Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Virginia's Ban On Marriage Equality!

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a February 2014 district court decision that struck down Virginia's ban on marriage equality. The ruling puts the marriage bans in four sates covered by the 4th Circuit (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia) in question. However, it is likely that there will be stay on proceedings in the Fourth Circuit until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final ruling in the case.

Just a  few weeks ago the Tenth Circuit issued rulings affirming that Utah's and Oklahoma's bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional but this did not stop the Attorney General of Colorado (the Tenth Circuit is physically housed in Denver!) from asserting that Colorado's ban on marriage equality is still intact (even though a state judge and a federal judge has struck it down).

In today's 2-1 decision from the 4th Circuit, the majority says:

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

Human Rights Campaign, the nations largest LGBT advocacy group helpfully noes that there have been nineteen consecutive ruling from federal courts affirming marriage equality since June 27, 2013 and lists the state of play in the pending federal lawsuits on marriage equality at the appellate level or higher:

Cases pending before federal appeals courts:

• DeLeon v. Perry, Texas [Argument date at the Fifth Circuit not set]

• Tanco v. Haslam, Tennessee [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Bourke vs. Beshear, Kentucky [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Obergefell v. Kasich, Ohio [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Henry v. Himes, Ohio [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• DeBoer v. Snyder, Michigan [Arguments at the Sixth Circuit set for August 6]

• Wolf v. Walker, Wisconsin [Arguments at the Seventh Circuit set for August 26]

• Baskin v. Bogan, Indiana [Arguments at the Seventh Circuit set for August 26]

• Sevcik v. Sandoval, Nevada [Argument at the Ninth Circuit set for September 8]

• Latta v. Otter, Idaho [Argument at the Ninth Circuit set for September]

• Jackson v. Abercrombie, Hawaii [Argument at the Ninth Circuit set for September 8]

• Burns v. Hickenlooper, Colorado [Argument date at the Tenth Circuit not set]

Cases petitioned or likely to be petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court:

• Kitchen v. Herbert, Utah [Tenth Circuit struck down marriage ban June 25]

• Bishop v. United States, Oklahoma [Tenth Circuit struck down marriage ban July 18]

• Bostic v. Schaefer, Virginia [Fourth Circuit struck down marriage ban July 28]

Basically it's a race now to see if the Supreme Court will get the marriage cases in the 2014-15 term or in the 2015-16 term. Sooner is looking more likely, but maybe we'll need to get a circuit split (an actual federal appellate ruling where marriage equality loses) for that to happen.

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner

Legal Bills Of Proposition 8 Federal Case Exceeded $6.4 Million

The Washington Blade reports that according to tax records, the federal lawsuit to eliminate California's Proposition 8 resulted in some $6.4 million going to the high-powered law firms of Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson and Boies were the unlikely due behind the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit in May 2009 that eventually became the successful Hollingsworth v. Perry win at the United States Supreme Court in June 2013.

The lawsuit was sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) which was created by Chad Griffin at the time the suit was filed. According to the same records, AFER has raised nearly $15 million dollars since its inception and March 31, 2013.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights between 2009 and 2013 paid more than $6.4 million to two law firms that successfully argued against California’s Proposition 8.

Tax filings indicate former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson’s law firm – Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP – received $1,691,714 from AFER for “legal and ancillary legal expenses”between April 23, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The organization paid the law firm $958,655between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, and another $2,758,352 between April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP received $537,939 from AFER between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The organization also paid David Boies’ law firm – Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP – $468,089 for “legal and ancillary legal expenses” between April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.

Some  have questioned why such prominent lawyers did not work on this seminal civil rights lawsuit pro bono, which has generally been the custom in other movements. Others point out that the $15 million raised (and presumably spent) by AFER is much less than a ballot measure campaign to overturn Proposition 8 would have cost. And you may remember in 2009 there were very many people (vocally opposed by  a coalition of groups that included yours truly) who wanted to go to the ballot as soon as possible. Also, no LGBT legal minds thought that a federal challenge to Proposition 8 would succeed and were strongly opposed to the Olson-Boies lawsuit at the time.

Another reason why this is useful information is that AFER is now involved in another federal lawsuit, Bostic v. Rainey, in which they are suing to have Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages invalidated. On Valentine's Day, a federal judge struck down that ban and put a stay on her decision pending a resolution on appeal to the 4th Circuit or above. Lambda Legal and the ACLU have successfully petitioned to intervene in that case, which was opposed by AFER.

