Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

No news from Supreme Court on Prop 8, DOMA cases yet again

DOMA trials

By Scottie Thomaston

UPDATED 10:55ET: The Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, along with the DOMA cases and the Arizona domestic partnership benefits case, have been moved to the December 7 conference according to their docket pages.

The Court held its conference last Friday and took no action on any of the ten gay rights petitions currently awaiting a decision on whether or not the Court will take up the cases for full review. Today, the court released the rest of its orders from that conference, and again there is no word on any of these cases, which include challenges to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Proposition 8, California’s marriage equality ban.

Last Friday SCOTUSBlog reported on the lack of news, and seemed to suggest the cases may be moved to the December 7 conference:

The next opportunity for the Court to issue orders will be at 9:30 a.m. Monday. Nothing has ruled out the possibility that some actions on same-sex marriage could be announced at that time, although there is no indication that that will occur. It may be that the Court needs more time to decide what it wants to do next on any of the cases. If the Court has chosen to deny review of all of the cases, even that might not come out on Monday, since the chances are that there would be dissents from some of the denials, and it would take some time to prepare dissenting opinions. But denial of all of the cases is an extremely remote possibility anyway.

If no orders on any of these cases emerge on Monday, the next indication of what the Court may be doing with the issue could come with re-setting them for the private Conference that will be held next Friday. It is not uncommon, in cases that have some complexity, for the Court to require more than one Conference sitting to decide how to proceed. Ordinarily, the Court re-schedules cases after releasing orders and opinions from a Conference. Thus, that could happen on Monday or Tuesday of next week — orders are due Monday, one or more opinions Tuesday, but only in cases already heard.

However, they also cautioned that predictions about what is happening are “subject to serious error.”

If the cases are moved to the December 7 conference, based on past experience it seems like the docket pages will be updated to reflect the change. As usual Prop 8 Trial Tracker will post updates as soon as we have them.

UPDATE: 10:10ET:


  • 1. jpmassar  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:37 am


  • 2. Stephen  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:08 am

    While we wonder, age and die, the wizards have once again refused to pull the curtain and reveal what is behind their smoke and mirrors to the friends of Dorothy.

  • 3. Mike  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Me thinks some of the justices we THOUGHT were on our side…really aren't as gay friendly as we hoped :/

  • 4. Zet  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:42 am

    I'm starting to wonder the same…are we sure we have those liberal judges in the bag? like Sonya…we sure she's that gay embracing?

  • 5. Owen  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:03 am

    I think it's more likely that Elena Kagan isn't on our side. She's the one who told Congress she doesn't believe same-sex couples have a right to marriage, after all.

  • 6. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:32 am

    And she was right: there is no currently recognized right of gays and lesbians to marry. That is precisely what she said, if you view it in context.
    On the other hand, she took the biggest criticism of her career for going to the mat for LGBT persons by denying the Military ROTC and recruitment privileges at Harvard Law while dean, and has reliably been an ally to LGBT groups. Not to mention that her past jurisprudence is only consistent with a ruling in our favor.
    Simply put, Owen: if you look at ALL the evidence IN CONTEXT, there is not a single scrap to indicate that Elena Kagan would be anything other than sympathetic to our claim.

  • 7. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Kagan performed a lawyer's dodge. They were really asking was, "if we confirm you, will you vote for gay marriage?"

    She answered to the affect, the law currently doesn't recognize gay marriage. Which doesn't say much about how she would rule when asked to consider a case.

    Had she said "I believe gays have a fundamental right to marry" to a Senate confirmation hearing, she would never have been seated. Sad but true.

    The same dance of political theater has been done many times over the issue of abortion and others.

    I'm pretty sure she's a solid vote for us, but who knows?

  • 8. Anthony  |  December 3, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    She said DADT was an unjust law in the confirmation hearings. I'm pretty sure she's on our side.

  • 9. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:50 am

    I don't think that is the case at all. There are numerous things that even a couple of conservative judges could do to hold up this process. It has virtually no bearing on how any other judges (liberal, moderate, or otherwise) view this case.

  • 10. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:12 am

    I don't know what basis you are drawing that conclusion. No news is no news. We only need four votes for it to be accepted. We have no idea how that is playing out.

    Four conservatives may be rallying to take Prop 8 and reverse the Appeals ruling (easy to imagine), and our liberal allies may be in the process of talking them into passing on it. Who knows? No one.

  • 11. RAJ  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:39 am

    … and the waiting continues.

  • 12. Juan  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Part of me is convinced this will dragg out for a few years, and that many many states will get gay marriage before California does.

  • 13. C.J  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:40 am

    This is absolutely horrible. They are literally playing with the livelihood of millions of gays and lesbians and bisexuals and they know it.

  • 14. Raytheist  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:59 am

    Livelihood refers to what people do to earn their income. The livelihood of gay and lesbian people (our ability to earn an income) is not at risk or in question before SCOTUS except in states where it is still legal to be fired or denied employment based on sexual orientation. It's the personal lives of gay and lesbian couples that still hangs in the balance with these cases pending before the Supreme Court.

  • 15. Malone  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:03 am

    Actually, I'd argue the 1,200 + benefits denied to gay couples in this economy STRICTLY based on who they love is an interference of their livelihood. To say otherwise is to over simplify the equality LGBT are fighting for.

  • 16. observer  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Do you grasp why we're fighting for marriage equality? You do realize one of the main reasons is….well, never mind, you should figure it out on your own. And when you do, you'll want to erase your comment about it not being connected to our livelihood. That's just your ignorance talking there.

  • 17. nicksternet  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:15 am

    I cant believe Raytheist thinks that Civil Rights have nothing to do with a person's livelihood. Astounding!

  • 18. Scott Johansen  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:21 am

    that he managed to score a few thumbs up signs in return tells me the NOM trolls will be hijacking our page here (like they do in many gay blogs) in a very short time. Be prepared folks. The trolls are coming.

  • 19. Jiles  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:21 am

    They usually pretending to be gay while serving "nuetral" i.e`anti gay, arguments and saying they are simply playing devil's advocate by discrediting our concerns, frustrations and issues.

  • 20. Raytheist  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:20 am

    Wow. I can appreciate that others have a different opinion. I am not going to argue semantics or degrees of impact, nor will I argue for what marriage equality is supposed to mean for all people (which is what our opposition claims with their "sanctity of marriage" view). Really, we're on the same side, we want marriage equality. If someone thinks I am "ignorant" of some important aspect of it, it's their job to inform rather than to insult. Until then I stand by my statement: my legal ability to earn a living is not changed by whether Texas allows me to marry.

  • 21. Hughes  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:25 am

    Livelihood has many broad translations when applied to every day life. It's not strictly based on the influx of money coming in, but also going out. Gay couples by virtue of being gay are essentially penalized based in part to taxes, lack of tax breaks, and the perks bestowed upon their heterosexual counter part. If you can't recognize that, then before being hyped up about making comments on here ( a pro gay marriage website) go do some research as to what our side is truly wanting to attain.

  • 22. Raytheist  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Okay, I can accept that. I was thinking of livelihood only in the "go to work to make some money" side, since that is the only definition I've heard the word used for, not the expanded view of what happens to that money later. Of course I want marriage equality to include the tax benefits, inheritance benefits, Social Security benefits and all 1,138 other federal benefits for legally married couples.

  • 23. C.J  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:38 am

    Perhaps next time before attempting to school someone, especially someone "on your side" expressing their personal accounts of how lack of marriage equality effects them….try to 'expand your views' first, and then school them on what they mean. Just a pearl of wisdom.

