Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Supreme Court to release opinions two more days this week

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
This morning, the Supreme Court issued orders along with four opinions in argued cases. They didn’t release the challenges to same-sex marriage bans along with several other important cases. As of now, there are eight cases remaining.

Today the Court announced that it will release opinions on Thursday and Friday of this week, while next Monday is still listed as a decision day as well.

As per usual, no one knows which opinions will be released on which days. No one knows how many opinions will be released each of those days.

It seems likely the Court would finish issuing decisions by Monday of next week, but again, there’s no way to know for sure until they announce the final opinions.

We will, of course, keep you updated if anything happens. I may be in the courtroom on Monday for announcements, if the Court has any outstanding ones by then.

Most of the remaining cases are the biggest cases of the term: along with marriage, there’s a challenge to subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, a challenge to a drug used in some states’ lethal injection protocols, and a decision on whether disparate impact claims are allowed under the Fair Housing Act.

We’ll be following the SCOTUSBlog live blogs on opinion announcement days, and that’s likely where you’d hear about the marriage decision first.

86 Comments

  • 1. JayJonson  |  June 22, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    How wonderful it would be to have June 26, the date of Lawrence and Windsor, also the date of an equally momentous decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

  • 2. davepCA  |  June 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    I don't want to read too much significance into the fact that they have just added Friday 6/26.

    But it's sure hard not to.

  • 3. wes228  |  June 22, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    Why didn't they announce they were adding Friday this morning when they announced they were adding Thursday??

    I'm thinking that sometime this afternoon they realized they could wrap this all up this week.

  • 4. allan120102  |  June 22, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    I am feeling and hoping they release Obergefell on the 26 so it can go along previous lbgt cases from previous years. I cannot find another reason for them adding Friday because they almost never add a friday to release opinions. If obergefell is release the 26 its going to be so symbolic. I might cry when they release the opinion. Like when they denied cert and gave us 16 states, that was a memorable day for me.

  • 5. tigris26  |  June 22, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    My thoughts exactly. I sure hope this means they will wrap it up by Friday because I don't think I can stay sane waiting another 7 days…

  • 6. ianbirmingham  |  June 22, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    Number of opinions written so far this term:

    4 – Kennedy

    6 – Roberts
    6 – Ginsburg

    7 – Sotomayor
    7 – Kagan
    7 – Alito
    7 – Thomas
    7 – Scalia

    8 – Breyer

    There are 7 cases left. Ginsburg will probably write the Arizona opinion, which boosts her to 7. Kennedy is -3 and Roberts is -1 fron the statistical mode of 7.

  • 7. mu2  |  June 22, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    It isn't as if the case just "slipped their minds", temporarily….I'd think…

  • 8. mu2  |  June 22, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Well, even if they did hold up til Monday, it's still under 150 hours.

    😀

  • 9. wes228  |  June 22, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    I want to be able to enjoy my weekend thank you very much!! 😛

  • 10. davepCA  |  June 22, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    Hmm… I had not thought of it in terms of hours until now …

    Thanks! I like that!

  • 11. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 22, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    It seems to me that Kennedy made his decision in this case in 2003 writing in his Lawrence decision.

    From page 13 of Kennedy's Majority Opinion in Lawrence:

    … Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding
    into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of
    Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court
    reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by
    the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed
    that our laws and tradition afford constitutional
    protection to personal decisions relating to marriage,
    procreation, contraception, family relationships, child
    rearing, and education.
    Id., at 851. In explaining the
    respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the
    person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

    These matters, involving the most intimate and personal
    choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices
    central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central
    to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    At the heart of liberty is the right to define
    one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe,
    and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about
    these matters could not define the attributes of personhood
    were they formed under compulsion of the
    State.î Ibid.
    Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy
    for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.;

    emphasis mine.

  • 12. VIRick  |  June 22, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    From Canal Judicial, via Geraldina Gonzalez de la Vega, a clerk at Mexico's Supreme Court:

    Determina 1ª Sala (de la Suprema Corte) que no deben existir trabas para prohibir matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo en Colima.

    The 1st Chamber (of the Supreme Court) has determined that there should no longer be any more obstacles prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples in Colima.

    Mexico's Supreme Court periodically reviews its previous decisions to determine compliance, something the Supreme Court in the USA doesn't have to do. Now that there's binding precedent, I'm certain they ruled on Colima's compliance level first, as a measure of re-assurance, knowing it was complying, because the first four states whose bans have been struck down, Oaxaca, Baja California, Sinaloa, and State of Mexico, are still not in compliance, the first three of which were ruled against twice.

