Legalizing same-sex marriage: Domino effect?

@Street Pattern, any updates—positive or otherwise—from the Mitten State?

 

The Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is moving at lightning speed by federal appellate court standards. If they hold to their announced schedutle, they will have a decision by August.

The Michigan Attorney General (Republican, anti-gay) attempted to derail this schedule by filing a motion that the appeal be heard before ALL of the court of appeals judges in the circuit, instead of the three-judge panel that was randomly selected.

The court rejected this motion. The fact that he tried this tactic at all is good, because it suggests that he doesn't like the three judges who are deciding the appeal.

Let's say a decision comes down in August upholding Judge Friedman's decision and marriage equality in Michigan. There is likely to be a scuffle over whether this new decision is stayed or allowed to go into effect. The Michigan A.G. will surely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, a favorable decision at the Supreme Court level depends entirely on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is the swing vote. His recent ruling that it was okay for Michigan to ban affirmative action to redress racial discrimination contains language about how wonderful it is to let voters decide controversial issues. Based on that, he might decide that the 2004 Michigan vote to ban same-sex marriage is just as wonderful.

If the Supreme Court stays and/or overturns Judge Friedman's decision, and says that a ban on same-sex marriage is, somehow, okay with the equal protection clause, then we're back to the state-by-state political fight. And the next project would be to put a reversal of the ban on the 2016 Michigan statewide ballot.

 

has anyone read the forever war by john haldeman? Look basically what im getting at is that as the story unfolds same-sex-unions is pretty much mandated by the government to keep the population down as there is so many people. I only bring this up as it would not surprise in the least if governments would turn a fundamental right to love someone into something sinister...

or am i way off kilter here?

 

Great news from Oregon!

Will opponents rush to the federal court and request a "stay" and effectively put it on hold..I havent heard the rumblings yet.

The larger issue is how these cases (seven states have had gay marriage bans ruled unconstitutional in the last year- OR, MI, AR, VA, ID, UT, OK, TX) -- will be resolved. Unfortunately, most are on "hold" pending appeals to higher federal courts. The pressure is mounting on the US Supreme Court to take at least one this year (for the term starting in Oct). The question is will they or will the conservative majority stall again (like they did with the Cali Prop 8 very narrow ruling). And if they decide to act, which one or more do they take?

 

Whee!



(Heads up courtesy of the incomparable @GeneticShift. I give credit where credit is due.)

 

For me the question has never been about gay marriage but if the government should be in the marriage business at all. I wish the fight had been for removing government from marriage more than just adding more people to the equation. Since gay marriage being legal puts the idea that "marriage is for children" out of the picture, there is no reason for marriage legally in my thinking.

 

See my post #53 in this very thread. In pertinent part:

 

WHOA.... Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas?? Those are among the very few states that have been so forward-thinking? Definitely not who I would have pegged as the usual suspects...

 

What makes it doubly sweet in PA is that the federal judge was endorsed by the homophobic Rick Santorum:

 

Again, these are states where the law has been challenged in federal court. It has nothing to do with those specific states being forward-thinking.

Every federal judge who has considered the validity of same-sex marriage prohibition has struck it down as a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The Pennsylvania judge could have been Rick Santorum's best friend, but the long string of cases created such tremendous momentum that he could not stand in the way.

The role and ethic of a judge is to follow precedent, not defy it. And even though all these other cases are not technically "binding precedent" (that is, not from a higher court), each judge is expected to learn from past rulings, to benefit from the experience of those who have wrestled with the same question before.

 

Here is a good article on the status of state gay marriage bans, with a brief explanation for each state.
Oregon Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, Adding to National Momentum - NationalJournal.com

I think it is up to at least 13 of the red hatched states having been challenged, eight with (PA) were overturned, the rest still pending.

Oregon should not have to face a "stay" and is not subject to appeal because the state refused to defend the ban in the federal court, so there is no party that has standing to appeal, although the National Organization for Marriage is attempting to intervene.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is likely to come down to one Justice...Anthony Kennedy.

The conservatives will make it a 10th amendment states rights issue . The liberals will make a 14th amendment equal protection issue.

 

And down goes Wisconsin.....14th state to be overturned since last June.

Beyond the equal protection legal argument for striking down the law, the federal judge gave Wisconsin republicans a history lesson as well.

Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

 

Good article on what is next for these state bans on gay marriage overturned at the federal district court level:

Very mixed outlook....three very good, two iffy, one not likely.

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling striking down the Utah ban on on gay marriage as unconstitutional. This was the first time a Court of Appeals has ruled (all previous bans overturned were by federal district courts or state courts).

And another state ban goes down in Indiana with a federal district court ruling.

Federal Judges Reverse Gay Marriage Bans In Utah, Indiana | WUNC

 

A friend of mine was a named attorney in the brief for the Utah ruling. I feel proud.