The short or long road to 50 state American marriage equality going forward

[Jingthing]

State Number 19.

Pennsylvania.

Another BIG one.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140520_U_S__judge_strikes_down_same-sex_marriage_ban_in_Pa_.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20140521_Across_the_city__judge_s_ruling_celebrated__heralded.html

Edited May 20, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

OK. Now OREGON.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_gay_marriage_ban_struck.html

Depending on how you're counting, it's now 18 states out of 50 with marriage equality.

8 more and that's a majority.

Supreme court -- just DO IT already ... the backlash will be minimal at this point.

Congratulations to Oregon, but there is something I don't understand about US law:

The plaintiffs in the Oregon case as well as the defendants, chiefly represented by Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, urged McShane to strike down Oregon's ban.

How can the plaintiffs and the defendants have the same lawyer, and ask the judge for the same thing?

At the same time, the anti-gay-marriage group NOM requested a stay so that they can appeal, but that was not granted.

While I am biased and like the outcome, I am not quite sure this was what is called a "fair trial".

Maybe I am just confused though.

I'm not a legal expert but no, both sides wouldn't have the same lawyer, but in this case both sides wanted the same result. The Oregon voters voted against gay marriage in 2004. But this is 2014. A consensus of polls show they would convincingly vote the other way today. So much has happened in 10 years as far as the general public on this issue. On top of the assumed majority public support we now have the strong legal precedent from the U.S. supreme court that is being applied similarly in a number of states, and no reason not to think that won't continue. So the anti-gay activists are going to whine about this for sure, they have lost this issue for good. It was the state of Oregon's choice to defend the old law or not, they chose not to defend it for the above reasons. Anti-gay activists groups are not the state of Oregon, much as they might like to have been in this case.

[ProThaiExpat]

onthemoon:

You are confused, but no wonder since you have reporters writing the news.

Pendantic I must be with this: Going back to Prop 8 in California, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State in that state, refused to appeal the adverse decision at the trial level in Federal Court because they didn't believe Prop 8 was constitutional under the US Constitution.

Judge Walker, at the trial level, had allowed the proponents of Prop 8 to intervene in the case and put on the case for the defendants, presumably representing the people of California that had voted for Prop 8.

These same "defendants" were allowed to appeal not only to the Court of Appeals in the federal system but even to the US Supreme Court. There they lost big time as the court ruled they had no standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision of unconstitionality as they were not representatives of the people of California. Under California law they did have "standing to sue" but under federal rules they must suffer a direct and personal harm to have standing.

The unanswered question is why did the Supreme Court leave the trial court, under Judge Walker, alone and not carry the principle of direct and personal harm to the trial level. If they had no standing to sue upon appeal, why would that not apply and be disqualifying at the federal trial level as well.

Anyway, to your confusion, the same thing happened in Oregon. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General of Oregon refused to appear on behalf of the people of Oregon as they believed the issue was unconstitional. When NOM tried to intervene, the trial judge ruled they had no standing to sue under the federal rules per the Prop 8 Supreme Court finding in that case.

The trial judge in Oregon even opined from the bench that he was trying a case without a defendant but he would try to take on the duties of the defense to some respect to make sure he had a fair trial.

Edited May 21, 2014 by ProThaiExpat

[onthemoon]

PTE, thanks for trying to explain this to me. You are certainly a lawyer, which I am not. I don't understand all the details of your explanation, but I understand that the legal procedure was correctly followed.

[ProThaiExpat]

overthemoon: Please quote those portions of my reply message that are not clear to you and I will be happy to explain further. Yes, my syntax is dense but I can work to make it simpler if you let me know what you want to understand.

When I was in school during the first few months, I was called on to recite the facts of a case in which a horny old man crept down the stairs of an Iowa farm house and had his way with a girl in her bed who was under the age of consent.

I was a bit older than the other students and so when they began to titter over my description of the facts of the seduction in the case, I got confused and mixed up Plaintiff with Defendant, to the point that I had the dirty old man (defendant) being raped by the young girl (the Plaintiff). The class roared with laughter and the Professor yelled at me to sit down and shup up, saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

Se la vie.

[onthemoon]

overthemoon: Please quote those portions of my reply message that are not clear to you and I will be happy to explain further. Yes, my syntax is dense but I can work to make it simpler if you let me know what you want to understand.

When I was in school during the first few months, I was called on to recite the facts of a case in which a horny old man crept down the stairs of an Iowa farm house and had his way with a girl in her bed who was under the age of consent.

