Leave a Comment Sagesse
Supreme Court conference for Prop 8, DOMA moved to November 30
November 13, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Over the weekend, Robert Barnes penned an article in the Washington Post about the marriage equality cases, and buried in the article was this casual mention of the Court’s conference date for the gay rights cases:
They will soon sort through a half-dozen cases that raise the issue of same-sex relationships; the date for their private conference on whether to accept any has been rescheduled for Nov. 30.
This was different from what has been widely reported and what’s on the Court’s docket – namely that the conference is scheduled for November 20. Calls made by Prop 8 Trial Tracker did not turn up any new information.
But now, AFER, who is responsible for bringing the Prop 8 trial to federal court, is reporting that the conference has indeed been rescheduled to November 30. The Prop 8 case, as well as all the challenges to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act will be taken up at the conference, when the Court will decide whether and which cases to review.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
131 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Kathleen | November 13, 2012 at 11:38 am
And now all the dockets are reflecting the new date. Just so everyone knows, when Scottie wrote this, the dockets did NOT show a change. I'm sure they were changing as he typed.
2.
Rick | November 13, 2012 at 11:44 am
And when will the conference results be announced, December 10th? The election is over, so what's their excuse this time for the delay?
3.
californiaesque | November 13, 2012 at 11:47 am
If Prop 8 were to be heard, and the outcome went for the Yes on 8 side, could the Supermajority in the CA Congress authorize a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Proposition?
4.
jpmassar | November 13, 2012 at 11:47 am
And soon everything will be delayed to the point where they won't hear the cases and decide them before they recess in June.
People could be getting married again in CA. Instead, we wait for Kennedy to ponder a misquoted Hamlet for a few more weeks: "To be for marriage equality, or to not be for marriage equality…"
5.
Victoria | November 13, 2012 at 11:50 am
I find it crazy and appalling that it has taken four years to get this far. That certainly does not seem like justice being served. *sighs*
6.
Steven | November 13, 2012 at 11:57 am
CA does not have a congress, thats United States. We have Senate and Assembly. If SCOTUS hears the case and they overturn lower court's decision THERE will be another effort by citizens of CA to collect over 1 million Registered voters signatures to put back on the ballot in 2014. I don't believe in voting on other people's rights.
7.
Jerry | November 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Im not well aware of how the system works but do the supreme court has to answer to anybody where we can take our demands is jut crazy that we have to wait all this time and play this game with that bunch old freaks .* sorry Im upset *
8.
Steven | November 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm
they must decide on these cases by end of January.
9.
Stefan | November 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm
They're likely doing this to wait for the brief in Petersen to be completed.
10.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm
why? if they haven't decided to take the cases yet, odds are high that even if they do take the cases, they won't get heard until late spring – it's a bit late for briefing, etc, to be done for oral arguments before the end of January, and they regularly take months to hand down decisions in complex cases.
I wouldn't expect any decisions to be handed down until June.
11.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm
The Supreme Court is basically answerable to nobody but themselves. Justices serve lifetime appointments, although they can be removed by impeachment … but it's never happened and the bar is very, very, very high.
12.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm
It's also possible for the legislature to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot directly. I don't know if they'd *do* it, but certainly the Democrats in the CA legislature broadly support SSM, so it's possible.
That said, I think it would be more politically effective to get it straight up from the voters.
13.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm
They aren't saying. Speculation is rampant. Kremlinology lives on, in Supreme Court analysis.
14.
Steven | November 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Yes, Legislature can start the process, but citizens must collect signatures…….
15.
johnfromco | November 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm
ARGH. This is hurting people. Bad. It hurts people in CA who can't marry. It hurts gay and transgender couples everywhere in the USA. It hurts our children and other family members. So it would be nice if they treated it like the urgent matter it is. People need these rights today, not just next week or next month or next year. And, besides, the haters have had their two decades of hate since Amendment 2 in CO. It's time to put an end to votes for hate. Now. There, I said my rant.
That said, I hope that they are doing what they need to do to get to a good ruling for our side. I'd infinitely prefer a ruling in our favor that applies to the entire country (PLEASE SCOTUS…NOT JUST CA!) and undoes not only prop 8 but also DOMA.
Does anyone know how long did it take them to decide to hear Loving v. Virginia, and then actually make a decision? Have they always been this infuriatingly slow?
16.
Steven | November 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm
I meant they must to decide to take this case by end of January.
17.
Johnny | November 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm
I assume they delayed again because the SCOTUS offices were closed on Oct 30 because of Hurricane Sandy.
18.
Scottie Thomaston | November 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm
That's how fast I am!
19.
Scottie Thomaston | November 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Would imagine it'd be the following Monday (unless that's a holiday?)
20.
Steven | November 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm
The Supreme Court is expected to release an Order List with its decisions on cases it has granted or denied review from its November 30 Conference by Monday, December 3. In the event that the Court neither grants nor denies review in Perry by December 3, the Justices will discuss the case again at a future Conference. from AFER's press release.
21.
Stefan | November 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Yup, the following Monday, December 3rd.
22.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
They're scheduled to hear arguments on Mon. Dec 3, so that seems like the most likely day.
23.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Not true.
There are two completely different methods by which a constitutional amendment can be placed on the ballot in California.
By one method, the legislature simply places the CA on the ballot. The need a 2/3 vote of each house to do so. See California Constitution Article 18 Section 1.