  • 24. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    At, the defintion of livelihood is:

    "a means of supporting one's existence, especially financially or vocationally; living: to earn a livelihood as a tenant farmer."

    Synonyms are given as:
    sustenance, subsistence

    According to the World English Dictionary, livelihood is defined as:
    occupation or employment

    It would appear to me that Raytheist was using the most commonly accepted definition of 'livelihood' in his post (I'm presuming Raytheist is male).

  • 25. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:48 am

    I can see that we shouldn't marginalize dissenting voices. But I don't think you understand what others are saying Raytheist (even if they are saying it a bit harshly). You say "I was thinking of livelihood only in the "go to work to make some money" side, since that is the only definition I've heard the word used for, not the expanded view of what happens to that money later." What others are saying is that, when you have to buy health insurance for your partner instead of using your own health insurance, it decreases your take home pay "the money you make," meaning that DOMA is a de facto form of pay discrimination, in addition to other things.
    Bottom line: your interpretation was wrong–DOMA absolutely, and unquestionably–affects livelihood. You say people should " it's their job to inform [you] rather than to insult [you]", but they did both inform AND insult you. It was wrong of them to insult you, but it doesn't change the fact that they made a fairly clear and compelling case as to why you are sorely mistaken, which you have ignored as you insist that no one has proven anything to you yet.

  • 26. Raytheist  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:16 am

    Sorry, but I responded to Hughes above, accepting his view that livelihood means more than what I had thought. I have not ignored what others have said nor dismissed it.

  • 27. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Not true, you just ignored what you said. My single point above was that you need not accept Hughes' view, and that, by your own articulated view, DOMA denies livelihood to LGBT persons.
    You ignored that, and tried to say it was a misunderstanding, that you didn't know the definition of livelihood, when–in reality–your original argument failed on its own terms regardless of whether or not Hughes clarified the situation. You were so anxious to be critical, that you failed to engage in what I and others have said from the start: that DOMA denied livelihood to gays and lesbians, even by your own definition, irrespective of Hughes'.

  • 28. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Rather, you just ignored what I had said.

  • 29. Dynex  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Raythiest, you sound like a troll and the fact that your putting a thumbs down on every pro gay comment just reaffirms your trolling with different handles on different computers. It's transparent and lame for those of us who have been here since day 1.

  • 30. fiona64  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:00 am

    I'm curious as to how you know who is putting thumbs up or thumbs down on any given comment, Dynex. I have yet to see a way to identify any such thing.

    I am so sick and tired of the way this site periodically eats its young …

  • 31. Miguel  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:26 am

    Your vision of marriage equality is so narrow. LOL You absolutely don't factor the monetary factors marriage equality grant, do you? yikes. And you speak with such confidence too. lol like you have the whole thing so figured out. smh.

  • 32. michelle  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:27 am

    Financial equality and marriage equality go hand in hand, and subsequently, finacial equality AND livelihood go hand & hand. You're either over thinking it, or really not thinking much about it at all.

  • 33. Stephen  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:10 am

    Not true, livelihood refers to DOMA

  • 34. 2 Dads  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:41 am

    This country should be ashamed of itself, starting with this supreme court.

  • 35. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:14 am

    I second that!

  • 36. Texan Lu  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:43 am

    At this point, it's probably because these bigots are not in favor of granting gay marriage to California residents. The Prop 8 case was very clear cut. The anti gay marriage side couldn't even defend their own side in court with a straight face. It had no leg to stand on, and even marriage equality foes admited that. This court is FAR more conservative than we anticipated.

  • 37. Lymis  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:52 am

    I don't see how you can conclude that.

    These cases are all interwoven, and the choices of which ones to take up and when are complicated both by the cases involved and the cases that are out in in the Circuits and certain to come before the Court eventually if a ruling doesn't moot them in the meantime.

    Even if they were all in favor of gay rights, things like whether to deny cert in the Prop 8 case so marriage comes immediately but only to California or to take up the case and delay things with the possibility of a more sweeping change later, as well as whether to take up DOMA and delay hearing Prop 8, take up Prop 8 and delay hearing DOMA, and which of the DOMA cases to take, which to combine, and so on, could easily take longer than one conference at which they had to get a lot of other things accomplished.

    Add in the reality that we can be certain at least a few of the Justices are dead against us, and the tactics of this on both sides could well be intricate, even for our allies on the Court.

    And at least some of the controversy has to do with what level of scrutiny to use, especially since a number of the cases use different levels.

    Assuming that unexplained inaction is automatically the result of animus is unwarranted.

  • 38. RAJ  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:44 am

    Here in Southern CA there's a news conference scheduled for 10:00 AM, whatever news there is (or isn't). I'm still very optimistic and hopeful, but maybe frustrations will start to be publicly expressed…

  • 39. jordan  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:45 am

    I mean, after the country has come out in support of gay marriage, the President has endorsed gay marriage, four states have sided by popular vote in the ballot showing respect for gay marriage, and polls indicating the majority of the country is in favor of gay marriage..for this SCOTUS to still be dragging it's feet tells me they are actually far behind the social times, and really not that much in favor of grasping what equal rights and civil rights mean.

  • 40. Lymis  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:57 am

    The country has decidedly not come out in support of gay marriage. It's still illegal and in many cases unconstitutional in the majority of the country. Yes, three states voted in favor of it by slim margins and one refused to put a ban in their Constitution, but no states have repealed their Amendments and few have overturned a ban, certainly none by wide margins.

    One of the two major political parties still had opposing it in their national platform, and this was the first year that either had supporting it in theirs.

    You can't say that even a negative Court is "far behind the social times." This is cutting edge, slightly ahead of the overall nation, stuff. I agree it's time, and they need to address it, but let's not overstate popular support. I wish you were right, but you're not.

  • 41. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    And remember, the first time anti-segregation language was included in a major, national political party's national platform was the 1948 Democratic National Platform. When Harry Truman won the Presidential election that year, states were forced to drop their anti-segregation laws immediately, weren't they?

    Never mind that it took Federal troops, the longest 'talking filibuster' in US Senate history, and many laws leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before there was a legal basis to get rid of the anti-segregation laws.

  • 42. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    "When Harry Truman won the Presidential election that year, states were forced to drop their anti-segregation laws immediately, weren't they?"

    No segregation of public accommodations did not happen under Truman, but under Johnson with the passage of the Civil Rights act in 1964.

    Truman desegregated the military. The Supreme Court desegregated public schools in the 1950s. It was as far longer and more torturous process than our fight for marriage equality, that's for sure.

    Certainly nothing like Truman did it immediately.

  • 43. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 4, 2012 at 3:39 am

    You are correct.

    But apparently you didn't read what Lymis posted, and what I posted.

    I DID mention that it was because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "before there was a legal basis to get rid of the anti-segregation laws."

    And I also stated, in a VERY sarcastic manner, that as soon as Truman was elected, the plank in the 1948 Democratic Party platform went into effect (except it didn't).

    For 'jordan' to suggest that because something is in the winning party's platform it will automatically go into effect is nothing but male bovine droppings.

    That's like saying that the GOTP's platform calling for a Constitutional amendment to ban any and all marriage equality, domestic partnerships, etc., would have meant that as soon as Robme might have been elected, the ban would immediately go into effect (even though the Constitution says differently).

  • 44. Tyler  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:47 am

    Maybe California should just try a ballot measure…especially if the ruling is expected to only apply to California. Why wait? It barely passed in 2008, and Maine has already done it.

