11:02 am
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm……..more cookies are needed.
2.
Rick | September 25, 2012 at 11:13 am
My guess is that SCOTUS is going to hold off on any decision on Prop 8 and DOMA until after the election.
3.
Steven | September 25, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I think they have till January
4.
fiona64 | September 25, 2012 at 12:42 pm
That's what my husband thinks as well
5.
Robert West | September 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Well, that would be true in any event. If they took the cases now, odds are high a decision wouldn't get handed down until June.
6.
Reformed | September 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Evidently no right is so important that it can't wait for the supreme court (having to endure all of the stays granted the anti-equality side on the way there).
7.
ivertices | September 25, 2012 at 3:37 pm
7 days is too long of a week! Too much suspense.
8.
Stefan | September 25, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Actually it's 6 days
9.
DougV | September 25, 2012 at 7:21 pm
I don't think so. The elections should be irrelevant to the court.
10.
Tim in Sonoma | September 26, 2012 at 1:38 am
Why do some people think that SCOTUS will wait till after the election? I could understand the court waiting until lower courts rule on similar cases such as the one in Hawaii and DOMA cases such as Windsor, but the election?
I don't see the election having anything to do with current cases moving through the court system. Am I missing something?
My personal opinion? I don't think the Supreme Court will want to get involved in the Prop 8 case. If they get involved then it's decision could effect ALL states, not just Ca. Am I wrong?
11.
Stefan | September 26, 2012 at 2:05 am
If they want to broaden the ruling then yes it could affect all states. However, this one is very narrowly tailored, which is why it's unlikely they will agree to hear it.
12.
Kristy W | September 26, 2012 at 6:02 am
They may want to wait until after the election in order to not make their decision affect it, they like to remain out of politics and they are not blind to the effect it would have on election discussion if Prob 8 were declared unconstitutional rihgt before election.
Also, they are often influenced by public perception and may want to see the results of the 4 marriage equality ballots in Maine, Maryland, Minnistota and Washington… ? Maybe not but could come into play
13.
Kristy W | September 26, 2012 at 7:36 am
now its 5
14.
takemusu | September 26, 2012 at 7:56 am
Right. There are four states with marriage equality up for a vote in November. If you or anyone you know, love, like, tolerate lives in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota or Washington drag them kicking and screaming to register to vote and make sure they vote. We need to win a YES on question 1 in Maine, YES on 6 in Maryland, NO on the marriage amendment in Minnesota and APPROVE ref 74 in Washington.
Not in any of the four states? Courage Campaign will take you on a nice (working) vacation to your choice. We are 30 zip on these elections. Let's make history!
15.
takemusu | September 26, 2012 at 8:09 am
I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV. My understanding is what's different about the Prop 8 case is it's the only case where we had the right to marry and it was taken away.
I feel the reason the court might want to wait is Washington. My wife and I were married in CA before prop 8. We now live in Washington. Washington had domestic partners, then "everything but the word" domestic partners, then in February our governor signed the bill that legalized marriage in Washington.
That went to an immediate stay as it was challenged by the funders of Referendum 74.
We need to APPROVE referendum 74 if we APPROVE of marriage equality. Referendum 74 asks voters to APPROVE the law as established by Washington state and signed by my governor.
If it's not APPROVED we'd be back in a situation of "we had a right, it's been taken away by voters". Similar perhaps to Prop 8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJu6MA_wF7o&fe…
16.
jason walter | September 26, 2012 at 11:29 am
<img src="http://storeshopnow.com/mm/imada/otot.jpg"/>one of the lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act will advance on Thursday of this week.. will we be hearing more on that? <img src="http://storeshopnow.com/mm/imada/toto2.jpg"/>
17.
Bill S. | September 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm
No, the law never went into effect and same-sex couples were never allowed to marry.
18.
Carpool Cookie | September 26, 2012 at 2:48 pm
4 1/2…….
19.
Carpool Cookie | September 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm
"I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV…."
Well I want to know, why the heck NOT?? You lived in California, Girl! We all scrabble our way onto the screen out here, at SOME point, even if it's just for 5 minutes….
20.
Mike in Baltimore | September 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm
"I think they have till January"
Before the first conference in January 2013 (January 4)? In other words, if they don't hear it by the December 7, 2012 conference, they've missed the deadline (between December 7 and January 4, no conferences are scheduled).
Or until the conference on January 4, or January 11, or January 18?
Or SCOTUS can decide at any time up until January 31, 2013, by not going to conference to decide to hear the case?
If you don't know, either CLEARLY state so, or please don't comment at all.