There is currently a race to see which federal lawsuit will get to the Supreme Court. Even though a dozen U.S. district courts have struck down marriage bans, no U.S. circuit courts have (yet). Oral argument in the Utah case (Kitchen v. Hebert) before the 10th Circuit and in the Nevada case (Sevcik v Sandoval) in the 9th Circuit are scheduled for April. It will be interesting to see if AFER's profile or reputation will be negatively impacted by these revelations despite their winning track record on restoring marriage to California on a timeline faster than the LGBT establishment expected.

Federal Judge Strikes Down VA Ban On Marriage Equality

Wow! Huge victory for LGBT rights occurred Thursday night when a federal judge judge ruled in the case Bostic v. Rainey that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution.

In a 41-page ruling issued shortly before 9 p.m. Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen found Virginia’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and banning state recognition of legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, as well as portions of Virginia code and “any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions” as unconstitutional. 

"The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” the ruling states. “Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family."

This case has an extremely high profile because it is sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights and features the superlawyer odd couple pairing of David Boies and Ted Olson. Just last week, the judge heard oral arguments in this case but she had been expected to rule quickly. Nice touch to do so before Valentine's Day.

Marriages can not begin in Virginia because Judge Wright Allen issued a stay on her decision, realizing that since the Supreme Court ultimately issued a stay when another federal judge struck down a similar ban in Utah last December. The case will now go to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and most likely, the United States Supreme Court eventually.

VA AG Announces End Of State's Defense of Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Elections have consequences! The sweep of Democrats of the three statewide offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General in the November 2013 elections in Virginia is having a dramatic impact on the pending federal lawsuit on marriage equality in that state. Attorney General Mark Herring has announced that he believes Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and is filing a brief joining the same-sex couples represented by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (the group that filed the federal lawsuit that led to the restoration of marriage equality to California) in arguing that position in court.

The Washington Post reports:

Democrats cheered the move as a victory for civil rights while Republicans blasted it as dereliction of the attorney general’s duty to defend the state constitution. With the support of 57 percent of voters, Virginia amended its constitution in 2006 to ban gay marriage. 

Herring said his chief duty is to defend the U.S. Constitution. 

“The Supreme Court is clear: The United States Constitution is the law of the land, the supreme law of the land,” Herring said at a press conference. “I believe the freedom to marry is a fundamental right and I intend to ensure that Virginia is on the right side of history and the right side of the law.”

Joe.My.God posted video of Herring explaining his position:


Of course, the symbolic significance of Virginia taking a position in favor of marriage equality after arguing in court in 1967 against interracial marriage is not lost on anyone.

Exciting day!

OKLAHOMA Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

Wow! A federal judge has ruled that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States constitution.

Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner reports:

“The Court holds that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern wrote.

The ruling will not go into effect immediately, Kern decided, issuing a stay of his decision based on the recent Supreme Court action granting a stay in the case challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages.

The case, which was filed back in November 2004, is the longest pending marriage equality case in the country. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 3, 2004, the day after voters there passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying.

The lawsuit had challenged both the federal government’s ban on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as Oklahoma’s ban, but the intervening Supreme Court ruling striking down that part of DOMA, Section 3, rendered that portion of the lawsuit moot.

Amazing news! In deep, dark red states, federal judges are realizing that the words of the United States Constitution that say "equal protection of the laws" means everyone.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

33% Of U.S. Population (100+ Million People) Living With Marriage Equality

One decade ago there were exactly zero states that had marriage equality, even though the Defense of Marriage Act had been federal law for seven years. In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution required equal marriage rights for same-sex couples under the law and issued an order to go in effect on May 17, 2004. Note that the second state, Connecticut did not have marriage equality until November 2008 (and for a brief 173 days starting in June 2008 Californians had access to same-sex marriage prior to the passage of Proposition 8). So, really in a little over 5 years marriage equality has increased from roughly 10 million to another order of magnitude.