  • 45. jpmassar  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:53 am


    California LGBT groups rejected a ballot initiative for 2012. Next opportunity would be 2014.

  • 46. James  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:57 am

    2014 would be a huge mistake. And I'll tell you why: a majority of people for gay marriage (which IS the majority of California) aren't exactly so passionate about it to stand in line for hours during a non presidential election. They wouldn't. They believe in our rights, and support us, but most Californians DO NOT vote for mid elections. You know who does? religious conservatives, the elderly, anddddpeople who have a reason to (aka~ churches demanding all their members go to the ballot and vote against same sex marriage. and they would, and they'd show up in droves) THAT is what's dangerous about 2014 ballot measure. That most people for gay marriage are young and not likely to vote in a 2014 ballot measure. We WOULD absolutely positively fail in that ballot box. We would have won by huge numbers in this years election with a gay marriage ballot measure

  • 47. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:06 am

    Indeed. Waiting until 2016 would be a smarter move. 2014 might work for Oregon where at least there's a big governor's election but even there it might be smarter to wait for a presidential election.

  • 48. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:42 am

    Oh, Oregon would be sweet…setting the stage for marriage equality down the entire west coast.

  • 49. jpmassar  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:08 am

    That was (one of) the arguments made for not doing a ballot initiative in 2010 and waiting until 2012. Then that got nixed.

    I disagree with your conclusion. I think a 2014 ballot initiative would pass, despite the phenomena you describe. But it's almost certainly not relevant. The issue will be decided in some sense by SCOTUS by then.

  • 50. Cleo  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:16 am

    Uhh when? and what makes you so sure about that??

  • 51. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:08 am

    I don't think anyone can or should feel sure of an outcome of a CA 2014 fight.

    In general, it's foolish to feel your crystal ball can predict political outcomes 2 years away. Two years ago, all the very serious people were sure Romney was sitting pretty for a walk to the Oval Office and Democrats looked in serious danger of losing the Senate, Claire McCaskill was definitely toast and obviously, the Indiana Senate Seat would go to a Republican…

    Oops none of that transpired, Dems even picked up seats in the Senate.

  • 52. Beverly Glen  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:16 am

    Disagree. This court has proven itself to be incompetent on our rights. I think they can and will drag this out for a long time to come.

  • 53. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:55 am

    This court barely addressed our rights. Earlier, similar courts have stricken sodomy laws and the discriminatory Amendment 2 to the Colorado constitution.

  • 54. Amir  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Uhh that's part of the problem. They're barely addressing our rights. They can keep kicking this can, but justice delayed is justice denied. Period.

  • 55. Mackenzie  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:51 am

    The Supreme Court only takes cases that make it to their door. If we don't sue for our rights they can't actively go make a decision for us.

  • 56. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    "This court has proven itself to be incompetent on our rights."

    And that has been 'proven' how?

    Or are you projecting your opinion as fact?

    We have NO idea why they are not issuing acceptance or denials of cert, but now we know it is NOT related to attempting to avoid 'contaminating' the election results (as many were saying during late September/October).

  • 57. michelle  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:29 am

    No. I'm afraid he's very right. Mid term elections bring out a disproportiante high rate of older voters and conservative voters. Liberal, young and college students do NOT vote in a 2014 round up. 2012 was the one to grab em.

  • 58. barb  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Unless legalizing marijuana is on the ballot.

  • 59. bythesea  |  December 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Let's put both issues on the ballot at the same time (as happened in WA).

  • 60. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 4, 2012 at 3:44 am

    And both issues were on the ballot during a Presidential election, not mid-term election.

    And putting marihuana on the ballot, even during a Presidential election, does NOT mean such a measure will pass – witness Oregon in 2012.

  • 61. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:53 am

    All I'll say is sounds like Old School thinking. I'd encourage you to read up on the messaging strategy that came out of the Third Way policy shop after Prop 8 and Maine in 2009. The messaging at a glance may not have seemed so different in 2012, but it was fundamentally changed from how it was approached in earlier lost fights, tweaked by a lot of pollling, focus groups and what not.

    Here is Chris Geidner's take:

    I do agree there are demographic issues with a midterm vote. But, I don't believe by any means it would "absolutely positively fail.

    I think there are a lot of straight people who feel some regret over 2008. Working in Washington State in 2012, I can tell you, there were a virtual army of straight allies that rushed to our side. This is a relatively new phenomena in LGBT politics. I know, I've been doing this for decades, and rarely have I seen so many heterosexuals help us out. I expect the new dynamic will continue in CA in 2014.

  • 62. Elizabeth  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:05 am

    If I'm thinking correctly, the anti-8ers agreed to hold off on doing that in exchange for the SCOTUS "fast track". Plus it would put us right back where we started with stays and delays until we ended back at SCOTUS in 4-6 years.

  • 63. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Putting marriage equality up for a popular vote is offensive and wrong. No one should ever have to beg others for equal rights. It's inhumane and just plain cruel. Think of how straight couples would feel and react if they had to ask gay people for their right to be treated equally.

  • 64. Duration&Convexity  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:48 am

    Part of me thinks our side isn't doing enough to convey the depth of importance on this issue. Why don't we have people and groups and marches in Washington D.C right now? The most important legislations and landmark LGBT rights is being decided by the highest court in our nation, and we have very little in spirit and numbers to show for it. Showcase our passion in front of the media (peacefully) out on capitol hill, out on the lawn in D.C. Something…anything, beyond us all just sitting behind our computers idle …waiting. It may not make a difference to those judges. but it's still making a difference.

  • 65. Manuel  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:04 am

    That's how I feel as well. Where is our Dr. King, our million gay march? Were are our leaders who will bring us together and march on every state capitol and D.C. demanding equal rights. It seems like the only time we march is in a pride parade. It seems like everything is done behind closed doors(in the closet) out of the public eye, when we sould be out there showing our numbers and that we are just as human as them.

  • 66. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:18 am

    I agree with you. The Human Rights Campaign should be leading Protests/Vigils on the steps of the Supreme Court right now. Heck if they can organize all those star studded parties you would think they could organize one Protest, there isn't even any menus to plan or wine to pick.

  • 67. Stephen  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:16 am

    We are too invested in Gay parades! We need to get real!

  • 68. IonMusic  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:06 am

    You need to get a grip. Gay parades? settle down there troll. Your hate is showing.

    Gay parades and marches and gatherings are poignant. Very poignant. If you wonder why, just look at this site for all the things we're fighting for (and by we I'm not including you. As others mentioned, we're keenly picking up on the fact that a good number of posters posting on here now are actually anti gay and in coy manners trying to hide it.)

  • 69. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Yes, we should be having protests and sit ins at every capitol in the nation until we get equality. We are unorganized and splintered and it's just the way they want it.

  • 70. Scott Johansen  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:19 am

    I've been saying the same thing. Anytime illegal immigration legislations are up for debate in any court, in any state, you have massive (I mean dozens of thousands of people) rallying in states like Alabama, Georgia, and D.C. When it comes to our moment in the spotlight…no rallies, no peaceful marches, no gatherings. Just silence. It's like our side wants to intentionally feed into the right wing meme of "there's so few of these pro gay types in the human population. why change laws for such a small percentage of the population" C'mon strength in numbers!

  • 71. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Protesting to lobby a court decision has the problem of mitigating a win, imo. It will make it easier for opponents to say our vindication was bullying not righteous vindication.

    Regardless, I don't think there is anything really to protest at this point in the game. They're just being their usual slow-ass self, we're not really special in being selected to wait and wait for word from the SCOTUS.