By another method, the voters may amend the constitution by initiative. This is authorized by California Constitution Article 18 Section 3. Under California Constitution Article 2 Section 5, to submit such an initiative the voters must collect signatures equal in number to 8% of all of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election.
24.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Again, why? Cases have been held over from one term to another before, and the Supreme Court is not answerable to anyone other than itself for violations of its own rules.
I agree that it is more likely than not that they *will* decide to take the case by the end of January. But 'must' is a strong word that really doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, ever.
25.
Tyler O. | November 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm
So fucking pathetic. I am sick of waiting.
Then again, Brown v Board was delayed a whole year in order for Brennan to ensure a unanimous vote.
26.
Larry | November 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Compare this to the health care cases. Cert was granted in mid-November last year. Oral arguments were in late March. And the decision was announced at the end of June. That was a very complicated case also, and the timeframe for the DOMA/Prop 8 cases, if cert is granted, are pretty similar. So at this point I wouldn't worry about them not being able to decide by the end of their term in June.
27.
arjay1951 | November 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Ffor what it is worth, the Pesident Pro Temp of the CA Senate is quoted in today's SF Chronicle as saying that he would certainly be open to having the legislature put a proposition overturning Prop 8 directly on the ballot without getting citizens signatures. It bears noting that although some news outlets are saying the super-majority is a done deal, in fact two members of the state Senate have been elected to Congress, so there will have to be special elections for them. Additionally, if one or more members of the assembly are elected in those special elections, yet another round would have to be held. The super majority may not be finalized until next Fall.
28.
Ann_S | November 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm
The Lovings' case was filed in 1963 and finally decided by the SCOTUS in 1967, if Wikipedia tells true.
29.
Alan | November 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Californiaesque: "If Prop 8 were to be heard, and the outcome went for the Yes on 8 side, could the Supermajority in the CA Congress authorize a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Proposition?"
It depends what you mean by "authorize". The California legislature cannot amend the constitution even if an amendment is supported by every member from every party. What can be accomplished by two-thirds majorities in both chambers is to put a constitutional amendment directly on the ballot, with no need for anyone to collect any signatures. See the California Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 8, and Art. 18, Sec. 1.
Skipping the step of gathering more than a million signatures would certainly save effort and money. However, I think some political consultants would argue that going through signature-gathering anyway would be a useful exercise, for building the organization that would then run the campaign up to the election.
30.
Straight Ally #3008 | November 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm
I'm going to try to be a bit of a Pollyanna (rare for me, I know). I can't see how DOMA or Prop 8 will stand at SCOTUS after being so completely thumped in lower courts. My prediction is that the Prop 8 decision will only apply to California with SCOTUS declining to hear it, but even if that's the case, that's ten, de facto eleven (since Rhode Island recognizes out-of-state SSM and it's easy to drive to MA or CT) states plus DC with marriage equality. National polls show a clear majority in support of marriage equality, and it's steadily increasing.
Where does that leave NOM and their allies? Their voter initiatives failed in five states, if you count retention of Justice Wiggins in Iowa. They'd be foolish to return to those states, or CA, again. If memory serves, Brian Brown said they're targeting Indiana next, the same way they targeted Minnesota. I'm sure this was spurred on by the election of would-be theocrat Mike Pence as governor, but don't forget Richard Mourdock lost the Senate race there. Of course, future action by SCOTUS will render all of these constitutional bans moot, so they'll have succeeded only in delaying the inevitable.
That's all for now, friends, just had to get it off my chest.
31.
Johnny | November 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm
California legislature now has a supermajority (2/3) held by Democrats starting in the next session 2013.
32.
Steve | November 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm
So a supermajority is required in the legislature, but the "people" only need a simple plurality to amend the constitution. What insanity.
33.
Ann_S | November 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
We should try to amend the constitution to require a 2/3 vote. We'd only need a majority to get it done.
34.
Sagesse | November 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm
I'll call your Pollyanna, and raise you a lesser evil. I think the Republicans in Congress, maybe even in the lame duck session, would be amenable to repealing DOMA (passing the Respect for Marriage Act). This, as with DADT, (1) avoids the embarrassment of having SCOTUS overturn an act of Congress, and (2) avoids, for the time being, the possibility that SCOTUS could decide heightened scrutiny applies to sexual orientation. SCOTUS then declines to hear Prop 8, and the whole question of the level of scrutiny (and what on earth Baker v Nelson could possibly mean in 2012) is punted until the next marriage equality challenge reaches SCOTUS.
The Republican base avoids the sword of Damocles hanging over its head, for the moment, and deludes itself that is not losing.
35.
sfbob | November 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm
But not yet. The last thing we'd want is for Prop 8 to have been passed by 52% and then retained because we couldn't get a 67% to vote to remove it.
36.
Ann_S | November 13, 2012 at 1:05 pm
OK, not yet. I was about to go file the paperwork with the Secretary of State, but I'll wait.
37.
sfbob | November 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm
That is an interesting take, Sagesse.
I doubt that Congress will consider much of anything other than the "fiscal cliff," but if you're right and I'm wrong, well…I think I might be okay with that for the time being.
Regarding Baker v Nelson, my take on it is that it means precisely nothing, despite its continued (ab)use in some decisions.
38.