  • 13. guitaristbl  |  June 22, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    7 opinions and Monday is the wrap up most likely hmm…

    My prediction :

    Thursday : Texas DHCA v. TICP, Johnson v. US
    Friday : Glossip v. Gross, AZ Legislature v. AIRC, King v. Burwell/Obergfell v. Hodges
    Monday : Obergefell v. Hodges/King v. Burwell, Utility Air v. EPA

    So I believe one of the 2 really big ones (all of them are big at this point really..) will be on Friday and the other one on Monday along with one minor opinion, most likely the EPA one which is kind of more trivial than others..

  • 14. A_Jayne  |  June 22, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Just for the entertainment value, and to (hopefully) keep us from bouncing off the walls, we should run a pool this week…

  • 15. JayJonson  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Lots of tears of joy will be shed when a favorable Obergefell decision is released. Should the decision be unfavorable, there will be even more tears of anger and disappointment.

  • 16. JayJonson  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    Yes. Scalia knew exactly where Lawrence leads when he read those words. That was why his dissent was so bitter and ugly.

  • 17. JayJonson  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    I don't think anyone here has posted a link to the New York Times article about Justice Kennedy that appeared on Sunday. Earlier articles had covered some of the same material about his friendship with a gay mentor in Sacramento, but this article fleshes it out a bit.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/kennedys-gay

  • 18. SoCal_Dave  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    Thanks for this analysis, Ian. I just recently learned about how they make the assignments, but I'm still confused on one part of it. What happens if someone is in the minority more than the others. For example, what if Scalia is on the losing side in 55 out of 60 decisions? (in my dreams). There wouldn't be 7 that he could take then. What do they do? Is he just shorted? Or is that just statistically unlikely?

  • 19. Sagesse  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Thanks for the link. I missed that one.

  • 20. allan120102  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Chihuahua will not reform its civil code to allow same sex marriages to occur after some hate groups whine about changing it. Unbelievable. http://mobile.diario.mx/Estado/2015-06-22_0936ad6

  • 21. ianbirmingham  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    He would perhaps become the Grand Master Of Writing Dissenting Opinions and would just be shorted as far as majority opinions are concerned. However, as a practical matter:

    Scalia agrees (this term, not including today's opinions) with:

    Roberts 84% of the time
    Alito 78% of the time
    Thomas 76% of the time
    Kennedy 75% of the time

    Kagan 73% of the time
    Breyer 70% of the time
    Sotomayor 65% of the time
    Ginsburg 65% of the time

    BFF Justices:

    Breyer agrees with Sotomayor 93% of the time
    Breyer agrees with Kagan 93% of the time
    Breyer agrees with Ginsburg 93% of the time

    Frenemy Justices:

    Thomas agrees with Sotomayor 57% of the time
    Thomas agrees with Breyer 59% of the time
    Thomas agrees with Kagan 62% of the time
    Thomas agrees with Ginsburg 63% of the time

  • 22. Rick55845  |  June 22, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    As I understand it, they have no choice. So they will reform their civil code, eventually.

  • 23. SoCal_Dave  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    Thanks, Ian! Fascinating BFF and Frenemy stats. Who knew?

  • 24. Sagesse  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    If the Supreme Court delivers its ruling in Obergefell on Friday June 26… and I really, really hope they do… it would be an amazing day for civil rights.

    Obama Will Deliver Eulogy for Clementa Pinckney in Charleston [Slate]
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/22

  • 25. ianbirmingham  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    Kennedy the Swinger:

    Agrees with Sotomayor 84% of the time
    Agrees with Kagan 83% of the time
    Agrees with Breyer 80% of the time
    Agrees with Ginsburg 78% of the time

    Agrees with Alito 78% of the time
    Agrees with Roberts 75% of the time
    Agrees with Scalia 75% of the time
    Agrees with Thomas 70% of the time

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    The order for writing the majority opinion is first the Chief Justice if the CJ is with the majority. After that, the senior justice for the majority opinion chooses a justice (who may be himself or another justice) to be responsible for writing the opinion.

  • 27. VIRick  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    After several protests by civil associations and "evangelistas" against same-sex marriage, the State Congress of Chihuahua ruled out taking the issue into the second session, as announced by the president of the legislature, César Augusto Pacheco Hernández. However, he did not rule out revisiting the issue during the third session which will begin on 1 October.

