What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[CoolBlue71]

News from long-running bellewether state Nevada:


Nevada Withdraws Efforts
To Uphold Gay Marriage Ban

By Associated Press
February 10, 2014 | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/10/nevada-gay-marriage_n_4763229.html

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Nevada is withdrawing its efforts to uphold the state's gay marriage ban.

Attorney General Catherine Corte Masto filed a motion Monday to withdraw the state's legal arguments in a case pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After Virginia going in that direction, this is great with Nevada. The state's Republican governor knows. Now I'm awaiting the bullshit of Rustbelt, blue presidential states Pennsylvania and, my home state, Michigan to get on the ball.

 

[Alnitak]

^^^ Masto is basically saying "go one without me," but she has not asked to be dismissed as a party. It sounds like she wants to withdraw in the least painful way as possible without harming the case's progress at the 9th Circuit, which regrettably has been slow. We did a good job putting the heat on her that led to this withdrawal memo.

 

[hotatlboi]

To say that is their ultimate opinion is incorrect because there was no 14th Amendment argument in Windsor.

Once again, I didn't say there was. I just said the opinion emphasized the historical norm of marriage being defined by the states.

The court is officially ignorant of it until the issue is brought before them. The majority only gave deference only because 14th Amendment due process and equal protection were not discussed. A lot of people especially on the opposing side don't understand this point, or don't wish to admit it. The 10th Amendment absolutely gives states their rights to regulate family law, so long as no other provision in the Constitution forbids it. I would say the 14th Amendment is a big fat enumerated right, and one retained by the people anyway in the 9th Amendment I would argue, and has been distinguished in Griswold.

I agree and I'm sure most/all on the Court understand and would agree that sometimes marriage issues cannot be left up to the states. I doubt very many on the Court would disagree with Loving v Virginia, another case where a federal definition of marriage was clearly necessary. All I was saying is that I think they are not likely to get there just yet when they went through a lot of effort to make it clear in the last case that existing state law was not being overturned.

Separately, the Supreme Court will not issue an adverse opinion for several reasons. On top of them, California's Proposition 8 would be resurrected, and nobody wants that sore opened up. Two, public opinion is on our side. Three, we will win in several circuits by the time they issue an opinion, and even by October of this year. Four, Kennedy expressed disappointment in his dissent in Hollingsworth and not because he is anti-gay. Every case of government intrusion on LGBT rights that has ever gone before him he has shut down with sweeping rhetoric.

Did you listen to the oral arguments? Kennedy seemed the most uncomfortable with the case even being there. It sounded like he was looking for any kind of a way to avoid making a sweeping ruling. And actually the whole court sounded like that pretty much. He was disappointed in his dissent just over the point of CA law that he clearly disagreed with the majority on (that the petitioners lacked standing). I'm sure being from CA he felt that he understood CA law better but was overruled.

It's true that they won't be able to avoid the ultimate question forever, but I just have a feeling that they will kick the can down the road as far as they can.

 

[Kulindahr]

No but the opinion emphasized great deference to the states right to define marriage. A finding that gay marriage must be allowed so soon after (thus taking it away from the states to decide at least on this issue) is unlikely IMO.

Overturning laws against gay marriage does not take anything away from the states except what the Court already took away in Loving v Virginia: any authority to define it contrary to the Constitution.

 

[hotatlboi]

Overturning laws against gay marriage does not take anything away from the states except what the Court already took away in Loving v Virginia: any authority to define it contrary to the Constitution.

And we all know that will be the final solution. The only question is when it will happen.

 

[Alnitak]

Did you listen to the oral arguments?

Of course. This issue rules my life. LOL

I wish there were more participants in these threads.

Anyway I didn't get that impression. I was pleased by Kennedy's concern for the children of gay couples.

And we all know that will be the final solution. The only question is when it will happen.

Nice phraseology.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree. We'll have 50 states in 18 months. At least scream is with me on this where are you Marry Me Minnesota.

 

[Ninja108]

I wish there were more participants in these threads.

A lot of posters have left sad to say. We've lost several good ones over the past year.
On the equality front, I would say that we're lucky in that we both live in marriage equality states but even so, have the problem of legal marriages being made null and void the minute we cross certain state lines.
Bottom line, it can't and won't last.

 

[hotatlboi]

We'll have 50 states in 18 months.

Unlikely even from just a logistical perspective. That would mean the SCOTUS would have to accept the case by the fall term of this year. The appellate record is just not going to be sufficiently developed by then. I bet they will want several final circuit rulings before taking another major case.

 

[bankside]

A good article in slate about the Nevada thing and heightened scrutiny.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...n_how_a_single_gay_juror_brought_it_down.html

 

[Alnitak]

Unlikely even from just a logistical perspective. That would mean the SCOTUS would have to accept the case by the fall term of this year. The appellate record is just not going to be sufficiently developed by then. I bet they will want several final circuit rulings before taking another major case.