Sagesse | November 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm
The only reason it's even remotely possible is that DOMA has been so completely thrashed in the lower courts.
As for Baker v Nelson, it is precedent (a ridiculous precedent, but a precedent) until the Supreme Court says it isn't. That's only likely to happen in a marriage equality case, rather than DOMA. The lower courts feel more or less bound by it until then.
39.
devon | November 13, 2012 at 1:22 pm
I'd love to see congress repeal DOMA but can't see that happening any time soon.
The court delays seem endless, but from what I've read the process is going forward in a normal manner.
Funny thing is that few years ago, I knew little about the federal court system.
I know enough now to get anxious and frustrated at the leisurely pace that DOMA and Prop 8 are progressing.
40.
Paul Lesemann | November 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Here's just a thought. Would congress sooner change Doma for fear of citizens suing the state governments and federal government for billions of dollars because of scotus declaring restricting gay marriage is unconstitutional? Just like dadt, because it was changed by congress, means that the scotus didnt hear dadt and there fore those affected by the dadt policy couldn't seek monetary restitution.
41.
Mike in Baltimore | November 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm
You are sick of waiting?
People in Hawai'i have been waiting since 1993. That's 19, almost 20 years now. You've been waiting four years? With several months prior to get married?
And there are right now six states (and DC) where a same-sex couple can get married, and by early January, at least three more states.
If you are tired of waiting, you can go out of state to get married. Many heterosexuals do, so why can't you?
And what if SCOTUS is scheduling and then rescheduling because they are trying to determine if one or more parties does or does not have standing? If the party defending Prop H8 does not have standing, then maybe SCOTUS is trying to determine if the 9th Circuit should have heard the case or not. If not, maybe the decision goes back to the District Court decision?
42.
Mike in Baltimore | November 13, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Question:
Could SCOTUS deny cert for a case, but at the same time tell lower courts that Baker v Nelson is no longer (and never was) precedent (or at least not when a Federal law [vs. a state law or constitution] is at the heart of the dispute)?
Or does SCOTUS need to take a case, and in the decision, make it ULTRA clear that Baker no longer applies?
43.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm
oh, it's worse than that – supermajority required to *put the amendment on the ballot*. it doesn't take effect unless the voters approve it by a simple majority.
44.
Robert West | November 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm
SCOTUS would need to take a case and overturn Baker in the opinion.
Most appeals courts have already reached the position that Baker is irrelevant, though.
45.
Jamie | November 13, 2012 at 3:24 pm
It would be unwise to put this to a vote in an election year where there is not a presidential race. CA missed the boat this year. Next chance is 2016. I'm sorry your leaders failed to mention this.
46.
Matt N | November 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm
I could see enough Republicans supporting a watered-down version of the Respect for Marriage Act, that only recognized same-sex marriages of residents of states who allow it. (That would moot the DOMA cases.)
As it's currently written, the Act would recognize all same-sex marriages, regardless of state of residence, and that is likely going too far for Republicans.
47.
Jamie | November 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Baker v. Nelson is being challenged in the state where it was started – Minnesota. The state appeals court directed their lower court to determine if it even applied anymore.
48.
Jeff | November 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm
My birthday… heres to hoping for a gift!
49.
Steve | November 13, 2012 at 3:56 pm
That's more or less in line with current law though. Some laws explicitly go with the state of residence, but that's not universal. Others recognize any marriage as valid if it was legal in the state it was contracted in.
The Respect for Marriage Act goes further than that in that it seems to override all the choice of law stuff by recognizing all marriages. Since that overrides laws that restrict marriage to the state of residence, that could be problematic. But it would be equally problematic to pass a version that went in the opposite direction and limited federal recognition to the state of residence. The status quo is to defer to individual laws and courts cases on the matter (of which there are plenty).
50.
Rose | November 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Exactly…….HOW MANY MORE TIMES WILL IT BE RESCHEDULED? Either hear the appeal or don't, but playing THIS POLITICAL WAITING GAME IS TOTAL BS!!!
51.
Anthony | November 13, 2012 at 4:01 pm
It pisses me off how they deny cert to many cases in HUGE batches, yet they're holding the Prop 8 case hostage. So fucking annoying! Hurry up and deny cert so I can get married!
52.
Anthony | November 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm
But what does have to do with the Prop 8 case? That's why I'm so confused. They're obviously doing this on purpose. They have something up their sleeves.
53.
californiaesque | November 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm
I learned something new – I thought your could collectively refer to the CA State legislators colloquially as "Congress".
54.
californiaesque | November 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm
If you marry a same sex partner out of state where it is legal, and your state doesn't recognize it, what have you accomplished? Plus the Feds don't recognize it due to DOMA.
55.
Carpool Kathleen | November 13, 2012 at 4:41 pm
"The election is over, so what's their excuse this time for the delay? "
There was never an "explaination"….and they don't need to offer one. Can you imagine how MORE slowed down the legal system would be if they were constantly having to prepare press releases as to the weekly status of every single case being considered for or by the Supreme Court?
56.
Carpool Kathleen | November 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm
We don't know that any delay had to do with the election or not. Are you really complaining about a discussion happening Nov. 30th instead of Nov. 20th? I hope you're never in a lawsuit beyond this one, because your nerves might shatter.
57.
Carpool Kathleen | November 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm
"They have something up their sleeves"
When you say "they," remember they're not all in agreement about all topics…they're a mix of democrats and republicans They have enough stuff to worry about without stealing time to conspire as a group on Perry.
