Leave a Comment Sagesse
Live blog: Q&A on Supreme Court’s decision to grant Prop 8, DOMA cases
December 7, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston, Adam Bink, and Jacob Combs
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
36 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Kat | December 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm
I cannot see the live blog, the event has reached capacity
2.
jacob | December 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm
This is not making me happy! I want to see live blog
3.
Mark | December 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Oh well, maybe they'll record the "live" blog so that those of us who couldn't view it when it was actually live can watch it later.
4.
RAJ | December 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm
I'm on, is there any sort of copyright problem if I copy and paste the entries? …there probably is
5.
Sagesse | December 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Capacity reached… still unable to access the liveblog. Wondering what the capacity is… SCOTUSblog at one point had over 6,000 on this platform… and how many are currently online.
6.
Brad | December 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm
I would like to see. Hopefully they will archive. Given the widespread interest in this issue, I would have expected the capacity to have been expanded well before today in anticipation of the courts granting cert to hear these cases.
7.
Susan | December 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm
As everyone is complaining, I too cannot see the blog.
8.
Michael | December 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I have to sign out so someone will get my space right now.
9.
Adam Bink | December 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Fixed.
10.
Adam Bink | December 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm
We fixed it. You can watch.
11.
Adam Bink | December 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm
No.
12.
Adam Bink | December 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm
We reached capacity early, then expanded. Sorry about the problem.
13.
Brian H | December 7, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Thank you all for the enlightening, informative Q&A. Scottie Thomaston, Adam Bink, and Jacob Combs, Shannon Minter, Kathleen, et al. I am grateful. We are living in very exciting times, indeed.
14.
_BK_ | December 8, 2012 at 5:07 am
Will there be any developments to watch for in Perry and Windsor between now and the oral arguments?
15.
chris from CO | December 8, 2012 at 7:23 am
When will the lawyers make statements on the courts decisions? Do we know yet?
16.
Kathleen | December 8, 2012 at 8:15 am
Both sides will be filing briefs. I'll be getting copies for everyone to read and I'm sure P8TT will be discussing them in posts. By my calculation, the first briefs on the merits are due January 22, 2013.
17.
_BK_ | December 8, 2012 at 9:06 am
Thank you!
18.
Bob | December 8, 2012 at 11:08 am
As I watched the news ,,, I reflected back over the years of prop8,,, and how in the beginning we were so wanting some a) mainstream media coverage and b) really the whole time we were focused on getting to the courts,,,,,,, yes the Supreme Court ,,,, and those things happened ,,,,,,, the prop8 case is getting it's due attention,,,,,,, Woot Woot Woot,,,
Talking with Canadian friends about this,,, thinking the time is now,,, there is no way the highest court in the most powerful country in the free world, can withhold equality from it's own citizens, and yet demand it of other countries,,,,,
There can be no fear in taking this case to the Supreme Court,,,, if there is any fear about it,,, it discredits what we know to be the truth,,,,,, the arc of justice has moved,,,,, and the courts will confirm what we already know,,,,,,,,
19.
Bob | December 8, 2012 at 11:14 am
and I could follow that up with STR8Grandmothers words from an earlier post,,,,,
"WE ARE ALL CALIFORNIANS NOW" globally waiting and watching
20.
indiedocsf | December 8, 2012 at 11:46 am
From the live discussion there was this exchange:
Comment From Dan
My partner and I are a bi-national couple, if section 3 of DOMA is overturned, would he be able to sponsor me for a green-card?
5:35
AdamBink: Dan: if you are legally married and residing in a state where SSM is legal (assuming Section II of DOMA stays in place), then yes.
If Section 3 of DOMA is overturned, wouldn't there be federal recognition of the marriage as long as the marriage was valid in juridiction in which it was performed? For example, if a Canadian marries an American in Canada, which has marriage equality, wouldn't the federal government recognize the marriage for purposes of immigration regardless of whether the American resides in a state with marriage equality?
21.
Jude | December 9, 2012 at 1:16 am
So in effect, only binational couples where one partner lives in a state where ssm is recognized would get immigration rights for their foreign partner? Someone living in, say Florida who marries their foreign partner in, say Canada or Washington DC wouldn't have their marriage federally recognised? How can that be constitutionally fair? Will everyone who is in a binational relationship have to move to a state where ssm is recognised before they can apply for a green card for their foreign partner? No foreign marriages will be recognised outside of the ssm states?
22.
Steve | December 9, 2012 at 3:50 am
I don't know how it is with immigration, but idiotically some laws (like social security) explicitly defer to the state of residence.