    When's all's said and done, they'll take or not take the cases. We win either way.

  • 72. lazerhaze  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:51 am

    I now have absolutely NO RESPECT for these clowns in robes that sit in judgement over my fundamental rights as a human being and as an American citizen. If I was standing before them they'd all get a good ass chewing. This is unacceptable and disgraceful. The SCOTUS is now an embarrassment to America and humanity. We need to march and protest in front of the Supreme Court Building and show the SCOTUS whose rights are on the line. Force them to address us by making them see us, our families and our love and remind them what we're fighting for… OUR FREEDOM. Justice delayed is justice denied!

  • 73. lazerhaze  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:12 am

    you want to vote me down.. yet you don't have the courage to respond.. typical.

  • 74. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Maybe it's because you are combative and sound irrational?

    Calling members of the Supreme Court clowns is not a good way to influence people and get them on your side. Also, they haven't even made a decision yet! If you read any of the many articles about the Supreme Court you would know that they take their time, as they should, with complicated legal matters that can change the US (for better or for worse) for generations to come.

    This isn't a decision that can fit on a bumper sticker or in a tweet.

    By the way, several of these "clowns", as you call them, are the justices who ended laws against same-sex sexual practices in "Lawrence V Texas" (and gave us all more sexual privacy regardless of our sexual orientation).

    P.S. I not only respond I use my real name, unlike most folks on here. Oh and let me know when you organize your rally in front of the Supreme Court. As long as your not screaming obscenities or acting stupid I'll join you there.

  • 75. Scott Johansen  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:41 am

    You sound patronizing and pompous. For as rational as you pride yourself in coming off, approaching those discriminated with a harsh and militant manner makes you just as rough as the aspect you wish to call out. Polish yourself up first before getting preachy with the LGBT community.

  • 76. R.J  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:42 am

    Buhahaha Amen!

  • 77. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:02 am

    No, I just want to win.

  • 78. chad  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:45 am

    It's not just about you. This fight is about a community with millions of L and B and G and T. With many emotions and vested interest in this; not all of which will match your rather 'mellow' one..learn to respect that.

  • 79. Macke nzie  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Are you giving the same respect to someones mellow view? It was a bold statement to say that the Supreme Court has no respect for our community, especially when there was no proof of that. I agree with the taking action, but name calling and jumping to assumptions is what NOM is for, not us.

  • 80. Johan  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:52 am

    I voted you down, twice now, if you want to know.

  • 81. Sammy  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:16 am

    You must also realize everyone with a case before the Supreme Court believes their case to be the most important. The judges should take no opinion one way or the other on a case until they are actually judging it. Marching on them and making emotional pleas outside of the courtroom are just the things I and most hope they ignore as they are there to judge on the law. What the law says, not on what they personally want. If they are carefully considering the law and reviewing the MANY cases they have it will take time and hopefully they will come to unanimous decisions when the law dictates equal rights in this instance.

  • 82. michelle  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:33 am

    lotta hopefullys and maybes and if and buts in your argument there. seems to me YOU'RE not as very invested in the equal treatment of gay people as gay people themselves are. Just a guess.

  • 83. Patrick  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:34 am

    and are those cases ones where an entire (huge) segment of the population is being denied a civil right? same group that was killed by the Nazis, and discriminated for thousands of years? guess LGBT haven't waited long enough. Sorry LGBT, a corporate case involving a CEO money is far far more instrumental.

  • 84. R.J  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:36 am

    lol spoken like a true apologist.

    "Wait your turn in the back of the line homos! Who cares about your equality you've waited centuries for. Keep on waiting. And pipe down would ya"

    Ignorance is one thing, but insensitivity is another.

  • 85. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:20 am

    For all we know the delay is the liberals working overtime to try and talk the Conservatives into NOT taking and overturning Prop 8, which imo, is the ideal outcome.

    Lord knows, there are definitely Four Conservative votes on the court that would like to see Prop 8 overturned at the Supreme Court.

    We just don't know.

  • 86. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:23 am

    I'm sorry, but I don't believe a gene patent case is anywhere near the same importance as a civil rights case of marriage equality that has been affecting millions of taxpaying gay Americans for decades. Call me old fashioned I guess.

  • 87. Steven  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:51 am

    Please STOP bashing the Supreme Court when we don't hear anything or they don't release their decision on DOMA AND PROP 8 cases. They have other cases to handle!!!!! No news means good news..

  • 88. Cornel  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:59 am

    No news means good news? tell that to the many a gay people who have passed on these past 4 + years while we were waiting. Who never got to experience true freedoms in the law of the land based on who they inherently love.

  • 89. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:25 am

    I agree Cornel. No news isn't good news…it's no news, and that in itself is bad news when it's affecting millions of American's.

  • 90. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    "4 + years while we were waiting."

    You apparently don't think SCOTUS has a say at all?

    Remember, the District Court ruled, then the Ninth Circuit, and SCOTUS received these cases in time for THIS term, not last year, nor the year before.

    But the reason we've waited for 4+ years is because SCOTUS 'jacked around' for 4+ years?

    Maybe you should tell the California state Supreme Court to not 'jack around' for a year in deciding whether people do or do not have standing (in a state court)?

  • 91. James  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:00 am

    I think it's highly insensitive to approach a people who had rights for a hot minute, then had them taken away, then had them put on a ballot vote, and now have them in limbo for approaching 5 years now; and tell them to be more patient. Something highly pompous and ignorant about that. But that's just me.

  • 92. Stephen  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:18 am

    That's just me too. We've waited long enough for the wizards to pull the curtain and reveal who is and isn't a friend of Dorothy.

  • 93. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Me too James. It seems like many people here can't even comprehend something as simple as that. It really helps me understand rape, murder, and other atrocities humans inflict on others. We are a very irrational species. It amazes me that we're still fighting for something that shouldn't even be up for debate.

    If I were all powerful and I could do only one thing, I would destroy all religions. I think that has done more harm than anything else on our planet and our species.

  • 94. meso  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:02 am

    Our case is one of those cases. In case you haven't noticed, we have many cases in this wave, and we have waited, and we are worthy of some results and at least a path by now.

  • 95. lazerhaze  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:07 am

    stop kissing their worthless asses. NO news is another day we all are denied our equal rights as american citizens and as human beings. The deference you show them is what allows the lazy bigots on the court to hold any sway in the matter. The justices need to be publicly embarrassed and taken to task. It's simply disgraceful to allow in this day and age a group of citizens to be legally treated as second class citizens and if we as LGBT people had the BALLS to REALLY fight for our rights and marched on Washington repeatedly and before the court repeatedly we would already have our equality and this would all be over.. But it seems that too many people are willing to let others take control of your life and and decide for you what you're worth as a citizen and as a human.. If you feel like the person above…. you'll never get your equal rights.

  • 96. Sammy  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:22 am

    Courts are NOT legislatures, they are not there to provide you with rights. There sole job is to judge the law. For them there should be NO emotion or connection to the case as they should objectively judge the law. In our case we are hoping that the laws in question are counter to the constitution. These are very complex questions with huge reprecussions on future laws.
    Everyone thinks their case is the most important and a court of 9 (supposidly straight) judges with hundreds of cases to review does not and shouldnt have the same investment as you.
    They will get to it, but when these court cases were filed that was people letting courts take control of their lives in this manner. If you dont like it you dont go the route of courts because they are the slowest and most frustrating route.
    If you want to take things into your own hands, stage demonstrations, march on politicians, but dont complain because the court system (designed to be systematically slow as a safe guard and to ensure continuity) does what it has always done when you enter it.