21.
Mike in Baltimore | September 26, 2012 at 8:10 pm
SCOTUS doesn't like to get ahead of public opinion?
Never?
In other words, SCOTUS didn't act on Loving v Virginia in 1967, but waited until after 1990 for public opinion on integrated marriages to pass the 50% mark. Correct?
22.
Mike in Baltimore | September 26, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Don't have to be in California to do that.
Several decades ago, there was a mini-series on TV about the Statue of Liberty. The skyline of New York City, and New Jersey directly opposite, is dramatically changed since Liberty rose her torch, so the filming was in Baltimore (the camera shots had to hide the 'Domino Sugar' neon sign on the Domino Sugar factory, and the Inner Harbor). My (now deceased) partner got a part as an extra in the mini-series. He led the charge of extras to stand on the rooftop deck of the boat being filmed, so he was filmed front and center as the boat entered the Outer Harbor.
23.
Mike in Baltimore | September 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm
"one of the lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act will advance on Thursday of this week. . . ."
Per ?? (Such as an unconfirmed rumor reported at Drudge? Faux News? A rumor from a unidentified source at SCOTUS?)
24.
Sagesse | September 26, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Oral arguments in Windsor are scheduled for Thursday in the second circuit. Windsor was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, before being heard or decided in the second circuit. It has not been accepted by SCOTUS, and if cert is denied, it will carry on in the second circuit. The decision there can then be appealed to the supreme court.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-usa-…
25.
John | September 26, 2012 at 9:54 pm
At the time of Loving v Virginia we had a liberal court. The current make up of the SCOTUS is pretty much conservative.
26.
Mike in Baltimore | September 27, 2012 at 1:00 am
Apparently you have done no research at all on Justice Kennedy, and what his views might be.
27.
Mike in Baltimore | September 27, 2012 at 1:14 am
Yes, and the article was about Prop H8 and SCOTUS.
What will we hear on Thursday that applies to Prop H8 and SCOTUS?
And oral arguments are oral arguments, decisions on the merits of the case are made later. What, if anything, in that case will be decided and advanced on Thursday? Will the decision be announced that day? Will the 90 day period for appeal be repealed, and the losing party must announce IMMEDIATELY?
For the case to advance on Thursday, that means oral arguments, AND decision by the second circuit, AND appeal, AND acceptance by SCOTUS (without briefing or even a conference) will occur on Thursday. If that happens, I think it would be one of the (if not THE) quickest cases 'to advance' in US history.
In other words, someone trying to be 'cute' with their wording was a bit too 'cute' by making a statement that can be interpreted in many, many different ways, and only an extreme narrow reading can interpret it.
28.
W. Kevin Vicklund | September 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
I take it you hate they way the blog authors use "advance" to mean any new stage in the proceedings?
29.
Mike in Baltimore | September 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm
No, the article was about Prop H8 and SCOTUS.
Exactly what will advance on Thursday? Prop H8, as that is what the article is about, not landing a man on the Moon, or World War II, or an unrelated case?
If the author of the post can explain how the Windsor case is linked to the Prop H8 case, I might accept the explanation. If the explanation is Clement-esque, though, then the odds of me accepting an explanation are very low.
30.
W. Kevin Vicklund | September 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm
"In other national news, one of the lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act will advance on Thursday of this week. An appeals court in New York is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case Windsor vs. United States."
From the OP.
31.
Mike in Baltimore | September 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Right.
And the OP (in general parlance, OP means Opposition Party) is advancing the argument that ALL polling on this year's Presidential election are slanted against Romney. Of course, they have to tap dance around the fact that even Faux New's poll, Rasmussen's polls, etc., are showing Obama with a large Electoral College lead.
YOU can take the OP's talking points and use them. I like to look at the facts, and decide for myself. And to call a scheduled hearing taking place on a case that is NOT the same, or even NEAR the same, as Prop H8 as an 'advance' in any or all cases linked to the article's subject matter (Prop H8 and SCOTUS) is male bovine droppings, in my opinion.
An important case? Yes.
A case that is directly related to Prop H8 and SCOTUS? No.
By the way, at the top of the article, it states "By Matt Baume". The posting where I was contesting the wording was marked as being put up by "jason walter".
32.
W. Kevin Vicklund | September 28, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Was it really so awful for Matt Baume to write in the OP:
"In other national news, one of the lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act will advance on Thursday of this week. An appeals court in New York is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case Windsor vs. United States."
Was it really so awful for jason walter to quote Matt and ask whether they were going to be covering it?
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.