58.
johnfromco | November 13, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Exactly. The feds not recognizing it can make all sorts of ugly financial and legal consequences, particularly in a community property state like California.
People need full marriage, not "you might, you might not be" marriage.
59.
johnfromco | November 13, 2012 at 5:17 pm
My federal benefits shouldn't cease because I leave my home state. That makes no sense.
60.
Adam Bink | November 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm
I'll also note that many of those Democrats are DINO, e.g. not with us necessarily on marriage. It's never a monolith. But we're just getting started on that as an option if SCOTUS goes the wrong way.
61.
Keith | November 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Justice Thomas hid income from his wife's involvement in Tea Party groups and when caught he claimed ignorance of the law requiring him to divulge that income. Chief Justice Roberts didn't do a thing to him for it and that tells me the court is partisan, and thus corrupt.
62.
Adam Bink | November 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm
The interesting thing for me is all of the post-election musing by Republicans about how not to get thumped giving demographic trends and opinion trends. Witness Sen. Graham (who is not a harbinger of Republican base feeling, I will admit) re-introducing somewhat reasonable immigration legislation. I have a feeling the Republicans will make ploys at the Latino vote or the gay (and pro-gay) vote but not both and I don't get the sense that gays are the big winners. I can't see DOMA repeal happening merely because Republicans want to protect the prestige of Congress from getting overturned, nor because of scrutiny. SCOTUS will do what SCOTUS does and moving the Respect for Marriage Act won't change that, IMO.
63.
Jamie | November 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Unfortunately, I don't think most people on the right know that this is even an issue. They've been misled by groups like NOM that it's a slam dunk at the Supreme Court. They don't know that the Supreme Court could find that gays and lesbians are a suspect class or require heightened scrutiny.
64.
RepublicanLutz | November 13, 2012 at 7:27 pm
One thing to keep in mind is that we may not know the whole picture as to which cases are being heard in the days immediately following that conference. Why? If the Court votes to deny cert in the Prop 8 case, it is not impossible that one of the more solid originalist votes (Scalia, for example) doesn't just have his dissent noted in the order list, but actually pens a dissent from denial of cert. That usually takes longer than the period between conference and the release of the order list, and denials aren't included on the order list until any dissents are in, so it possible that we may not know the outcome in Perry for a few extra weeks even if they decide not to hear it. Of course, it is also possible that a dissent from denial is written faster than normal or simply won't exist. Point is, don't freak out if we don't hear anything about Prop 8 right away.
Also, a cert grant in at least one DOMA case is virtually guaranteed so people should not be worrying about that. Save the energy, vibes, and prayers for the outcome.
As for the Arizona case, it seems like one of those cases that might be considered if this were a different term, but will simply be passed over due to the fact that so many more important gay-related cases are before the Court at the same time. Since the decision below was a win for the good guys, that isn't a bad thing.
65.
David Henderson | November 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm
They could do a GVR (grant, vacate, and remand) to a case, which is basically a decision without oral arguments where the court says "The lower decision was flawed for reason X, so we're eliminating that decision and sending it back for further consideration based on that reason." Reason X would be binding.
But that is only done if the lower court made an error. They wouldn't do that in order to agree with a lower decision—they would just not take the case.
66.
Mike in Baltimore | November 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm
The situation concerning DOMA in California is EXACTLY the same as in Hawai'i, Arizona, Nevada, Indiana, Delaware, AND even in states that now (or soon will) allow marriage equality.
Hopefully SCOTUS will take a DOMA case and eliminate the lack of Federal recognition. Otherwise, the situation across the entire US (from the American Virgin Islands, to all 50 states to Samoa) stays exactly the same with regards to DOMA. Even in Maryland, Maine and Washington state, which just approved marriage equality, and in the six other states (and DC) that have previously approved marriage equality.
67.
W. Kevin Vicklund | November 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm
They're all cases dealing with governmental recognition of same-sex relationships (including the AZ domestic partnership case). Typically, when SCOTUS faces cases that all deal with the same broad topic, they wait until they are all fully briefed before deciding which cases to grant cert, which cases to deny cert, and which to hold in case the outcome requires remanding. We've already seen similar delays in other areas, not related in any way to SSM, this session. It's quite common.
The latest delay is probably due to figuring out how the recent decision in Windsor impacts the briefs already filed.
68.
W. Kevin Vicklund | November 13, 2012 at 9:26 pm
"If the party defending Prop H8 does not have standing, then maybe SCOTUS is trying to determine if the 9th Circuit should have heard the case or not. If not, maybe the decision goes back to the District Court decision? "
I'll take "Decisions that take 2 seconds" for 1000, Alex. If proponents don't have standing, 9th Circuit shouldn't have heard it, and the District Court decision is final. There's absolutely no legal wiggle room on this. No standing? Appeal didn't happen. Period. Nothing for SCOTUS to decide.
69.
PDx_Str8_Supporter | November 14, 2012 at 6:08 am
I think what it would say is if you got married in MD, you could file jointly on your Federal and State taxes. If you then moved to TX, you could file jointly on Fed, but would have to file separately for State – the exact opposite situation we have now in all 10 states that recognize marriage equality. It is "half the cake", but a large half.
