What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[unloadonme]

The Scotland thread wasn't a hit

That was something of an anticlimax after the Westminster parliament legislated last year.

 

[Alnitak]

That was something of an anticlimax after the Westminster parliament legislated last year.

Some people may not have realized that constituent countries have some degree of autonomy on family law, as is the case in the US.

 

[Alnitak]

No shortage of court dates.

A hearing on summary judgment will be held in Arkansas state court on April 17.

https://docsdms.pulaskiclerk.com/Do...present?DMS_ID=WDTDPPFZSZ4M98EKTYKMMOUNKY3OCG

 

[Ninja108]

I think by the end of the year we will have full marriage equality in Oregon, elsewhere though I'm not sure.
I do think the judges in MI and PA will rule in our favor.

 

[Alnitak]

I think by the end of the year we will have full marriage equality in Oregon, elsewhere though I'm not sure.
I do think the judges in MI and PA will rule in our favor.

As far as the actual performance of marriages you might be right.

Trial court rulings will continue to stream in at a rate of one or two per month through the end of this year, until we have dispositions in most of the 20 states with a court case. More exciting will be federal circuit court rulings, which should start coming in late spring though summer. Depending on how those turn out will give us an idea of when the Supreme Court will accept a case, if it doesn't already in October.

I have seen several articles already that suggest a consensus is forming among academics. The next case before SCOTUS will be the one.

Once federal appeals courts begin striking down state bans, their rulings would apply to a geographic swath of states unless the high court intervenes and sets a national standard.

And once it steps in, plaintiffs, lawyers and advocates predict, a ruling declaring gay marriage bans unconstitutional will be inevitable.

Same-sex marriage on winning streak in nation's courts

That transformation in public sentiment will not be ignored by the judiciary, Professor Koppelman said.

He added that the Supreme Court is likely to step in as soon as next year should any of the recent decisions be affirmed by a federal appeals court.

Professor Goldberg agreed that “pressure is building in society and building in the courts,” making it “likely but not inevitable that the Supreme Court will take a marriage case in the near future.”

A Steady Path to Supreme Court as Gay Marriage Gains Momentum in States

Thirty-two judges over 18 decisions make it crystal clear: Windsor, whether it intended to or not, is a powerful decision against discrimination, and for equality.

It’s Over: Gay Marriage Can’t Lose in the Courts

 

[Ninja108]

The Supreme Court could punt if they chose to.. I just don't see how they could keep putting it off though.
Maybe they'll wait before a ruling goes against us before they step in, in which case I could see a lawsuit coming out of the 5th being the one for that.

 

[Alnitak]

The Supreme Court could punt if they chose to.. I just don't see how they could keep putting it off though.
Maybe they'll wait before a ruling goes against us before they step in, in which case I could see a lawsuit coming out of the 5th being the one for that.

These cases are moving too rapidly to ignore. In July I could have seen how the court would put Sevcik on ice while waiting for another circuit, but the judiciary has decided in toto to rule summarily and put everything on expedited consideration. The 10th Circuit is poised to rule in June, just 15 months after the Utah case was originally filed. That's extraordinary. The same looks likely to happen in Virginia's case.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Scotland thread wasn't a hit

It lacked suspense . . . .

 

[Kulindahr]

I think by the end of the year we will have full marriage equality in Oregon, elsewhere though I'm not sure.
I do think the judges in MI and PA will rule in our favor.

I think everywhere west of the Rockies will be settled in favor of same-sex equality by year's end.

 

[Kulindahr]

These cases are moving too rapidly to ignore. In July I could have seen how the court would put Sevcik on ice while waiting for another circuit, but the judiciary has decided in toto to rule summarily and put everything on expedited consideration. The 10th Circuit is poised to rule in June, just 15 months after the Utah case was originally filed. That's extraordinary. The same looks likely to happen in Virginia's case.

Unless they wanted to pretty much overturn Loving, there was no way to uphold any kind of marriage ban, because Loving was decided on the foundation of rights of citizens -- not of men and women, but of citizens. But now with Windsor, there's not even any wiggle room: Windsor says the federal government can't tell the states what marriage is or isn't, but Loving says the states can't discriminate between citizens for purposes of marriage.

When a situation is that constricted, judges don't want to bother dragging things out.



Thought: if marriage itself had ever been mentioned in the Constitution, the "traditionalists" would actually have a leg to stand on, because the courts would have to ask what the Founders meant by the word.