With New Jersey becoming the 14th state to enact marriage equality this week there are now well over 100 million people who live in states with marriage equality, about 33% of the entire U.S. population.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) summaries the astonishingly rapid progress:

State	Date Effective	Population	Percent
Massachusetts	May 2004	6,547,629	2.12%
Connecticut	Nov. 2008	3,574,097	1.16%
Iowa	Apr. 2009	3,046,355	0.99%
Vermont	Jun. 2009	625,741	0.20%
New Hampshire	Jan. 2010	1,316,470	0.43%
Washington, D.C.	Mar. 2010	601,723	0.19%
New York	Jun. 2011	19,378,361	6.28%
Washington	Dec. 2012	6,724,540	2.18%
Maine	Dec. 2012	1,328,361	0.43%
Maryland	Jan. 2013	5,773,552	1.87%
Delaware	Jun. 2013	897,934	0.29%
California	Jun. 2013	37,253,956	12.07%
Minnesota	Aug. 2013	5,303,925	1.72%
Rhode Island	Aug. 2013	1,052,567	0.34%
New Jersey	Oct. 2013	8,791,894	2.84%
	Total	102,216,846	33.11%

Any predictions for when the United States will hit 50%? Remember Illinois, Hawaii, New Mexico and Oregon are widely expected to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples sooner rather than later.

POLL: Virginia Voters Oppose 2006 Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A new poll indicates that Virginia's ban on marriage equality, enacted by voters in 2006, would not survive if voters could vote again on the measure in next month's election. 56 percent of Virginia voters say they oppose the state's same-sex marriage ban while 36 percent say they favor it.

Although voters will not be able to vote to impact marriage equality any time soon, there are two pending marriage lawsuits in federal court in Virginia, one that includes the participation of the very high profile duo of Ted Olson and David Boies who successfully sued to have  California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban invalidated in federal court.

AFER Joins Federal Marriage Lawsuit In Virginia

AFER, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is the organization behind the ultimately successful federal lawsuit against Proposition 8 in California in May 2009 which led to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hollingsworth v Perry on June 26, 2013. It should be noted that at the time AFER filed its federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, the traditional LGBT legal organizations issued a joint statement declaring the action to be "wrong."

AFER is announcing today that it is joining another federal lawsuit to win marriage equality, and they are doing it in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There's a current lawsuit already filed in Virginia to win marriage equality there called Bostic v. Rainey and the superlawyer team of David Boies and Ted Olson.

From the press release:

Washington, DC – The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsor of the landmark federal constitutional challenge that eliminated California’s Proposition 8 and restored marriage equality in the nation's most populous state, will announce that it has joined the federal legal challenge to Virginia’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples, Bostic v. Rainey.  The case, filed in U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples, calls the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples from marrying, unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, violates Due Process and singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

The Bostic case once again joins the bipartisan legal team of Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who successfully defeated California’s Proposition 8 in Federal Court, to continue the fight for marriage equality.

Virginia has an interesting resonance on the issue of marriage equality because it is the location of the landmark lawsuit Loving v Virginia which the Supreme Court used to strike down all state laws banning interracial marriage and re-affirmed the principle that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

Virginia is a purple state (Republican controlled on the state level, but has voted twice for Barack Obama for President) and has no statewide protections for LGBT individuals at the state level. If a federal lawsuit against a state marriage amendment can succeed in Virginia then the thirty-five other states which have amendments and bans against same-sex marriage are likely susceptible to lawsuits.

Chris Geidner notes that the Virginia marriage amendment was passed in November 2006 by voters 57 percent to 43 percent and gives the text:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Note that this measure not only bans same-sex marriage but it also bans recognition of domestic partnerships as well. Most of the state bans on marriage (20) include similar language.

#FAIL: CA Heterosexual Supremacists Claim Prop 8 Is Not Dead

Wow! How invested in your own bizarro view of the world warped by rampant homophobia that you refuse to acknowledge reality? I guess the heterosexual supremacists over at ProtectMarriage.com are going to let us know. Two weeks ago their last-ditch attempt to (again) stop same-sex couples from getting married in California was summarily aborted by the United States Supreme Court, so they have decided to return to the California Supreme Court, a place they have won twice before, to try to claim that Proposition 8 is not dead.

They have filed a claim called Hollingsworth v. O'Connell before the California Supreme Court making the (frankly ludicrous) argument that the federal injunction currently in effect against Proposition 8 only applies to the two counties in which the original plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit are from, namely Los Angeles County and San Francisco.

Moments ago, we filed a new petition in the California Supreme Court against all of California’s 58 county clerks, and state officials, seeking to restore the enforcement of Proposition 8, the state’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  The undeniable fact is, the man-woman definition of marriage, as passed by a majority the voters, is still a valid part of our state constitution. 

Yet county clerks statewide are lawlessly defying that law by issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses. We are asking California’s Supreme Court to restore the rule of law and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the initiative process. 