70.
devon | November 14, 2012 at 6:20 am
I'm a retired federal worker and same sex married in CA.
I've been in contact with the Office of Personnel Management(OPM), and have been informed that even if section 3 is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, congress would still need to pass legislation to allow spousal benefits for federal workers.
I thought that getting rid of DOMA would accomplish this, but apparently not.
I find this news to be extremely upsetting.
71.
Steve | November 14, 2012 at 6:25 am
Just due to sheer numbers they'll focus on Latinos, but still hate on gays. They will also play on the perception that Latinos are anti-gay Catholics (though that's changing too). So they'll try to tell them "Look, we are hating on the gays. Vote for us and not those homo-loving Democrats".
72.
johnfromco | November 14, 2012 at 6:37 am
The problem is still that this is a different standard. In some states, I could have married my first cousin at age 16 (or younger, in some, with a court order) with my parents' permission. In other states, I would not be allowed to marry my cousin or marry at age 16. Yet, once the marriage happens where it's legal, it's legal everywhere. That's the only thing that makes sense.
It's personal to me. I'm married to a woman who was born with an "M" on her birth certificate. There's about a half dozen states where it's clear that the marriage is either legal or illegal. The other states are up in the air, thanks to DOMA and state-by-state laws that don't define "man" and "woman". But in some places it is clear. If I was on business in Texas, for instance, and I got hurt, my wife would have no legal standing with the hospital (I don't have a Texas living will, although I probably should). If I died, my body would be my parents' responsibility.
Other state laws that would apply while I was in Texas, and which wills can't cover – My wife could be forced to testify against me (she can't be anywhere that recognizes my marriage). I wouldn't have to worry about about state conflict of interest laws (for instance, my wife giving a large sum of money to a state elected official when I was doing business with that official). It just plain makes no sense.
I'm not comfortable accepting half my rights in a weird patchwork of rights. I want all of them. DOMA is just plain mean. That's its' intent – be mean enough to gays to make them straight. Since making them straight doesn't work, it ends up just being mean.
73.
Jesse | November 14, 2012 at 6:37 am
My Birthday too! Hoping it's a gift to many!
74.
David O. | November 14, 2012 at 6:50 am
Well.. me and my partner have been following this closely
Because our wedding date is set for December 9th in LA, it would
be great if it's legal by then and if not we will zip over to Washington and
Make it official there the day after the celebration,although there is a 3 day waiting period in WA meaning even if we apply December 6th ( they take mail in applications) the soonest we would be able to marry would be the 9th which is great . But we are crossing our fingers and hoping that the SCOTUS judges will make up their mind just in time for our wedding …
Love to all!
David&Aaron
75.
RepublicanLutz | November 14, 2012 at 8:25 am
That was the old strategy. It will be interesting to see whether things change after this election.
The social conservatives were given so much power in the party because they could always be counted on to show up to vote and their views seemed to resonate with just enough swing voters in key states that they won elections. The business republicans brought the money, but came from regions where they were usually outnumbered by liberals. And the libertarians seemed to be too busy eating munchies to show up.
Now that social conservatism is losing elections, there is a chance for things to change. The libertarian and business wings have a great opportunity to fight back. I hope they take it.
In a way, it is perhaps good that the socons had their day in the sun with the Schiavo debacle, stickers on textbooks, anti-gay crusade, etc., because it exposed just how extreme their ideals were to America at large. They overreached (as extremists of all stripes eventually do) and are now becoming irrelevant.
76.
RepublicanLutz | November 14, 2012 at 8:26 am
Congrats on the wedding!
77.
Amir | November 14, 2012 at 9:02 am
This isn't and shouldn't be a competition about which gay couples in which states have "waited the longest" all while telling other gay couples how they too should be patient because you have. Commentary like that pins us against each other and diverts us away from our ultimate goal…that gay marriage should be legal for us ALL, in every state, and should NOT be at the mercy of a mob mentality voted by the tyranny of the public. Gay couples have every right to be frustrated, and express their emotions. This is their livelihood and their equal access to rights being debated here.
78.
datdude | November 14, 2012 at 9:04 am
Mike in Baltimore, get a grip. Frankly, your constant debbie downer posts trying to lecture the gay community about how we have to "just deal" are getting tiresome, not to mention, a calculating agenda is starting to be exposed by you. I think seeing how your posts are consistently negative, I believe you're trying to demoralize the gay community. Your rants about Maryland and how wrong the pro gay campaign was clearly didn't come to fruition. We won, and had an extremely effective campaign. I see you're back to your old ways…but just know, the gay community is more galvanized than ever before and we will seek marriage equality in every single state with passion and tenacity.
79.
Kelley | November 14, 2012 at 9:31 am
All I know is, I'm planning a wedding for May, whether it is "legal" or not!
80.
Kelley | November 14, 2012 at 9:31 am
And fingers crossed for legal!!!!
81.