  • 97. lazerhaze  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:25 am

    I don't think I like the idea of compassionless robots deciding on my human rights based on arbitrary rules set up by bigots in the first place.

  • 98. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:32 am

    How many rallies have you organized?

  • 99. lazerhaze  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:38 am

    I am a disabled man of little means.. It's a challenge to keep a roof over my head, the power on and food in the cupboards. Why don't you and your employed friends beat me to the punch. You know.. because I have enough on my plate just trying to stay alive.

  • 100. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:54 am

    I've been working on this issue for many years starting when I volunteered against Prop 22 in 2000.

    I'll attend a rally at the Supreme Court if there's a legitimate reason (like for an announced ruling regarding DOMA or Prop 8).

    I will not have a sign calling them clowns since that tactic helps no one and actually loses us supporters.

    PS It took Harvey Milk four elections to finally get elected to Supervisor. Change takes time and patience and a lot of hard work. I hope to see you on the front lines someday. Good luck and take care.

  • 101. ritenight  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:04 am

    What have you been doing those many years? I usually see people who complain that there's too much passion on our side always claim "they've been crusading for many years" but usually, they've just been camping out on LGBT blogs and policing how gays react to discrimination, as opposed to actually fighting the discrimination.

  • 102. fiona64  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:07 am

    I'm only one person but, like Eric, I've been working for marriage equality since 2000. And yes, that includes going to rallies. It also included being threatened with physical violence in my own yard when I refused to remove the "No on 8" sign, being stalked until I had to get law enforcement involved, and (yes) posting on news articles, blogs, etc.

    I'm a straight, married woman. Don't *ever* presume you know who is working on your behalf and what they do or do not do.. It's bullshit like *this* that brings me less and less to a site that I have been part of since its inception.

  • 103. Johan  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Well said, thank you.

  • 104. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:22 am

    I wouldn't be surprised if some of these folks who are acting the most upset at the Supreme Court's slowness are actually anti-gay trolls.

    They want to try to divide us.

    Don't let them get you down.

    There's no reason to leave this great site because of a few hot heads and a few divisive trolls.

  • 105. fiona64  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Eric, it happens periodically — and it just gets more and more tiresome each time. I recognize the names of some of the people griping and they've been around for a long time. (ritenight is not a name I know, to be honest … but that's not the point.) It just gets awfully old seeing people say "Well, you're *clearly* not doing anything," when the truth is? You. Don't. Know. After 12 years in a battle for which I have no real dog in the fight other than the understanding that when you put one group's votes up for a vote, *all* of our rights are in danger, it gets really tiresome to be told that a) all straight people are against GLBT folks' rights and b) that I'm not doing enough despite the literal, physical risks I've undertaken on behalf of people I'll never meet just because some jerks on a website assume that all people do is sit at their desks in the name of equality.

  • 106. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:17 am

    I never said that there's too much passion on our side.

    I just think that calling the Supreme Court clowns when they haven't even made an announcement yet is simplistic and counter productive.

    And yes, I have done some actual grass roots work (mostly phone banking), including volunteering against Prop 22 in CA, Measure 36 in OR and for Referendum 71 in WA.

    Jeezus people, we're winning! Get a grip please.

  • 107. Namewitheld  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:15 am

    When Harvey Milk was seeking a political career intterracial marriage was barely recognized in the nation. I find it to be a little disrespectful to compare that era to now, and in relation to LGBT rights no less. We've been waiting for long before Milk was seeking election, and have continued to wait, so please spare the preaching about how long it takes.

  • 108. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Well, I think you totally missed his point. Milk had to run 4 times to win what is essentially a city council seat.

  • 109. STEVE-ATL  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:31 am

    what does that have to do with gay rights in 2012/2013? or are you suggesting that the gay movement is exactly where it was in 1970? epic fail!

  • 110. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Are you suggesting a city council seat is the same as a right-to-marry case before the Supreme Court?

    Epic fail.

    A better analogy is Nelson, from about Milk's time where the SCOTUS wouldn't even give marriage a moment's thought. Now, at least, they are thinking long and hard about it.

  • 111. Scott Johansen  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Waaa? that was nearly 40 years ago. That's like me approaching a black person voting today and saying "You know, it took Rosa Parks many waiting attempts before she finally got to sit where she wanted on the bus" Flawed logic. You seem to be promoting a sense of societal homophobia we should all be accustomed to. Gonna have to keep an eye out on your posts, but somethings not passing the sniff test.
    ("No rallies guys!"… "Your livelihood isn't being effected with gay marriage not passing guys" …"You have to WAIT your turn guys" …."Stop being so demanding guys"…"Glad this wasn't on the ballot this election guys")….Hmm..if I didn't know any better Clarknt67 I'd ALMOST think you yourself were a ….we both already know what.

  • 112. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Except it's totally not like that..

  • 113. R.J  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:43 am

    How many rallies have YOU?

  • 114. Carl  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Other than sitting here attempting to lecture gay people "Eric Koszyk" what exactly, have you organized?

  • 115. Los Cartos  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:09 am

    This site is already being invaded by the apologist trolls (case in point, Steven). Expect the apologist to soon start writing love letters to Scalia soon.

  • 116. Kavan  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:13 am

    No news means good news? and that you got 5 likes tells me the NOM bots are indeed on here. Of course no news on these cases is good news to you all. The current laws standing are anti gay.

  • 117. Stephen  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:19 am

    Sorry, no news means NO news,

  • 118. Karl Schneider  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Nope…no news means no news…

  • 119. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:58 am

    How about no news is no news. I personally would rather the SCOTUS be careful and deliberate than fast. It's a lot of complicated cases, it's not surprising they're going slow.

  • 120. mhmmm  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:37 am

    aww c'mon. face it shoethrower, you're really, reallyy excited about the propsects of them maybe not enabling gay marriage. You see all this push back as a success for your side. I can sense a little boastfulness in your posts. Like you think you and NOM have this wrapped up, hence your great arrogance to come on this blog with your new pretty handle and feel entitled to boss and school people. lol gay marriage is going to happen in every state. And millions of extremely passionate LGBT with fire in our eyes will make sure of that. Can't wait to look for your next screename on here. I didn enjoy shoethrower though.

  • 121. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    I just took three weeks off of my job to volunteer full-time with the R74 marriage equality campaign in WA, and worked my ass off for our win.

    "you think you and NOM have this wrapped up" You could not be more far off the mark.

    Not everyone who has a different opinion from you is a homophobe.

  • 122. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Hey I know Clarknt67, and he did go to Washington State to help with the effort there. I know when he left and I know when he got back.

  • 123. fiona64  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    mhmm, Clark is far too succinct and non-pedantic to be Shoesthrower/Michael Ejercito. Believe me, after reading the fake lawyer's nonsense for a couple of years now, I know it when I see it.

  • 124. RAJ  |  December 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Psssst …. Clark is not Shoesthrower. You're making a fool of yourself.

  • 125. bythesea  |  December 3, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Too true. Very, embarrassingly much a fool. Anyone who knows who Clark actually is IRL has to be cringing at mhmm's asinity.

  • 126. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:40 am

    It should be offensive to not only gay American's but to every American when the SCOTUS decides on mundane cases like gene patents instead of much bigger cases that have much wider implications concerning civil rights and equality. It feels the same as when Californian's voted in 2008 to give chickens more freedoms but voted against marriage equality for their own brothers, sisters, and neighbors. You know, REAL PEOPLE. That made me sick to my stomach.