By this time next year or sooner I expect five circuit rulings: 8th, 10th, 9th, 4th, and one of the remaining circuits perhaps the 6th or 3rd.

 

[Kulindahr]

A good article in slate about the Nevada thing and heightened scrutiny.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...n_how_a_single_gay_juror_brought_it_down.html

I like the comment about hearing "we're defending traditional marriage" from a state that lets Elvis impersonators perform marriages fro drunk people . . . .

I'm almost surprised that no legislator anywhere has introduced a "Protecting Biblical Marriage" bill authorizing concubinage, polygamy, and buying wives on the internet.

 

[hotatlboi]

By this time next year or sooner I expect five circuit rulings: 8th, 10th, 9th, 4th, and one of the remaining circuits perhaps the 6th or 3rd.

Even if for the sake of argument that is correct, and by this time next year multiple circuits have ruled, you'd still be looking at a minimum 26-28 month timeframe for another SCOTUS ruling to be made assuming they took a case in the 2015 term (with ruling during the 2016 standard ruling period for major cases).

Then you have to consider whether that ruling will be a broad sweeping smackdown of all gay marriage bans, or just a remand which sidesteps that in favor of more nuanced arguments.

 

[scream4ever]

With Nevada backing out of the defense in Sevik, it's more then likely now that the case will end with the 9th Circuit ruling in our favor since the only group defending the law is the Coalition for Marriage, which does not have standing to appeal the case. Had the district judge ruled in our favor, the case would now essentially be over, though it would only have applied to Nevada.

 

[scream4ever]

Even if for the sake of argument that is correct, and by this time next year multiple circuits have ruled, you'd still be looking at a minimum 26-28 month timeframe for another SCOTUS ruling to be made assuming they took a case in the 2015 term (with ruling during the 2016 standard ruling period for major cases).

Then you have to consider whether that ruling will be a broad sweeping smackdown of all gay marriage bans, or just a remand which sidesteps that in favor of more nuanced arguments.

Several circuits are expected to rule by October, which would be soon enough for the Supreme Court to grant cert, hear the case(s) in the spring, and issue a ruling in the summer.

 

[Ninja108]

Bottom line, the court is going to take this up sooner versus later, just like Scalia said they would in his dissent.

 

[hotatlboi]

On a more pathetic note, Alabama judge Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore has sent a letter to all 50 governors begging them to call an article V constitutional convention to enact a federal marriage ban and stop the scourge of gay marriage from "attacking" the country.

http://equalityontrial.com/2014/02/07/alabama-chief-justice-pushes-for-federal-marriage-amendment/

Luckily it's 2014 and thus this effort is hopelessly doomed to failure but it serves to illustrate how deep the bigotry of religious nutcases still goes but also that they are realizing how soon the final acts on this will play out.

 

[Alnitak]

With Nevada backing out of the defense in Sevik, it's more then likely now that the case will end with the 9th Circuit ruling in our favor since the only group defending the law is the Coalition for Marriage, which does not have standing to appeal the case. Had the district judge ruled in our favor, the case would now essentially be over, though it would only have applied to Nevada.

Coalition to Protect Marriage is not a party though. Two of the three clerks are still parties, which is the situation also in Virginia now represented by the ADF and some private lawyer, who by the way sounds a lot nicer than the ADF trash. Anyway, it is up to the clerks now (speaking in future tense) with the full realization that an appeal could trigger marriage equality in every state and territory in the country.

On a more pathetic note, Alabama judge Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore has sent a letter to all 50 governors begging them to call an article V constitutional convention to enact a federal marriage ban and stop the scourge of gay marriage from "attacking" the country.

http://equalityontrial.com/2014/02/07/alabama-chief-justice-pushes-for-federal-marriage-amendment/

Luckily it's 2014 and thus this effort is hopelessly doomed to failure but it serves to illustrate how deep the bigotry of religious nutcases still goes but also that they are realizing how soon the final acts on this will play out.

I expect these displays to get more unctuous as we get closer to final victory. Certainly talk about Huelskamp's FMA will get louder, but like you said, that ship sailed years ago.

 

[Alnitak]

Bottom line, the court is going to take this up sooner versus later, just like Scalia said they would in his dissent.

I think one of the reasons these threads have gotten so quiet is the lack of excitement over individual victories. Now with thirty case, it's kind of silly to expect a lot of attention on every development. When is the big one? Everyone wants to know. Ultimately that what precipitates out of all this procedural forecasting.

There is just too much to keep track of for the average person. We could really spam this thread with updates that normally were cause for a lot of excitement three years ago.

 

[Alnitak]

Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down by federal judge

A federal judge Wednesday struck down Kentucky’s ban on recognizing valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

...

Heyburn did not rule that Kentucky must allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

Judge John G. Heyburn II was appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush on the recommendation of Mitch McConnell.

 

[Alnitak]

Full text of the opinion in Bourke v. Beshear:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/206725994/3-13-cv-00750-47

Kentucky is under the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.