Bob | November 14, 2012 at 9:52 am
congrats to David O,,,, and Kelley,,,, keep on getting married,,,,
and watching from Canada,, I'm now just as anxious about a different date,,,, now Nov 30th,,,,,, still waiting and watching prop8,,,, the case that brought us all together,,, the case that got us all FIRED UP!!! in the first place,,,,, that got us all talking , educating, learning,,,, Courage Campaign,,, built up this site,,,, got grass roots,, boots on the ground,, in states where Marriage Equality was on the ballot,,,, when we first started talking,,, who would have guessed the outcome of this past election,,,,
Kudo's to Courage Campaign,,, woot woot to Scotty,,, and everyone else,,,, so engaged, and making progress,,,,, just keep on doing what you are doing,,,,
The election was huge in so many ways but most importantly for me,,,, it showed that rich old white guys are now in the minority,,,,,, didn't think I'd see that in my lifetime,,, and we are getting some clear indications of the SPIN from FOX of the Alternate Universe,,, that is dying a slow death,,,,, I believe Nina Turner from Ohio, and the other women that won big in this election,,, the campaign ain't over,,, we gotta win this fight and have the presidents back,,,,
The strongest country in the free world,, is coming into it's own,, and being the role model we all need,,,, it's good to see democracy in action,,,,,
seeing those long lines at polling booths reminded me of the civil rights marches,,, people in the streets standing up,,, VOTING!!!!!!!!!!! good stuff,,,,,
82.
Peter Morak | November 14, 2012 at 11:32 am
<img src="http://www.freecouponplace.info/ikea/makt.jpg"/>Also thanking Kathleen for the very prompt heads up. <img src="http://www.freecouponplace.info/xbox/yle.jpg"/>
83.
Tyler O. | November 14, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Wow thanks for the rude, bitchy reply buddy. I'm not even going to respond.
84.
Guest | November 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm
similarly, perhaps there wouldn't be as many delays if they were always required to present a valid reason for delay when people are clearly getting harmed in the intermediate.
85.
Mark Mead-Brewer | November 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm
If you do have to come up this way David, please let us know. Robert and I would love to take the newlyweds out to dinner.
86.
David o | November 14, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Thank you all for your kind wishes we really apriciate that and Mark we might take you on your offer
For dinner
David&Aaron
Happy thanks giving to you all.
End H8.
87.
Mike in Baltimore | November 14, 2012 at 5:58 pm
But what if they DID have standing? The California state Supreme Court said they did.
Or maybe they had standing at the 9th Circuit, but not at SCOTUS?
Was the Cal SC correct? For state issues only? Or for any case that might also be heard in Federal court?
And what if SCOTUS decides someone does not have standing, but they don't want to go back to the District court decision? How do they grant cert, but state that one party to the dispute doesn't have standing? Can they even hear a case like that?
What if SCOTUS determines all parties have standing, but they want to hold three oral arguments in one day – Prop H8, the Arizona case, and one of the DOMA cases, but which DOMA case is best, and which also is in some way tied to the Prop H8 and Arizona cases?
In other words, we don't know why SCOTUS is scheduling, then rescheduling, then rescheduling again, the decision on which cases to grant or not grant cert. One thing some have advanced that seems to be receding is that SCOTUS didn't want to make a decision on cert until after the election. If that were the case, why has SCOTUS moved the conference on granting (or not) cert from one post-election date to another?
88.
Jamie | November 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm
I think you were misinformed.
89.
Mike in Baltimore | November 14, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I presume your childish temper tantrum was aimed at me?
Did you forget that the decision in Roe v Wade was also delayed for more than a year? And it was not a 9-0 decision, but a 7-2 decision.
Are you a bit testy because of your own impatience? There's an old saying about the impatience of youth (and youth is not necessarily defined as chronological age, but apparent mental age).
Am I wrong that it has been almost 20 years since the residents of Hawai'i almost had marriage equality, but didn't get it at all, and did not have a several month opportunity to get married either?
And yes, Maryland will have marriage equality after the New Year begins, but DOMA will still affect Maryland residents, just as it will residents of California, or Hawai'i, or Washington state, or ANY jurisdiction in the US.
Or are you a bit testy because you didn't get married when you had the opportunity, and now are blaming others for your (was it laziness, doubt, stupidity, some other reason)? Just as I can't logically blame you or others for actions I did or did not take at any time in my life, if you had the opportunity to get married but didn't, you have no one to blame but yourself (and/or maybe your partner).
90.
Mike in Baltimore | November 14, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Except what happens if/when SOCTUS finds that gays and lesbians are a suspect class or require heightened scrutiny, or even DO have fundamental rights that can't be taken to the ballot?
There is an old saying about the scorned lover being a person's worst enemy. NOM is not standing on safe ground when many of the 'socons' (especially) find out that they have been lied to by groups such as NOM.
I don't expect most, or even many, 'socons' to vote for Democratic candidates, but they will do almost the same if they don't vote, or vote for third party candidates. And when they find they've been lied to by groups such as NOM, that very well could be what they do.
91.
Eric | November 14, 2012 at 7:07 pm
This is what happens when the losers present challenges every step of the way.
92.
Eric | November 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
The Judiciary is a co-equal branch of government. If you don't like their decision, nor the process, you are free to approach the legislative branch to change the law.
93.
Eric | November 14, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Your statement is not entirely true. DOMA impacts married couples differently in community property states than non-community property states.
94.
Eric | November 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm
If one has damages, one would have standing to bring a suit, even after Congress changes the law.
95.
David Henderson | November 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm
I thought DOMA affected all same-sex couples in community property states equally, regardless of whether or not they were married.
96.
Eric | November 14, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Seeing as OPM doesn't even comply with court orders (9th circuit), I wouldn't rely on them for legal advice.
97.