 

[scream4ever]

I think everywhere west of the Rockies will be settled in favor of same-sex equality by year's end.

Especially now considering there will likely be no one willing to appeal Sevik whom has standing.

 

[Alnitak]

I think everywhere west of the Rockies will be settled in favor of same-sex equality by year's end.

I said continental divide once, but it runs through the Rockies.

At the same time I think we will have the East Coast everywhere north of Savannah.

Unless they wanted to pretty much overturn Loving, there was no way to uphold any kind of marriage ban, because Loving was decided on the foundation of rights of citizens -- not of men and women, but of citizens.

That's exactly what Judge Wright Allen said. According to her opinion, all marriage laws are subject to strict scrutiny, whether they restrict people by criminal history, race, or sexual orientation. See page 23 of the opinion if you get a chance.

 

[Ninja108]

It will be intresting to see what happens with the Nevada case . The 9th could decide to rule broadly and just bring marriage equality to the whole 9th circuit in which case MT,OR,ID,AZ and AK would have marriage equality in addition to WA and CA.
Or they could make a narrower ruling in which only NV and OR would have full equality due to civil unions/ domestic partnerships not being equal to marriage.

 

[Alnitak]

It will be intresting to see what happens with the Nevada case . The 9th could decide to rule broadly and just bring marriage equality to the whole 9th circuit in which case MT,OR,ID,AZ and AK would have marriage equality in addition to WA and CA.

In today's climate that looks like the likely outcome. Three states have marriage equality in the circuit, opposed none when it decided the previous case Perry v. Brown.

Or they could make a narrower ruling in which only NV and OR would have full equality due to civil unions/ domestic partnerships not being equal to marriage.

The Supreme Court, in particular Justice Kennedy, severely questioned that reasoning during oral arguments, because if domestic partnerships are not equal then surely the lack of them is.

 

[Ninja108]

Indeed Alnitak, I think the 9th will simply go full bore this time in their circuit.

 

[Alnitak]

Kudos to those January filers, here are some tax tips for you married guys.

8 Things Same-Sex Couples Need to Know About Taxes

 

[Kulindahr]

Indeed Alnitak, I think the 9th will simply go full bore this time in their circuit.

That's my take, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the 10th tries to keep any decision a bit narrow, but I figure the 9th will just cut to the chase with basically a "Stop screwing around and get it over with" approach.

 

[scream4ever]

That's my take, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the 10th tries to keep any decision a bit narrow, but I figure the 9th will just cut to the chase with basically a "Stop screwing around and get it over with" approach.

Really? That's not the impression I've been getting at all, especially considering that they refused to stay the ruling.

 

[Ninja108]

There really is no way for the 10th to make a narrow ruling. It's all or nothing and if the Supreme Court punts on a favorable ruling, the entire 10th circuit will have marriage equality.

 

[Kulindahr]

There really is no way for the 10th to make a narrow ruling. It's all or nothing and if the Supreme Court punts on a favorable ruling, the entire 10th circuit will have marriage equality.

I don't recall if this was referenced before or not, but a writer at the Huffington Post thinks that the Windsor decision and SCOTUS granting Utah's request for a stay indicates that if the Supremes take the case, the decision will be in favor of Utah.

All things considered, there's a possibility the Court may not even rule on this case, deeming it too political. Judicial review is exercised cautiously and the Court only has standing to adjudicate on a state law, if it violates federal law. Think about what the implications are from an abuse of power standpoint. In an environment where the majority of states do not recognize same-sex marriage and against a backdrop of a 200-plus-year history wherein the states have retained the power to define marriage and control all things domestic within their borders, it would be nothing short of shocking for the Court to rule against Utah. The Supreme Court would be usurping power from the states and giving it to the federal government. In addition, the Supreme Court would be reading a fundamental right into the Constitution that isn't expressly written. I'm not taking sides here. I'm merely saying that if the Court does take the case, rule on it and rule in favor of gay couples, it will be beyond historic, especially for a Court like this one. But, back to my thesis here, as Justice Roberts said in his dissenting opinion in Windsor, "the State's power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance." Opponents will argue that any such definition belongs to the states and/or is too ideological for the Courts. Gay couples will argue that it's a simple matter of equality, freedom and justice.

Source Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-dardashtian/utah-ruling-may-foreshado_b_4551598.html

Copyright © 2014 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.