    Eventually, they must revise the civil code in order to be in compliance. In the meantime, the governor's executive order of 11 June 2015, allowing same-sex couples to marry in Chihuahua, remains in place, and will continue to remain in place, because, after 25 successful "amparos" (with 5 ostensibly being the legal limit), plus a ruling from the Supreme Court declaring their present marriage code unconstitutional, together with the nationwide binding precedent, they have no other choice.

    In addition, the Supreme Court has already assessed the state of Chihuahua for the full cost of the plaintiffs' legal expenses, plus an additional monetary award to each of the 31 same-sex couples who filed suit. In the past, the Supreme Court has been known to up the ante on the monetary award sum when faced with intransigence after they review the matter to determine compliance.

  • 28. ianbirmingham  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:25 pm

    Roberts the Chief:

    Agrees with Scalia 84% of the time
    Agrees with Breyer 82% of the time
    Agrees with Alito 81% of the time
    Agrees with Ginsburg 78% of the time
    Agrees with Sotomayor 78% of the time
    Agrees with Kennedy 75% of the time
    Agrees with Kagan 73% of the time

    Agrees with Thomas 67% of the time

  • 29. VIRick  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    "…. the Grand Master Of Writing Dissenting Opinions …."

    He could then hone his argle-bargle, and perfect his consultation with the haruspices.

  • 30. 1grod  |  June 22, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Yet so often quoted in the parade of decisions leading to June 26

  • 31. flyerguy77  |  June 22, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Do you think SCOTUS will release the decision on Friday? I think so.. #1 prepare the all states or let pissed lgbt CITIZENS to release steam?

  • 32. DrPatrick1  |  June 22, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    This is true, as we understand it, and yet from year to year there is a certain amount of equality of distribution which it seems could hardly be from random assignment

  • 33. wes228  |  June 22, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    They do try to even out the caseload. The Supreme Court issues several decisions each term, most of which are not hardline 5-4 decisions, so it is not difficult to spread the work.

  • 34. StraightDave  |  June 22, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    South Bend, IN mayor comes out. The home of Notre Dame Univ, no less.
    I must have missed this last week. Very supportive comments by the locals.
    Decent Midwesterners showing that there is a real difference between slow-to-adjust traditionalists and plain old douchebags. It's one reason why Gov Mike Pence got gored so severely this Spring – he misjudged the silent majority.
    http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/south-

  • 35. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 22, 2015 at 9:43 pm

    Technically, the University of Notre Dame is in Notre Dame, Indiana, just to the North of South Bend.

    It is much easier to think of South Bend as it's home, though, just as the University of Maryland actually is in College Park, Maryland, but just outside DC, thus many consider it a DC university.

  • 36. Raga  |  June 22, 2015 at 11:22 pm

    I got chills when I found out they added Friday too! Obergefell is a good candidate for a highly fractured Court (especially on the dissenting side) so it might need it's own dedicated day for an opinion to be released. Extremely fitting if it does come out on Friday! I mean, I can't think of any other reason why they wouldn't just release it along with other opinions on Monday and wrap up the term.

    The Chief released a majority opinion for a case argued in April, yesterday. This makes it statistically unlikely he'll be writing a majority opinion in Obergefell since Justices usually divide the writing work evenly among themselves. Of course, this case being special, the rules may not apply.

  • 37. VIRick  |  June 22, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    On 22 June 2015, Nueva Alianza member and Nuevo León Congress President, María Dolores Leal Cantú, formally presented the bill into the Nuevo León state legislature that would legalize marriage for same-sex couples.

    At the same time, in the adjoining state, a member of the Tamaulipas Congress, Deputy Olga Sosa Ruiz, confirmed that the legislature of Tamaulipas was also working on a bill for marriage equality. She predicted that the law would be passed within the next legislative session.

  • 38. Fortguy  |  June 22, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    And the past day's news from Nuevo León: Presentan iniciativa que permita matrimonio gay en NL

    To summarize the article in English, the president of the state's legislature has introduced a bill to legalize ME in light of the national Supreme Court's ruling.

    The state has a short border with Texas, and its capital and largest city is Monterrey.

  • 39. RnL2008  |  June 23, 2015 at 12:35 am

    Let's hope history repeats itself on our side……I know many folks are getting really antsy over the Obergefell decision…….and if it comes on Friday, and the news is good, there will be Parties all over the City aka San Fran!!

  • 40. RnL2008  |  June 23, 2015 at 12:46 am

    I often wonder why some folks feel the need to trash others by some book ,that they themselves don't live by…….and what I am meaning is reading the comments at the end of the article. One can learn a lot by the comments some folks make.