MightyAcorn | November 14, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Hey David, if you'd like to be part of a Japanese news story on Prop 8, I've got a press flack asking me if I know any couples who are planning to get married. If you're interested, drop me a line via my profile links….and congrats, btw.
98.
Cat | November 14, 2012 at 9:39 pm
It's not really that DOMA that impacts them differently. It's that the IRS recognizes community property also in case of same-sex couples, despite of DOMA.
99.
Mike in Baltmore | November 15, 2012 at 1:46 am
Most of my posts such as you are describing are to those who want it NOW, NOW, NOW.
In other words, very similar to a two-year old who throws a tantrum or holds his/her breath to get something.
Oh, and my partner and I can't get married. He died of lung cancer in late 2002, more than a year prior to when Massachusetts got marriage equality (and neither of us lived in Massachusetts, so we couldn't have been married until after Robme left the Governor's office in 2007), and more than 10 years prior to when marriage equality will be available in Maryland. Even so, I am still very supportive of marriage equality for all those who are able to get married (including former co-workers who I worked with before I retired from the Federal government).
Maybe I'm more patient than most people on most things, but those who say "I want it NOW, NOW, NOW" really get on my nerves. And when someone gets on my nerves, I'm not one to just let it go and be silent. I'll take action, and on blogs, the action I take is to speak out.
What is it that Tyler O. wrote? Something like, "So [effing] pathetic. I am sick of waiting." An attitude that EVERYONE condones? Or a display of gross impatience? Remember, it took more than 80 years before women won the right to vote across America, and how many centuries have gone by, and African-Americans are still not consider full citizens by many?
Yes, I'm tired of waiting, too. I've learned, though, that many times waiting a while yields even greater results than if something is handed to you immediately on your request.
100.
Straight Dave | November 15, 2012 at 6:31 am
Remember a year ago when everybody wanted a DOMA case to go thru SCOTUS first, to establish the level of scrutiny to be used for Prop 8. It seemed like the wisest tactical move.
Since then, the weight seems to lean more toward "deny cert on prop8 and get it over with, don't let it get bogged down with DOMA".
What happened?
101.
devon | November 15, 2012 at 8:13 am
Here's a post on a federal workers website confirming the congressional action that would be needed if DOMA section 3 is overturned by the courts. Very sad. http://federalsoup.federaldaily.com/forum_posts.a…
102.
devon | November 15, 2012 at 8:15 am
Here's a post on a federal workers website confirming the congressional action that would be needed if DOMA section 3 is overturned by the courts. Very sad. http://federalsoup.federaldaily.com/forum_posts.a…
103.
David Henderson | November 15, 2012 at 8:29 am
I don't know how a forum post counts as "confirmation" of anything other than the opinion of the poster. It appears that Ed Zurndorfer is someone who leads federal employee retirement seminars, so he's probably done some research, but his opinion is not more authoritative than anybody else's.
104.
David o | November 15, 2012 at 9:28 am
Hey Mike I Just sent you an email with our info.
105.
davep | November 15, 2012 at 9:53 am
There is nothing in your reply that excuses your calling other commenters childish, lazy and stupid simply because they are tired of waiting for marriage equality. ALL of us have been waiting our entire lives for marriage equality. And many of us have been working very hard and donating lots of our own hard-earned money to help make it happen. I don't blame ANYONE for being tired of waiting for marriage equality, and I don't see why you would, and I don't see why you think it justifies you insulting other people. It does not.
106.
devon | November 15, 2012 at 12:13 pm
I think that Mr. Zurndorfer post, when combined with information that I've received from both OPM and FEHB(federal employees health benefits), would act as confirmation of the need for congressional action after DOMA is struck down.
107.
Mark Mead-Brewer | November 15, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Excellent David….keep us posted
beargardener@yahoo.com
108.
Eric | November 15, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Without any cases or federal law cites, I would be suspicious of these claims. Marriage is a fundamental right, Congress can't choose some marriages over others, except for very specific circumstances.
The 9th Circuit has already ordered OPM to offer spousal benefits to its employees. Apparently they didn't think Congress had to pass additional laws before their employees could receive benefits.
109.
Mike in Baltimore | November 15, 2012 at 7:15 pm
". . . DOMA impacts married couples differently in community property states than non-community property states."
And didn't I state that ". . . the situation across the entire US . . . stays exactly the same with regards to DOMA" (if SCOTUS doesn't overturn DOMA)?
Exactly how will DOMA impact the states differently now, rather than before? Remember, I'm not the one who put in any qualifiers, but you did.
110.
Brian | November 15, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Mike, seek treatment.
111.
Mike in Baltimore | November 15, 2012 at 7:33 pm
The default for current law (especially Federal law) is 'was the marriage valid in the state where the marriage license was obtained?' Only when a law SPECIFICALLY states 'state of current residence' does state of current residence come into view.
I believe some Veteran's benefit laws have a 'state of current residence' line, and a couple of others, but MOST laws do not. Therefore, the default is 'validity of the marriage in the state it occurred in' test.
For instance, if someone was married by common law in a state that recognized common law marriages when the common law marriage was entered into, most Federal laws also recognize it as an actual marriage (and states also).
112.
Mike in Baltimore | November 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Filing taxes is one thing. However, it is not the ONLY thing.