  • 127. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    "That made me sick to my stomach."

    I hope you saw a doctor about that upset stomach.

    Might not be anything, but it could be a sign of something else, such as an allergy to one or more foods, or maybe even cancer (my brother ignored his upset stomach for several years, then was diagnosed with inoperaple kidney cancer that spread to other organs. In 1998, he was given a prognosis of dieing in less than a year – he lived for 8 months after the diagnosis.).

  • 128. Long Beach  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:53 am

    We should have done a ballot measure this election period in California. We should have started working on it the day after 2008 results. WORKED hand & foot, door to door, billboards, advertisment, community out reach, schools, media, families, the works. For four years. The tide was on our side. Our side's campaign was disastrous in 2008, and yet we still managed 48% of the votes. Through serious campaigning, fighting and determination of 4 years work, couped with having Obama on our side this year…I do believe we could have passed gay marriage in the ballot box.

    Waiting for mid terms in 2014 is VERY RISKY. Mid term elections are not a safe bet, and bring out an extremely high percentage of older populations, conservative populations, and religious folks. Even for Cali. Presidential elections (especially with someone like Obama who SWEPT California) is your golden ticket. Our leaders let our golden ticket slip right under our fingers…and quite honestly, with this court? I see them dragging Prop 8 for a long, long, longgggg while to come. Shame. Complete shame.

  • 129. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:11 am

    There's no reason to work on this until after the Supreme Court makes an announcement.

    I'm glad that CA did not have this on it's ballot this year. There is no way to know if we would have won, especially with the case going thru the courts (a lot of people would vote against us because they would want to defer to the SUpreme Court first).

    Plus it would have cost a ton of money; money that was better spent in ME, MD, WA and MN.

  • 130. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:37 am

    If you're a gay rights advocate, I'd hate to meet our enemies.

  • 131. Eric Koszyk  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:50 am

    You are one rude individual, aren't you?

  • 132. nicksternet  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Ballot measures on Civil rights should be outlawed. NO MORE BALLOT MEASURES ON ANYONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS PERIOD!

  • 133. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:20 am

    I sincerely hope the Supreme Court agrees with you.

  • 134. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:39 am

    I agree!

  • 135. Elizabeth  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:02 am

    I'm shocked they've found time to get anything done this session with all the time they've taken up avoiding us. It's got to be time consuming.

  • 136. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    And exactly how have they been 'avoiding us'?

    Maybe they are trying to determine if any/all the parties have standing? And if they don't, what to do?

    Remember, accepting cert means the court has found that ALL parties have standing.

    What if SCOTUS finds that BLAG doesn't have standing? The usual procedure is to then have the previous court's ruling stand, but only in that circuit. So Section 3 of DOMA is unConstitutional in the 1st and 2nd Circuits, but Constitutional in the rest of the US? Soldiers stationed in New York have certain rights, but as soon as they are transferred to Texas, or California, or Kansas, or Virginia (where the Pentagon building is located) etc., they do NOT have those rights?

    How does SCOTUS decide a case when one party doesn't have standing, but in making that determination, SCOTUS decides that a law is unConstitutional?

    THAT just possibly could be why they haven't yet made a decision.

  • 137. Elizabeth  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Or they could have at least started their decisions. By lumping us together it's led to more time consuming nonsense and an excuse to keep putting this off. You can't honestly tell me that not a word about any if the now 10 cases haven't crossed their lips, and that a few of the cases are pretty cut an dry "take" or "don't take".

  • 138. Anthony  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Hey, at least they're spending a lot of time on our cases. Two conferences to discuss this means they have a lot of discussion going on. I'd honestly wait to get a good decision than have it bite us back in the butt.

  • 139. observer  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:07 am

    I'll say it..anyone who keeps telling LGBT on here to "be patient" is exercising some subtle homophobia, and I'd encourage you do some soul searching and recognize it.

    Would you demand interracial couples being denied their civil rights be patient and "just deal with it"?

    How about if Latinos were denied marriage in the U.S?

    Handicap? How about women?

    The same people dictating gays be "patient" would be up in arms, livid if any of the above mentioned demographics were denied access to something so fundementally valued. They'd not only understand those folks frustration but may join them in it.

    Only when it's our people being left on the side lines, while we pay taxes to a program that discriminates against us, are WE told to "wait your turn! and be patient!!"

  • 140. nicksternet  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:09 am

    I agree with observer. It is homophobia. Pure and simple!

  • 141. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I agree too.

  • 142. lazerhaze  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Exactly.. THANK YOU!

  • 143. jpmassar  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:17 am

    For comparison, it took about 3 1/2 years from the time Loving first initiated court proceedings to the time the Supreme Court ruled.

  • 144. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Also, there were 100M less Americans in 1967, or about 66% of our current population. 300M today vs. 198M then.

    Which would translate into fewer cases clogging up the Federal Courts.

  • 145. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 4, 2012 at 4:13 am

    In the 1800s, especially the late 1800s, SCOTUS decided 1,000 to 2,000 cases per year, year after year after year.

    Now and for the past 50-75 years? A year with 500 decisions is considered an EXTREMELY busy year.

    And may I remind you that the US didn't hit 100 million population until about 1915? Years after the court making 1,000 to 2,000 decisions/year.

  • 146. Guest  |  December 4, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Respectfully, I think this might be a little bit of a misnomer.
    Have we also accounted that once cases are decided, they wouldn't have to take cases like it? Isn't that the point of precedent?
    I'm no lawyer, just noting that as law becomes more rhobust, that which is cycling through it, is related, and need not be necessarily overturned.

  • 147. Dynex  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:45 am


    You have to realize that there is a certain homophobia attached to the people who come on here and tell everyone to not be passionate, frustrated. That they can't understand our frustration is really showing their homophobia. They feel entitled to it, and shocked we have the backbone to react after decades of injustices.

  • 148. Mackenzie  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:03 am

    We have a right to be pissed if they don't take our cases after this final session. They won't even hear any of their decisions until next Spring anyways. Prop8 is the only one that would not fit this bill and I would imagine that they will release those opinions all at once. It is unwise to assume that everyone on here speaking of patience isn't LGBTQ. White privilege, or in this case straight privilege is not the same as homophobia.

  • 149. Jiles  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Pro equality groups in Cali should have put it on the ballot this election term. Big big wasted opportunity. I knew we couldn't trust this court with a keen sense. But through hard work and a strategic campaign, we could have and would have won the people over.

  • 150. observer  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:14 am

    I think so too. I think this court is actually one that is behind the times and the people and society are socially far more forward thinking than it. Wish we were on the 2012 ballot.

  • 151. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Drip, drip, drip, drip….Maybe this Friday, maybe. Maybe next Monday, maybe. Drip, drip, drip. the waiting is so hard and so annoying.

  • 152. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:44 am

    At this rate, Illinois will beat California to the punch. Perhaps while we wait for SCOTUS we could get some more info on the situation there? Likely vote totals, and so forth?

  • 153. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Hell, at this rate, Iran will have marriage equality before the USA does.

  • 154. MightyAcorn  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:47 am

    Being angry doesn't do anything at this point; being patient doesn't do anything either. The fact is, this action is completely out of our control, no one knows what's going to happen, and people feel however they feel about it. I myself am tired of waiting but don't have the energy to get upset; I'm just resigned.

    Influencing the Supreme Court happens at the Presidential election–that is, our choice of President determines our Court, if the Prez gets the opportunity to appoint new justices. That's about all the say we citizens get about it. In that regard, we social liberals just bought our insurance policy for the next four years.