  • 41. ebohlman  |  June 23, 2015 at 12:57 am

    I'm assuming these figures include unanimous decisions (which are a plurality of decisions); it would be interesting to redo the analysis using only split decisions.

  • 42. gay_avenger  |  June 23, 2015 at 3:04 am

    A person who is constantly correcting others, even for minor things, thinks this makes him look smarter and more impressive to people, and in his mind, covers up his weaknesses. Insecure people can only feel better if they feel superior in some way to someone else.

    "Technically, the University of Notre Dame is in Notre Dame, Indiana, just to the North of South Bend."

  • 43. tigris26  |  June 23, 2015 at 5:51 am

    With the logic of opinion writings and who's left to write them in mind, I think you are right that the Chief Justice is very likely not writing Obergefell…and I think neither is Justice Ginsburg. And with Justice Kennedy still down at least 3 opinions, it would make sense for him to be the one wrapping up the Obergefell opinion right now.

    If the Chief Justice joins the likely 5-4 majority, do you think he will write his own concurring opinion – stating whether he agrees with the majority on the logic behind the decision (i.e. equal protection and/or due process)? Is there a limit to how many concurring opinions the Justices can write?

  • 44. Dann3377  |  June 23, 2015 at 6:05 am

    And don't for Lawrence v Texas 26 June 2003! It's going to be Friday:)

  • 45. mu2  |  June 23, 2015 at 6:30 am

    Bingo. And Notre Dame is not a city anyway, it is an unincorporated community.

  • 46. MGinPA  |  June 23, 2015 at 7:16 am

    I think it's almost impossible for Roberts to strike down anti marriage laws based on his questioning in arguments and dissent in Windsor and CLS v Martinez. There's a very small chance he might concur based on sex discrimination that marriage bans are unconstitutional or that marriages have to be recognized across state lines. I'm not holding my breath though.

  • 47. RemC  |  June 23, 2015 at 7:33 am

    My husband & kids & I were asked to be interviewed for a commercial by esurance to be released during Pride Week, and in advance of the SCOTUS ruling. Our half-hour interview ended up on the cutting room floor, since the creatives decided—rightfully—to go completely with the kids. There's a two-second clip of Chris & me dancing with the kids…who otherwise froze in front of the camera when it came time for them to talk about their wedding ideas:

    http://www.adweek.com/agencyspy/leo-burnett-dream

  • 48. tigris26  |  June 23, 2015 at 7:43 am

    While anything is possible, I do agree with you that it is unlikely that he will join the majority to strike down marriage bans. I'm still hoping the Chief Justice might surprise us with a concurrence, but like you I'm not holding my breath.

  • 49. JayJonson  |  June 23, 2015 at 7:55 am

    Scalia's dissent in Windsor is what is most often quoted in the parade of decision leading to June 26.

  • 50. JayJonson  |  June 23, 2015 at 8:05 am

    What a charming video! Thanks for the link.

  • 51. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 23, 2015 at 8:48 am

    Look it up on a map.

    You'll see it is an incorporated area in St. Joseph County in Indiana. Notre Dame is NOT a city (which if you had read my comment, you'll see I never called it that), but is located just North of South Bend.

    Mapquest has this to say about Notre Dame, Indiana:
    "Notre Dame is a census-designated place north of South Bend in St. Joseph County, Indiana, United States; it includes the campuses of three colleges: the University of Notre Dame, Saint Mary's College, and Holy Cross College. Notre Dame is split between Clay and Portage Townships. As of the 2010 census, its population was 5,973."
    ( http://www.mapquest.com/us/in/notre-dame )

  • 52. Raga  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:11 am

    Something must have skewed up for cases argued in February, because there will be a Justice (one among Ginsburg, Roberts, Kennedy) without a majority opinion for that month. My guess is Kennedy – since he must have needed time to write Obergefell carefully. That would mean Ginsburg has Arizona Legislature and Roberts has King. Just my guess!

  • 53. StraightDave  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:13 am

    I just love the way I got 4 responses and recursive responses to responses, ALL of which are now negative. Have we gotten so bored waiting that we have degenerated into pissing on each others pissing on piss? WTF was that all about?