In January 2004, GAO sent a report to Senator Frist (Republican Majority leader of the Senate at the time) that as of December 31, 2003, there were 1,138 laws that were affected by DOMA. Not all of those laws deal solely with the filing of taxes, and the filing of state taxes is NOT dealt with by Federal legislation.
113. LGBT Fast Friday News 11/&hellip | November 16, 2012 at 3:06 am
[...] Supreme Court conference for Prop 8, DOMA moved to November 30 [...]
114.
devon | November 16, 2012 at 5:14 am
The 9th circuit doesn't offer spousal benefits to its same sex married employees.
Only the plaintiff- Golinski- is provided health care benefits for her spouse.
115.
David o | November 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm
14 more days… The anticipation is killing me!!
116.
bobby | November 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm
yucky homos
117.
Kevin | November 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm
I didn't realize being against one position in the pantheon of policy stances generally held by democrats makes you one "in name only."
118.
Kevin | November 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm
That's unlikely. What I am expecting from Rs in Congress, especially the lower house, is a bill (or another bill, this might have already happened) stripping the Supreme Court of subject matter jurisdiction in all questions of same-sex unions.
119.
Kevin | November 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Seriously bad attitude dude.
120.
Guest | November 16, 2012 at 4:53 pm
He's the one throwing a temper tantrum? Calm the F down.
121.
RepublicanLutz | November 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Grow up.
122.
Elizabeth | November 16, 2012 at 5:44 pm
You know what else is yukky? Being on the wrong side of history.
123.
Ellafino | November 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but none of these cases will decide the constitutionality of gay marriage.
124.
RepublicanLutz | November 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Mike,
The problem is how you respond to others. You aren't just saying, "Be patient because X, Y, and Z have to happen first." You're saying, "Hey, stoopids, quit being such babies."
You aren't explaining. You are being confrontational.
You have to remember that while some of us know the ins and outs of this process, many do not. For those who lack specific knowledge in this area, the "delays" must be confusing and frustrating.
Also, there is the age factor. This works both ways. Some people are too young to appreciate the concept of decades of slow progress while others respond to their older age in a different way than you do and are simply fed up.
Bottom line: Educate, but don't hate.
Oh, and I am very sorry about your partner. May he RIP.
125.
davep | November 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm
That's likely true. The DOMA cases will essentially decide if the federal government can deny federal recognition and federal benefits to legally married same sex couples (so far, the score is eight out of eight rulings that say no, they cannot). And the Prop 8 case will most likely just decide if Prop 8 is unconstitutional (so far the score is two out of two rulings saying yes, it's unconstitutional). There is a chance that the Supreme Court will expand the question and rule more broadly about the constitutionality of all civil laws and state constitutional amendments that deny civil marriage to same sex couples, but they generally rule as narrowly as possible and only answer the specific question presented in the case.
126.
Guest | November 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Robert is correct. This is why Prop 8 became the problem it is in the first place.
California uses both an "initiative" measure – one where at least 100,000 VALID (IMPORTANT WORD THERE) signatures of registered voters the last election are collected – as well as a legislative measure, started from the Senate or Assembly, and requires BOTH approval of voters and legislators. The initiative measure is much more of — forgive me — a clusterfuck — because were jot deemed capable to vote for the President directly hence the Electoral College, but we ARE deemed capable to determine each that's Constitutional rights?! I know people who couldn't tell you the principle part of the Fifth Amendment et believe they can do so. I say leave it to the people who at least have SOME responsibility to do their job; we can always NOT elect them again.
127.
Guest | November 17, 2012 at 8:25 pm
People….please keep in mind as well that the SCOTUS can also go very narrow-scope and not overturn OR EVEN RULE ON IT AT ALL. They may just affirm the 9th Circuit's already narrow and limited opinion and remand. The SCOTUS does NOT have to expand its view and decisionmaking ability though it is within its right and ability in this archive the impact and importance, as well as the states who did just enact, by vote, SSM.
I just don't want people expecting a ruling they likely may not give….My bet: review of the 9th Cir only. Was there a COI @the DistCt level? Do the petitioners have standing? Was this a valid measure is unlikely to be addressed in terms of defining marriage, equal protection, etc.
128. Good LGBTQ News « N&hellip | November 17, 2012 at 8:49 pm
[...] question for the next few months surrounds the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS has moved back its conference to decide whether to hear any DOMA cases to November 30, the rights activists have been [...]
129.
Bill S. | November 18, 2012 at 6:49 am
But you do not have the right to seek retrospective monetary damages when you sue a government officer in his or her official capacity (under the Ex Parte Young doctrine). You would have to sue either a state or the United States directly, which means those entities would have to waive their sovereign immunity which is only done under certain limited conditions.
130.
davep | November 18, 2012 at 8:26 am
Yes, the ballot initiative process in California is pretty unusual and it's a mess. You can literally put ANYTHING on the ballot if you pay enough people to gather signatures, and then if you lie enough in your TV ads to get it passed, it goes straight into the Constitution with no legislative debate to reveal those lies, and no checks and balances ahead of time to determine if it's going to be a harmful, expensive, unconstitutional disaster.
131. Same-Sex Marriage: Suprem&hellip | December 5, 2012 at 3:46 pm
[...] that the conference has indeed been rescheduled to November 30,” Scottie Thomaston at Prop 8 Trial Tracker reports: (function() { var useSSL = 'https:' == document.location.protocol; var src = (useSSL ? [...]
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.