I was a bit older than the other students and so when they began to titter over my description of the facts of the seduction in the case, I got confused and mixed up Plaintiff with Defendant, to the point that I had the dirty old man (defendant) being raped by the young girl (the Plaintiff). The class roared with laughter and the Professor yelled at me to sit down and shup up, saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

Se la vie.

Don't worry about explaining the details of the US law to me. If I really want to understand something, I'll ask so many questions that I would end up with a law degree.

C'est la vie.

[Scott]

For those who are following the trend by the states there is a somewhat interesting article from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/string-legal-wins-bolsters-same-sex-marriage-151058964.html

[Jingthing]

If this is the best they've got now, I think we've won!

Word is, perhaps the BIG ONE, the finally and fully DECISIVE supreme court case will be coming to the Supreme court by next summer. This would mean deciding clearly about the constitutionality of state bans of same sex marriage. Indications from lower courts are pointing to a BIG WIN for gay civil rights advocates on this.

However, I have to wonder, suppose this case comes, and it is a LOSS? What would that mean? A patchwork of states with different laws indefinitely or more like a temporary setback?

Edited August 4, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Anyway ...

it's really easy now to see WHERE this is headed!

Not necessarily a case from Florida necessarily, but SOME case, that is going to be the DEFINITIVE case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/08/florida-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_5662086.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Florida's attorney general is asking state courts to stop considering same-sex marriage cases until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether states have the right to ban gay marriage.

Attorney General Pam Bondi filed two motions on Friday in a state appeals court, requesting a freeze on appeals of cases concerning the state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Voters approved the amendment in 2008.

Judges in four Florida counties have overturned the ban, but no marriage licenses are being issued because Bondi has appealed each case.

Bondi says the state will defer to the Supreme Court and that any further state proceedings are a waste of judicial resources. Utah and Oklahoma this week asked the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

This could be SCARY!

Edited August 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

Many of the cases are at the intermediate circuit court of appeals level in the Federal system and while everyone of them that has ruled so far has been favorable to same sex marriage, there are some upcoming decisions from conservative circuit court 3 judge panels that may go the other way.

Clearly, when one of these circuit courts of appeal go the other way, the Supreme Court will have to take the case due to the conflict of rulings among the circuit courts of appeal. If there is no conflict, the Supreme Court could then refuse to hear an appeal from any one of them or all of them and then the favorable rulings for same sex marriage will stand and become the law of the land in every state. The chances of that happening are very slim.

Since there have been so many Federal Trial Level Courts and Courts of Appeal decisions favoring marriage equality, my guess is the Supreme Court will decide 5-4 in favor of marriage equality with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote. Of course, Presiding Justice Roberts, with an eye on posterity and with his name on this court, might also come across to vote with the majority as it is a landmark case and issue.

[Jingthing]

Thanks for that analysis.

I also think there is a consensus assumption the supreme court will rule that way ... but it's still stressful to think they have the power to massively set back a movement that has been decades in the making and now even enjoys majority support at the national level.

[ProThaiExpat]

You have put your finger on the issue of state's rights. 200 years ago that was a fundamental issue as the fear of a King like national leader and government was prevalent.

Now in a world economy, one wonders if states rights is the way to go. After all, it seems to me that Windsor was an accelerating factor in the tsunami force of marriage equality.

Before Windsor and its effect, I felt there was a major chance that the Supreme Court would decide this issue on a states rights basis since marriage has always been a major right reserved to each individual state. However, with a world economy and so much integration of the US economy and movement of people seeking jobs, one wonders if a nation with half the states allowing same sex marriage and half the states not would be a workable solution.

We have all seen the nimble technical dance in the Prop 8 decision where Roberts was able to vote with the majority since they really didn't decide the underlying issues in marriage equality, but the effect of their technical decision on "standing" had the effect we wanted. Even their choice of which case and which appellate court decision they choose to grant certiorari may well flavor their decision in unpredictable ways.

For instance, by picking Windsor to be heard, rather than a number of other cases in which Justice Kagen would have had to recuse herself, they thus permitted the minority liberal block to be whole, which I am sure was negotiated among the Justices before Windsor was finally selected as the case they were to decide.

I am wondering if they will be able to avoid the key question of whether marriage equality is a fundamental right or not in the constitution in their next decision.

[Jingthing]

Another update.

There was one federal judge ruling not favorable.