The action we filed today contends that at least 56 of the 58 county clerks must continue to follow Proposition 8 because they were not parties to the recent federal lawsuit against Prop 8, and that the state’s governor and attorney general have no legal authority to order local county clerks to disregard the state constitution.

Amusingly, AFER, the organization behind the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit, has not even bothered to dignify ProtectMarriage.com's claim with a response.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera was not so kind, and gently explained the basics of the law and reality to the fuzzy thinking homophobes:

This motion is a desperate obstruction tactic used in the vain hope of pursuing an unconstitutional agenda. The opponents of the freedom to marry have chosen to ignore the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and the well-settled California marriage case of Lockyer v. San Francisco, which they themselves celebrated at the time. Their motion has essentially no chance to succeed. The most basic concepts of American law tell us that a state court cannot and will not overrule the federal judiciary. The citizens of California are left wondering when these people will realize that, having lost the moral struggle years and years ago, they have now lost the legal struggle as well. Marriage equality is now the law in the State of California, and will remain so from this point onward. Together we will soon see the day when it is the law all across America.

I've emphasized the key sentence in the middle of the quote. The homophobes won before the California Supreme Court in 2009 in Strauss v. Horton when the state's highest court ruled that Proposition 8 did not violate the state constitution. But in Perry v. Brown, the homophobes lost in federal court and the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry that they have no right to appeal that ruling. Ergo, Proposition 8 is dead.

Actually, what is even more ironic is that the case of Lockyer v. San Francisco which the homophobes won is now coming back to bite them on the butt. Then the state Supreme Court ruled that state officials and not local county officials have the sole right to determine who can or can not get married in response to Mayor Gavin Newsom's wilful defiance of state law way back in 2004. This resulted in the annulment of thousands of same-sex couples' marriages who had been married at the time between February 12 and March 11 in San Francisco. But that same principle is now what prevents ProtectMarriage.com from claiming that 56 of 58 counties can enforce Proposition 8 while 2 of them do not. (Actually the make the even more nonsensical argument that all 58 counties have to enforce Proposition 8 because it is still present in the California Constitution, but I digress.) The responsible state officials Attorney General Kamala Harris and  Governor Jerry Brown have recognized that a federal court is stopping them from enforcing Proposition 8 and thus same-sex couples can get married.

That being said, to end the debate completely again, the Legislature should pass a state constitutional amendment removing Proposition 8 from the state Constitution and re-affirming marriage equality so that the people can have their voice heard again on this question in November 2014.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Queer Quote: Chad Griffin Sets Goal For Nationwide Marriage Equality

Chad Griffin, the wunderkind behind the federal lawsuit that resulted in Proposition 8's demise last week, made this promise (or threat?) which I would like to highlight as today's Queer Quote:

"Within five years, we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states in the U.S."

Griffin was the founding board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) who sponsored the Hollingsworth v. Perry case. He is now the president of the Human Rights campaign, the nation's largest LGBT political organization.

Today comes word that activists in multiple states are moving forward to make Griffin's vision a reality.

For example, in New Jersey, the Executive Director of Garden State Equality, Troy Stevenson, has made the audacious claim that marriage equality will happen in that state by the end of the year. To that end, Lambda Legal filed a motion today asking for summary judgment in their lawsuit against the state, citing 2005's landmark Lewis v. Harris decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court and last week's United States v. Windsor decision by the United States Supreme Court. If  that wasn't enough, Democrats in the New Jersey state legislature are gearing up to try and override Republican Governor Chris Christie's veto of a marriage equality bill that passed in 2011.

In New Mexico, which is the only other state besides New Jersey that does not contain a statutory or constitutional ban on marriage equality in the country, the ACLU and NCLR have petitioned the state Supreme Court to answer the question whether same-sex couples can obtain civil marriage licenses and get married in the Land of Enchantment.

There is action in other states as well. Read Chris Geidner's wrap-up for more.

WATCH: AFER's Highlight Reel on Prop. 8 Case

This is a fun video depicting the momentous events from June 26, 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued not one but two rulings in favor of marriage equality!

A key thing to note in the video is that it appears as if somehow President Obama (or the White House) has HRC head Chad Griffin's cellphone number?)

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Gaytterdämmerung: Prop 8 is Dead! Marriage Equality Returns To California

With a short 1 sentence order published at 3:21pm PDT, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay of their 2012 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, eschewing the typical 25-day wait for the United States Supreme Court ruling to be officially communicated to them, putting the district court ruling of Perry v Brown back into effect, returning marriage equality to California and its nearly 40 million residents.