America is truly fucked up. People aren't really citizens of the whole country because the whole thing is set up as more of a lose confederation.
23.
davep | December 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Same sex civil marriages started in Washington state shortly after midnight last night!
24.
Tig | December 9, 2012 at 9:04 pm
In my opinion there is no way DOMA stands considering the substance of Windsor…and am hoping for an extended ruing to invalidate the entire law (sec 2 as well).
However, of more concern is Prop 8. I could see the court striking it down for CA only in the limited case where a right has been granted by the State Supreme Ct and voted away or simply deny standing. I feel in no way shape or form, will the Court's ruling strike down 31 voter enacted constitutional bans citing states rights and will of the citizenry. This would be Roe v Wade all over again and no way the Court goes there. SO the short term end all seems to be get married in a legal state, have federal benefits, and let the other states come on board when ready thru voter repeal of the bans. I also don't see the court giving us suspect or even mid level class designation.
25.
davep | December 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm
I agree it may not seem likely that SCOTUS will rule broadly in our favor and instantly force 31 states to yank anti-SSM amendments back out of their state constitutions. But even with SCOTUS ruling against Prop 8 on a more limited basis that only affects California, and with DOMA gone, it will be much quicker and easier for gay people in other states to take their own cases to court and use these events as very convincing arguments. The pace of our progress will continue to accelerate.
26.
nicksternet | December 10, 2012 at 6:14 am
The only reason SCOTUS granted review of CA PropHate is because the conservatives want a chance to shoot holes in the 9th circuit's decision and bar equal protection for gays. It is so damn obvious. Wake up people. Olsen did this on purpose as a sneak attack on gay rights!
27.
nicksternet | December 10, 2012 at 6:15 am
SCOTUS will not rule broadly! Wake up. They will rule extremely narrow on gay rights!
28.
nicksternet | December 10, 2012 at 6:46 am
3 editorials on SCOTUS using standing as an OFF Ramp for gay rights. The only people who didn't see this coming was Olson and Boies. And Jerry Brown did this, by not defending the stupid law, which opened up the standing issue to review!
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/will_justi…
29.
Kathleen | December 10, 2012 at 8:38 am
I just wanted to correct an error I made in the Live Blog Q&A. I said the California Sect. of State was a defendant in the Prop 8 case, which is not true (and I knew it's not true when I said it). What I MEANT to say was the California Attorney General. I suspect the slip was the result of the recent habit developed by reporting on election results.
30.
Ann_S | December 10, 2012 at 9:01 am
We all forgive you, Kathleen.
31.
davep | December 10, 2012 at 11:49 am
What about David Boise and the other fifty lawyers at AFER? Are they all in on this anti-gay conspiracy? Your comment sounds like something an anti-gay troll would say to try to stir up controversy.
32.
davep | December 10, 2012 at 11:52 am
The fact that SCOTUS made a point of adding the question of standing also means they could be intending to rule only on that issue, avoiding any specific ruling on the merits, broad or narrow. And that would be great, since finding that the defendant interveners did not have standing to appeal to the 9th circuit would mean the 9th circuit's narrow ruling would be replaced with Judge Walker's more forceful ruling and would set an excellent precedent.
33.
indiedocsf | December 10, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Would the lawyers on this blog address my question above? Thanks. I wrote:
From the live discussion there was this exchange:
Comment From Dan
My partner and I are a bi-national couple, if section 3 of DOMA is overturned, would he be able to sponsor me for a green-card?
5:35
AdamBink: Dan: if you are legally married and residing in a state where SSM is legal (assuming Section II of DOMA stays in place), then yes.
If Section 3 of DOMA is overturned, wouldn't there be federal recognition of the marriage as long as the marriage was valid in juridiction in which it was performed? For example, if a Canadian marries an American in Canada, which has marriage equality, wouldn't the federal government recognize the marriage for purposes of immigration regardless of whether the American resides in a state with marriage equality?
34.
nicksternet | December 11, 2012 at 6:36 am
I am gayer than a 3 dollar bill. LOL. I just don't see these Justices ruling broadly on equal rights for us. Sorry. Not optimistic, and quite frankly, blind-sided by SCOTUUS taking PropHate.
35.
nicksternet | December 11, 2012 at 6:38 am
In other words, cowardly baby steps continue to be taken on gay rights in US while Europe, Canada, and now Mexico and much of South America views us as Human! Interesting!
36.
Kathleen | December 11, 2012 at 8:17 am
Thank you, Ann.
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.