    I understand the anger–justice delayed is justice denied, the real lives of people I know are hanging in the balance here. I also understand the admonition to be patient, and why the court system ignores outside influences, so it can be impartial and carefully weigh its decisions… theory.

    However, I also understand–from my own experience–that, as much as we idealize the American legal system, it is elitist and only the rich have real access to it. Our system is corrupt, politicized, and continually gamed both criminally and civilly–the SCOTUS is no exception.

    Sadly, it's the only system we have at the moment, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Even so, even with the corruption and politics, there's a small ray of hope with Prop 8. However, that doesn't make the delay any easier–makes it much more difficult, in fact.

    Could someone buy new magazines for the waiting room, please? Seeing as we're all going to be here a while longer.

  • 155. Klien  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:51 am

    Be proud to be gay. Be proud to be in a relationship. Don't apologize for your same sex love. Don't hesitate to hold hands. Often times, gay couples may censor showcasing the very affections that straight couples freely display (be it holding hands, or appropriate affection, or simply mentioning you are coupled up) never censor yourself, because being in love is a beautiful thing and something worth celebrating. They may juggle our rights, but they can't take that innate love with your partner away from you. That's gay pride. True gay pride. And every gay person should be proud and content with who they are, and those in a relationship should be proud of that relationship. Never ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

  • 156. Max  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:54 am

    I do wish more loving gay couples in metropolitan areas for example weren't so timid in presenting themselves as a couple. It's interesting, because if gay people were to do an experiment to see just how many straight people around them explicitly and implicitly are identifiabley in a relationship, they'd be very surprised. Yet outside The Castro, Weho, Soho, and Dupont Circle, very few gay couples are identifiable. That surely doesn't mean sucking face or anything inappropriate, but if it's equality we're fighting for, that means it starts with us, and in public, we shouldn't treat our own relationships as inequal

  • 157. Amir  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:56 am

    My partner and I hold hands in public when it feels good, or may even rest my head on his shoulders. I will admit, there's something very romantic about the whole "who cares what the world thinks" dynamic. It just heightens our love for one another.

  • 158. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:50 am

    It's because many are afraid of being attacked or even killed for showing any affection towards their partner in public. When you have lived with institutional discrimination for so long, you become accustomed to acting differently in public. It's going to take a long time to change that. The damage that's been done is very real.

  • 159. IonMusic  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:06 am

    I thought the same, until one day with my current boyfriend I decided to take freedom into my own hands. I decided to be that exact change I wanted to be. After all, if I was going to harp about freedom and equality being created by heterosexual legislators, why not start first with my own life as a gay man.

    Was it entirely easy? not that easy…but pretty easy. And liberating. And fantastic. I agree with other posters: there was something romantic about almost approaching society and saying I'm in love without using words. I'm sure my boyfriend and I get looks, and not everyone may like it, but I also think we're doing a great deal by 'normalizing' gay relationships. With normalcy comes acceptance. If my gay relationship is completely closeted and hidden, then society has no access and exposure to seeing gay loving couples. It's when they see me and my boyfriend laughing, and smiling, and holding hands that they can recognize we're no different, and in some respects, even more loving than other heterosexual couples. That's the change that makes a positive impact.

    I would agree with the original poster in doing so in big cities and where you felt safe. but it does need to happen more often, and I do believe it would be a driving force to make societal homophobia decrease somewhat.

  • 160. Zack C.  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:09 am

    That's the one thing I said they can't take away from us. I used to be in the sad camp of one foot in the closet, one foot out. Dating guys who I could make sure were 'passable' in public, and we looked like roomates as opposed to lovers. Then Prop 8 happened and I realized I was discriminating myself! I was doing exactly what I was accusing homophobes of. I was literally being homophobic of my own relationship.

    Today, I feel it;s truly liberating to be a well adjusted gay man in a very happy relationship were both my partner and I are *truly* openly out. Not semi out. And we even hold hands over the table at restaurants we go dine out at. I hope everyone can experience that joy as well as marriage equality.

  • 161. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:52 am

    The SCOTUS can burn in their own private hell for all I care. This is as offensive as voting on our equality. Californians voted to give chickens more freedoms than gay human beings in 2008 and the SCOTUS is now doing the same thing. The first cases they should have decided are the DOMA and prop 8 cases but they're more concerned with gene patents now.

  • 162. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:11 am

    I understand your anger. You are not wrong. The reason you are NOT wrong is because this is YOUR life, not some esoteric legal point, they are F*ng with YOU. I get that. I feel your anger and I understand it.

  • 163. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Thank you Str8 Grandmother. This shouldn't be like this in a free nation.

  • 164. hootie33  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:07 am

    As much as I want these cases to be over and CA gay couples have the right to marry again, let's not forget that CA still does have domestic partnerships. And probably the strongest DP's in the country that are equal to marriage, except federally because of DOMA (which also needs to go away). So other than the name, which is important, gay couples can and should become DP's to protect themselves. I think a lot of people forget that we have those rights available currently.

  • 165. takemusu  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:29 am

    When, not if DOMA goes away LGBT couples in states with marriage equality (and yes, the name matters) get all the hundreds of federal rights afforded to straight couples. Gay couples in states with DP, CU get nothing. So the argument of "well, at least we have domestic partners, civil union …" does not hold with me. When DOMA falls first we'd have to start the same [email protected] fight over again.

  • 166. hootie33  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:33 am

    I agree with you takemusu, but DPs are a lot better option than nothing at all. So in the meantime, we should be using all options available. When marriage becomes legal in CA again, people who are registered DPs can also marry and then when DOMA is gone, they will have all the federal rights as well.

  • 167. chad  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:48 am

    No. Domestic partnerships and marriage are very's more than name. It's principle.
    And suggesting otherwise is completely insulting.

  • 168. hootie33  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Chad, I rather be insulted and have the same rights of marriage, that not have any at all.

  • 169. IonMusic  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Hmm..who makes that argument? OH I KNOW! The anti gay marriage side "Guys, you already have marriage, it's just not called marriage. accept your civil unions and take them for what they are"
    LoL sooo transparent too

  • 170. STEVE-ATL  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Yeah, you have to realize, the new conservative meme is to make gays less of an activist and more complacent to our rights. They see that they are losing the culture battle, and main reason they are losing is because of the passion they ignited in sooo many LGBT. Their new tactic is to pretend to be one of us in our blogs, and then pitch us on the idea that we don't have it so bad, and civil unions are actually perfectly acceptable and will make do. Be mindful of how calculating minds work when they post on here.

  • 171. G. Lince  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:50 am

    No I certainly will not just embrace domestic partnership. My partner and I of 8 years, committed and loving, will not settle for a 'second best' option when someone like Kim Kardashian can throw a publicity stunt wedding for a few weeks with a stranger, and that's considered legal, yet my relationship is considered illegal in terms of marriage equality.

    Accepting civil unions with a smile is perpetuating the notion it's good enough. AND IT'S NOT.

  • 172. hootie33  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Well, you are certainly missing out on some financial benefits then…

  • 173. T.J  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:51 am

    Tell one of your children you love them…and tell the other you like them.

    They both have the same parent, who treats them the same, who lives in the same house, but tell one you love them and tell the other you tolerate them and see if it makes a difference.
    I assure you it does. And should.

  • 174. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:25 am

    I agree with you. It does make a difference. Keep fighting the good fight T.J., keep fighting the good fight. You are right.