The order was simple but its effect was not: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."

American Foundation for Equal Rights sent out the information 12 minutes later by tweet:

BREAKING: The stay has been lifted. Gay&lesbian couples can now get married in California.  

Details> http://t.co/mV8ERz1s5H #Time4Marriage
— AmericanEqualRights (@AFER) June 28, 2013

The above picture is of the Northern California plaintiffs, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, getting their marriage license in San Francisco City Hall. with Bruce Cohen, Dustin Lance Black, Chad Griffin in the background behind them.

Woo hoo!!

Gaytterdämmerung: Windsor and Hollingsworth Out Soon!

Follow SCOTUSblog to get the decisions in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases as soon as they are released at 10am EDT.

WATCH: AFER Explains Prop 8 Case

The Gaytterdämmerung case of Hollingsworth v Perry could be released by the United States Supreme Court as early as tomorrow but will probably not come out until next Monday or Thursday June 27 at the latest. The organization behind the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8 is the American Foundation for Equal Rights, or AFER. 
With the final Decision Day in the Proposition 8 case coming soon, AFER has released a helpful and stirring video that explains how the case has reached this point, mentioning the two other Decision Days on the way (district court decision on August 4, 2010 by now-openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker and the appellate court decision from the 9th Circuit on February 7, 2012). Both lower courts have deemed Proposition 8 an impermissible violation of the United States Constitution, so if the U.S. Supreme Court declines to issue a decision on the merits for any reason (and there are many) then Proposition 8 will be invalidated and marriages will resume in California shortly afterwards.

Lambda Legal Explains Gaytterdämmerung Cases

Last week I showed you the infographic explanation of the upcoming Supreme Court case Hollingsworth v. Perry provided by American Foundation for Equal Rights.

This week, the venerable Lambda Legal provides their explanation of both Gaytterdämmerung cases (Hollingsworth v Perry and United States v. Windsor) in graphical form as well.

Basically there are 6 likely results in the Proposition 8 case (Hollingsworth), 5 of which will result in same-sex couples being able to marry again soon afterwards in California.

In the DOMA case (Windsor), there are really 3 possible results and even with a "win" the impact on all legally married same-sex couples in the country will take awhile to resolve. Here's the text of the Windsor possibilities:

3 Most Likely Outcomes

Win Court strikes down section 3 of DOMA (affirms the Second Circuit decision that section 3 of DOMA violates the constitution’s guarantee of equality)	No Standing To be in Supreme Court	Lose SCOTUS Upholds DOMA (Reverses the Second Circuit decision)
Federal government will have to treat marriages of same-sex couples the same way it treats the marriages of different-sex couples for all federal statutes and programs. Would NOT resolve: Whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry. Whether states must respect marriages same-sex couples legally entered into in other states. Married same-sex couples who live in states that do not recognize their marriage may experience a period of uncertainty as to which federal benefits they can receive.	The Court may find that the Department of Justice does not have the right to seek Court review and that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee of the House of Representatives (BLAG) does not have standing to defend DOMA. The Appeals Court decision would be vacated by the Court and it would be the district court decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional that would stand. Further efforts might be necessary to defeat DOMA nationwide.	Same-sex couples will continue to be denied rights, responsibilities & protections under more than 1,000 federal laws. Pushing forward for Respect for Marriage Act in Congress.

The Supreme Court will issue its ruling sometime in June, on a Monday or Thursday. Most people (yours truly included) expect the cases to be released around 10am on Thursday June 27th.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Gaytterdämmerung: The Possible Results In Prop 8 Case

Joe Jervis posts a similar graphic from the American Foundation for Equal Rights summarizing the possible outcomes in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth vs Perry. However, Joe says that decisions are released on Mondays, when actually they can come out on either Mondays or Thursdays. Most observers expect "Decision Day" will be Thursday June 27. This blog is calling the day the Supreme City decides Hollingsworth and United States v. Windsor "gay götterdämmerung" or "Gaytterdämmerung."

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Saturday Politics: Major Newspapers Endorse Marriage Equality

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has noticed that 13 of the nation's top 15 newspapers have recently editorialized in favor of marriage equality:

USA TodayThe New York TimesLos Angeles TimesSan Jose Mercury NewsThe Washington PostDaily NewsChicago TribuneChicago Sun-TimesThe Dallas Morning NewsHouston ChronicleThe Philadelphia InquirerThe Arizona RepublicThe Denver Post

Homomentum in favor of LGBT equality!