But that was the one exception.

The big decisions(s) are obviously going to be decided at the supreme court level.

It seems the wait won't be so long now:

[Jingthing]

Well, ready or not, here it comes, it seems ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/as-supreme-court-term-begins-prospect-of-a-gay-marriage-ruling-looms-large/2014/10/04/8d0df452-4bbf-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html

“If the court establishes a right to same-sex marriage . . . [it] will go down in history as one that was on the frontiers of establishing rights for gays and lesbians,” said David A. Strauss, a constitutional-law scholar at the University of Chicago.

“The rough idea would be that the Roberts court would be to the rights of gays and lesbians what the Warren court was on race issues.”

[ProThaiExpat]

Here is the link to the first article I saw that explains the Supeme Court's decision to refuse certiorari to the pending Appellate Court Rulings in favor of same sex marriage.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16546959/

Those appeals courts that put a stay on their decisions will now have to vacate those holds.

I have always felt that the "States Rights" issue may be an escape route for the Supreme Court to avoid answering the fundamental question of whether same sex marriage is a right granted under the constitution as many court decisions have now so ruled.

Allowing the individual states or their appellate courts decisions to control the outcome of the issue allows the Supreme Court to avoid ruling, at least for now, that question.

Their first side step was to decline to rule on the the Prop 8 case by determining the appellants did not have standing to appeal the trial courts favorable decision.

Todays side step will continue until one appellate court, if any, decides against same sex marriage rights and then they may well grant certiorari. However, if the current trend continues, they may never have to rule. Certainly if only one appellate court rules against same sex marriage rights, it may be too late as there may be few states left to be affected by that decision and the issue will be a fait acompli.

I don't see the Supreme Court ruling against same sex marriage if 90 percent of states are already allowing it based on their appellate courts rulings.

[Jingthing]

Bummer.

Can't get gay married in the Las Vegas ELVIS chapel.

Elvis Chapel Among Several in Vegas That Refuse to Perform Gay Weddings

http://www.outtraveler.com/my-city/las-vegas/2014/10/20/elvis-chapel-among-several-vegas-refuse-perform-gay-weddings

[Scott]

I have trouble believing that any place in Las Vegas does anything based on some sort of moral stance.

[KED]

The state-by-state march toward marriage equality continues to grow - but where are the Asian countries in this?? Vietnam? Thailand? Taiwan??

[sustento]

They've been trying in Taiwan for quite a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Taiwan

[Jingthing]

This thread is about US marriage only.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Referring to the title of this thread -- more short than long, as it is turning out.

18 states to go makes 50.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sex-marriage-now-recognized-six-additional-states/

SIX MORE STATES!

The United States federal government will now recognize same-sex married couples in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Saturday.

“With each new state where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, our nation moves closer to achieving of full equality for all Americans,” Holder said in a statement.

The announcement comes one week after Holder stated that same-sex married couples in seven states, including, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada and Oklahoma, would now be recognized by the federal government.
...

Same-sex marriage is now recognized in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

[Jingthing]

Here it comes:

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, a step it refused to take less than two years ago when it let stand California’s court ruling allowing those unions, but refused to make marriages between gay and lesbian couples legal throughout the land.

Now that 35 states holding about three-quarters of the country’s population permit same-sex marriages, legal experts believe the high court is ready to settle the matter once and for all.

Faced with a split in the appellate courts, the justices will hear two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in April and issue a ruling before the court term ends

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-to-rule-on-same-sex-marriage-6020899.php

I'm still in awe at the SPEED of this (from an American perspective based on the structure of the very slow American system regarding major changes like this, this has been REALLY FAST). I do expect the ruling to be definitive for 50 state marriage equality. If it isn't, I guess the silly patchwork continues for much longer.

[Scott]

The topic concerning the matter being heard by the Supreme Court can be found here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/792553-us-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-gay-couples-can-marry/#entry8948018

[Jingthing]

Hallelujah!

I never expected this thread to be resolved within a few years.

It's breathtaking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?hpid=z1

Short or long road?

SHORT!

Done.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[JakeSully]

The best part of this is how the prevailing opinion of the court is in a word.. "sublime"

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

[Jingthing]

Still some details to sort out over time.

There is more to the U.S. than the 50 states.

On July 15, Puerto Rico will have marriage equality as well.

In some southern states, there are still some pockets of resistance to the SCOTUS ruling. They have no legal leg to stand on ... but it makes interesting political theater.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Jingthing