    Yeah, I'm actually LOL at the absurdity here.
    I'm sure it will all change on Mon… or Fri (I'm betting Fri)

    Edit: Except you,Rose, of course. You're always Plus in my book <3

  • 54. Raga  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:22 am

    There is no limit! Like I said, I expect one of the most fractured opinions of the Court in this case. Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia may each write separately, mostly dissenting (while some could concur in part – on question 2). On that note, Scalia might surprise us on question 2 based on how oral argument went. I would also not be surprised to see an elaborate concurrence on the liberal side, led by Ginsburg, calling for heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination, if Kennedy dodges that issue AGAIN.

  • 55. 1grod  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:29 am

    Jay – good point below. Know that you will enjoy this article. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/08/will-s… G

  • 56. StraightDave  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:29 am

    I don't think Roberts ever envisioned painting himself into such a tight corner nearly so soon. He may have reasonably expected ME to drag out another 2 years and get a conservative change in SCOTUS. Then it would be a whole different ballgame. But the circuit courts blew that plan all to hell, including the most-helpful 6th. Now Roberts gets to own his animus (which is no longer publicly acceptable), and still lose!!! :)
    It's your bed, Mr CJ, you made it.

  • 57. davepCA  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:35 am

    Indeed. Who knew that comments about Indiana's geographics and the location of a university could be so contentious?

  • 58. mu2  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:38 am

    What's it like to be that anal?

  • 59. mu2  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:50 am

    10 I recurse you!
    20 go to 10

  • 60. davepCA  |  June 23, 2015 at 11:08 am

    Awwww! That was wonderful!

  • 61. RemC  |  June 23, 2015 at 11:29 am

    So if Question 2 is rendered moot by a ruling on Question 1 that bans the bans, there'll still be opinions written on 2?

  • 62. mu2  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    Bullshit. EVERY source says it is UNincorporated. I wasn't going to make this an ongoing issue but your pedantic blustering is really fucking annoying, particularly when you're just WRONG.

  • 63. mu2  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    Take it up with the nitpicking prick in Maryland…

  • 64. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    If Roberts does concur in judgement in overturning the sixth, I doubt it will be on equal protection or due process. I still think there's a chance that he may overturn the sixth on sex discrimination based on semi suspect heightened (but not strict) scrutiny.

    The question on Obergefell is, will there be a majority opinion signed on by 5 justices (unlikely six), or will we merely have a plurality opinion overturning the sixth, likely on equal protection, and a lesser plurality on overturning based on due process (fundamental right) with probably sotomayor , Kagan and ginsburg.
    Equal Protection with Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer is the most likely scenario, I beleive. Will Kennedy join the Equal protection justices and make a majority? Or will he say that the bans fail even rational basis review. Perhaps Kennedy and CJ Roberts will concur on sex discrimination which I think is correct and a no brainer. Of course I think the plaintiffs also win on equal protection and Due Process. Though I think with this court, Due process (the best outcome possible) is a long shot….but within the realm of possibility. A due process and heightened scrutiny ruling would effectively sanitize and kill or inhibit these RFA bills that are popping up like pimples on a teenager across the country. Keep your fingers crossed.

  • 65. gay_avenger  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Mike, your constant nitpicking IS annoying at times. You have done that to many posters' comments quite often. Probably explains why some have stopped posting.

  • 66. VIRick  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    "A person who is constantly correcting others, even for minor things, thinks this makes him look smarter and more impressive to people, and in his mind, covers up his weaknesses."

    gay_avenger, so does "correcting" a "corrector," especially if one also insists upon analyzing (read as "anal-ising") the supposed correction, but perhaps, under said circumstances, even moreso. Nevertheless, Mike is correct, and didn't need any "correcting," let alone any further comment about it.

  • 67. VIRick  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    You wish.

  • 68. RemC  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    Oh, boy, Dave, when you start singling out one other EoT commentator for special love, you're opening a whole big can of worms called envy, jealousy, spite, why-her-and-not-me-itis, and who knows what else. I'm SURE your list beings with Rose but DOESN'T end there.

    I'm keeping my pants zippered and hereby declare that I will not engage in any pissing wars, on piss or otherwise. Who's with me? (insert uncharacteristic fist pump here)

  • 69. Lymis  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    May his dissent in Obergefell lay the groundwork for the next round of litigation, too. If the majority doesn't rule for heightened scrutiny, I hope Scalia pouts that there's no remaining justification for denying it.

  • 70. Lymis  |  June 23, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    I'd think so, even if they simply said that it was moot as a paragraph in the main opinion. Seems unlikely they'd specifically include the question in the scope of the case and then not address it.

    But if any of the Justices feel that, for example, the Constitution does not require marriage equality, but it does require equal recognition of out of state marriages, they might "Concur in part and dissent in part" and end up specifically addressing the two questions separately.