Gaytterdämmerung: These 2 Guys Hold The Key Votes

Today is Day 1 of Gaytterdämmerung, when the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the California Proposition 8 case. This is the case where the Justices could decide whether there exists a fundamental right to marry that also applies to non-heterosexual people, or simply decide that a state can not take away such a right once it has been granted, or decide that a state can not offer all the legal rights and responsibilities but deny the term marriage due to the fear of associating same-sex couples with the word. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court have both ruled that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution. Bush Administration Solicitor-General Ted Olson and Obama Administration Solicitor-General Donald J. Verrilli will be arguing in favor of that proposition, while they will be opposed by Charles J. Cooper, who has basically argued every important anti-gay marriage case for the last twenty years (and won very many of them).

There are 9 members of the US Supreme Court (Pop Quiz: How many Can You Name?) but really the two that everyone will have their eyes (and ears) on are Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts. Kennedy has written the two most pro-gay decisions in the court's history (1996's Romer v. Evans striking down Colorado's Amendment 2 and 2003's Lawrence v. Texas striking down the country's remaining sodomy laws) so he is expected to play a major role in determining how the court will rule in Hollingsworth. Roberts is the Chief Justice, and as he showed with last year's surprising decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) he is a consummate politician who is always trying to maintain the legitimacy of the judicial branch in our system of government. Roberts has also caused headlines because his openly lesbian cousin will be attending the oral arguments in person as a result of action by the Justice. He is the head of the conservative wing of the Court, but is thought to be pragmatic enough to not want the two biggest gay rights cases of his generation to be 5-4 decisions.

We'll know in June 2013!

16 Days Until Gay Götterdämmerung : Get Ready!

16 Days Left until what I have been calling gay götterdämmerung or Gaytterdämmerung: the oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court in the two most important LGBT-related cases in nearly two decades. The Court will be considering whether California's attempt to ban same-sex  marriage by the passage of Proposition 8 is constitutional in the case called Hollingsworth v. Perry AND the next day the court will then hear arguments about whether the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in the case United States v. Windsor.

Lesbian law professor Nan Hunter has a great piece analyzing the issues involved in the two cases in The Nation which is a must read as well as another piece discussing the new context the Court finds itself as it considers these cases:

Nonetheless, it is unquestionably true that the conventional understanding of where the center of American politics stands on this issue has dramatically moved. The reasons are many. A cumulative process, especially since 2009, has driven support for legalizing gay marriage ever higher in public opinion polls. The shock of the 2008 defeat in California catalyzed a younger generation of gay men and lesbians, with ardent support from straight allies, to insist on marriage as the premier gay rights issue. Since that election, gay groups have won a series of state-level battles, as several legislatures legalized equal marriage, including New York (with one chamber controlled by Republicans). At the national level, Congress repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” 

The icing on the wedding cake came with last November’s election. Voters in three states affirmatively chose to adopt gay marriage, and Minnesota voters rejected the attempt to pass a Prop 8–like measure. Moreover, the first president ever to endorse marriage equality was handily re-elected, without his position ever surfacing as a controversial issue in the campaign. Indeed, support for gay marriage, along with immigration reform, has become the litmus test most frequently identified in the press for assessing whether the Republican Party can rebrand itself as moderate and escape terminal fuddy-duddyism. 

Of course, the outcome in the Supreme Court will be decided not by polls or pundits but by nine individuals; actually by six, since there is no question as to which result Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito will endorse. But Justice Kennedy, who wrote the two strongest opinions supporting gay equality in past cases, and even Chief Justice Roberts, who has no real track record in this area, are likely to take seriously the libertarian and business arguments for allowing gay couples to marry. Not doing so would continue the house-divided status quo, in which one’s marital status and even the possibility of divorce depends on an increasingly irrational mélange of different state laws. And, as the firepower across the political spectrum in support of gay marriage so dramatically demonstrates, the ultimate resolution is inevitable. Best just to bite the bullet and do it now.

Hunter is one of the smartest LGBT legal analysts in the country so you should read her stuff for yourself. She writes regularly at The Nation and at her own blog at hunterofjustice.com.

The week of the oral arguments will be a day of national focus on LGBT rights (i.e. Gaytterdämmerung). Activists (on both sides of the issue) are using that focus to organize and publicize events. For example, there will be a march in Washington, D.C. on March 26 and March 27 and other places. Check out unitedformarriage.org for more details.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God