  • 71. ianbirmingham  |  June 23, 2015 at 2:14 pm

    Being that angry can't be good for your health…

  • 72. scream4ever  |  June 23, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    These kids will never know what is was like to be denied this fundamental right, and that is a beautiful thing.

  • 73. StraightDave  |  June 23, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Rose got special love because she actually responded to my posting about a positive event in an unlikely place, read the article I linked, and commented on it.

    … as opposed to arguing about imaginary maps . (or even real ones)

    Any similar behavior will get similar treatment. That's why I'm here, and apparently you are too, RemC. I'll add you to my list, though I'm not sure exactly which list that should be 😉

  • 74. StraightDave  |  June 23, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    Q2 will not be rendered moot by a positive Q1 result. The SS couples already married will still want and need to have their existing marriages recognized everywhere. Q1 does not give them that, unless you want to force them to get remarried in every state that is still waving the non-recognition banner (if Q2 isn't explicitly settled).

    Those couple don't want to get married, they only want to be recognized. That's why we have a Q2.

    Having said that, Q1 certainly goes a long way toward removing all the stupid excuses against recognition, so in some logical/moral/legal sense it pretty much ties the court's hands about what they have to decide, but they still have to decide it as an independent question. It doesn't answer itself for free, and Q1 does not cover that ground.

  • 75. mu2  |  June 23, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    Oh I see, you don't know what recursive means…I'm not angry, it was a joke.

  • 76. brchaz  |  June 23, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    What you coded was not recursion. You only created an infinite loop.

  • 77. brchaz  |  June 23, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    You forgot to add: "Not that there's anything wrong with watersports…"

  • 78. brchaz  |  June 23, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    A positive Q1 does cover that ground.

  • 79. flyerguy77  |  June 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm

    not really most likely The states will try pull something.

  • 80. wes228  |  June 23, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    I don't think the liberal justices would let this go to a plurality opinion. They will swallow their pride and sign onto Kennedy's opinion, no matter how limiting it is, and then go on to write a stronger concurrence (which would have just as much effect as if they let it go to a plurality anyway).

  • 81. RnL2008  |  June 23, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    I agree with ya Dave……Question 2 in my opinion strikes Section 2 of DOMA, therefore it needs to be dealt with because it won't be right to force the legally married Same-Sex Couple to have to marry in every State UNLESS the same happens to opposite-sex married couples.

  • 82. gay_avenger  |  June 24, 2015 at 2:10 am

    Oh Mary you just had to jump in. At times you and Mike are like peas in a pod. I am thankful Mike does not engage in gutter talk.

  • 83. gay_avenger  |  June 24, 2015 at 2:12 am

    These kids will not allow history to repeat itself. More positive change will come from that generation.

  • 84. Lymis  |  June 25, 2015 at 7:22 am

    I want to see how (and if) Scalia weasels his way out of the hard line he took in his Lawrence dissent. He stated flatly that if the Lawrence decision stood, there was no remaining justification for withholding marriage equality.

    I don't for an instant believe he'll hesitate to ignore his own statement, but it will be interesting to see if he even tries to justify his own reversal on the matter.

  • 85. Lymis  |  June 25, 2015 at 7:33 am

    It would in part depend on the nature of the ruling on Q1. If the ruling clearly states that under the 14th Amendment, states cannot single out same-sex couples and/or LGBT citizens for disparate treatment, and must apply the same laws, procedures, benefits and responsibilities to all, then a state could not get away with singling out gay couples for needing to remarry in the state to get recognition without requiring that of straight couples as well.

    Since the Court specifically framed this as a 14th Amendment case, it's hard to imagine a ruling that says the requirement to treat all citizens equally mandates marriage but still allows non-recognition of only same-sex marriage.

    It might allow a state to refuse to recognize ANY out of state marriages, but any state administration or legislature that applies that to straight people is one that isn't going to last long. If nothing else, the backlash by major industries would make the backlash about LGBT inequality look like a candle next to a nuclear explosion.

    It's vaguely possible that the Court could write some sort of sloppy opinion that left that loophole open, but it's nearly inconceivable that any analysis in our favor would do so.

  • 86. Lymis  |  June 25, 2015 at 7:35 am

    They'll try to pull something, no doubt – that attempt to selectively defund issuing licenses to any same-sex couples, for example. But it's incredibly unlikely that it will fly in federal court once SCOTUS declares a 14th Amendment right to equal treatment.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!