  • 175. hootie33  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Again, I'm not talking about accepting RDPs or civil unions in place of marriage. BUT it is what is available NOW and if you don't take advantage of the benefits that are available, you shouldn't complain. Just a matter of time before marriage resumes again in CA. Then the focus is on DOMA. BTW, if you are in a RDP, the IRS treats you as if you were married as far as income tax (see community property state), so there IS a federal benefit to RDPs.

  • 176. knrivers  |  December 4, 2012 at 12:52 am

    You are mistaken about the federal rights. I live in CA and my wife and I have to file three tax returns. One as a married couple in CA, and two as single women federally. We registered as domestic partners before legally marrying in the short window that it was legal in 2008.

  • 177. hootie33  |  December 4, 2012 at 7:51 am

    Let me clarify. We do have to do the 3 returns and file single for federal, but since CA is a community property state, we combine our incomes and each report 1/2 on our federal return. It works out to be the same refund we would get as a married couple.

  • 178. Eric  |  December 4, 2012 at 8:11 am

    It may be close in some cases, but not all, self employment tax cut offs for example. Our largest difference was having to pay an extra $9,000 in federal taxes that a similarly situated opposite-sex married couple didn't have to pay.

    And then there is imputed income on employer paid health insurance premiums that straights don't have to pay, inability to share FSA accounts, etc.

    Not to mention the extra cost of preparing additional returns.

  • 179. Palm Springs Dad  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:19 am

    I wonder if all those who state gay civil rights is not and should not be as much of a priority as the other cases (most involving accounts and corporations) with the Supreme Court, would argue the same if it were the rights of say Hispanics, or Jews, Women, or any other demographic being denied right now. No other segment of the population is denied access to institutions; be they civil unions, JOBS (enda), housing, adoption, and marriage as gay people are. So I ask again, would the same posters implying gay rights need to wait their turn be as complacent to other groups being denied basic civil rights.

  • 180. chad  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:21 am

    I'd doubt it. For some people, they really have ingrained in their brains that LGBT are lesser than. I mean, for them, LGBT rights were never there to begin with, so they feel attaining LGBT rights is a privilige not a right. You can sense that in there lack of urgency for it.

  • 181. petshop_grrl  |  December 3, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    I tend to agree with chad's line of thought here. The unrecognized assumption that LGBT equality eventually comes to us as a civil privilege rather than human right can indeed result from internalized homophobia. Internalized homophobia is unconscious, subtle, often rationalized away, and can have lifetime effects. With that said, however, posts advocating patience or defending SCOTUS might also result from factors other than unrecognized internalized homophobia. For example, the poster's personality type, overall philosophical worldview, current career or vocation, grass-root activist experiences, etc.

  • 182. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:28 am

    You are right Palm Springs dad, you are right. I'll give you a thumbs up. The ONLY Minority population that there is any social acceptance *at all* for DISCRIMINATING against, is Sexual Minorities. You are right Palm Springs dad you are 100% right.

  • 183. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Since I don't live in California, I don't have a personal and passionate opinion on Prop H8 (except it has to go).

    My partner of more than 20 years died before marriage equality was available ANYWHERE in the US (yes, prior to when it was available in Massachusetts), and I'm not in a relationship with anyone right now. As a result, I don't have an immediate personal and passionate opinion on Prop H8 (except it has to go).

    What I DO know is that to me, DOMA is the law that most directly affects me right now. And it directly affected me in 2002, as I couldn't place my partner on my Federal health benefits when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. I don't know, but Johns Hopkins Hospital might have been a better place for my partner to see doctors than the Baltimore VA office/U of MD Medical Center.

    And remember, it took women more than 70 years (if you date the Women's Suffrage Movement from the Seneca Falls convention) to attain voting rights in all states.

    African-Americans still don't have equal rights, and they have been fighting for them since soon after the colonies were created. That's what – going on 400 years now?

    And some people on here are complaining about a week's delay in hearing anything?

    As many former generations were told – GET A LIFE!

  • 184. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    We have an African American president and yet you say they still don't have equal rights. What rights are being withheld from them?

  • 185. Eric Koszyk  |  December 5, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Are you F-ing kidding me?

    I guess you know nothing of:

    The recent JIm Crow type laws making it harder to vote
    Trayvon Martin
    the incarceration rates of whites vs blacks
    the drug war
    the arrest rate for possession of marijuana amongst whites vs blacks
    the poverty rate amongst blacks vs whites
    the difference in funding that middle class schools get vs schools in poor neighborhoods
    the increase of AIDS in the black community

    Just because one charismatic half black/ half white man finally gets elected to the presidency doesn't mean that blacks have equal rights.

    Plus, there's zero black senators and only one black governor at this time.

  • 186. paulo Katz  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:23 am

    I understand how difficult to digest this is…for many this is not looking good, for what I can read above this looks more like a catfight , we need to come together , stay together, fight together for our common goal that is achieving equality.
    Guys , we need to stay optimist, if they take no action on friday , then is when we start doing our part. God bless you all and let’s just hope for the best.

  • 187. paulo Katz  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Right!, enough of gay parades, let’s organize real marches to protest the unfair treatment of our families.

  • 188. Larry  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Yes, it's annoying that the Supreme Court hasn't made any cert decisions yet. No, I don't think it's because of bias, but because of more mundane legal issues. And if the Supreme court grants cert on any of the cases, this won't make a difference. Whether cert was granted at a September, November, or December conference, the decision isn't likely to come until June regardless.

  • 189. Eric  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:34 am

    The California Supreme Court doesn't view RDP's as equivalent to marriage, so why should we?

  • 190. Greg G  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:39 am

    It could be that the court has figured out that, as much as they would like to, they can't come up with an incremental ruling that strikes down DOMA Section 3 while leaving the state laws untouched. The constitution doesn't have a different standard for equal protection for the federal government than for the states (even though they may be in different places in the document). I think they are going to combine the cases and issue a ruling one way or the other on whether same sex couples are entitled to equal protection throughout the country at both the federal and state levels.

  • 191. aphrael  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Eric, the California Supreme Court *does* view RDP’s as equivalent to marriage.

    After Prop 8 passed, when it went to the CA Supreme Court, the CA Supreme Court interpreted it as *only* removing the *name* marriage. Under that decision, any right/responsibility of marriage under state law *must* be attached to an RDP, as a matter of state constitutional law.

  • 192. Angelita Mirabile  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Salute , people ! Do you prefer having great pastime in a company hot girls ? We want to suggest being with greatest temptresses . You had to look trhough them on on this page .

  • 193. MIMI  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:03 am

    You keep saying it's next week. How do you know that? a week of inequality IS devestating.

    Your homophobia is starting to show more and more with each comment there bud.

  • 194. Clarknt67  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Oh please. I am not homophobic because I'm not having a meltdown over a one-week delay on a 50+ year movement towards LGBT equality.

    Yes, I'm frustrated and annoyed just like everyone else. But this isn't' the end of the world. It isn't unusual and it isn't indicative of anything no matter how many people here think they are capable of reading the minds of the 9 justices. It's a one-week delay.

  • 195. IonMusic  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:05 am

    I agree. no one said protest. parade is a better word. a gathering of peaceful pleasant and passionate LGBT and allies in the thousands. Should have absolutely been arranged by now!

  • 196. Str8Grandmother  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    I couldn't come up with the exact right word so I hedged it calling it a Protest?Vigil.
    I also do not think protest is the right word, but a gathering in front of the Supreme Court. I struggled but came up with the word, "Solidarity" March. A showing of Solidarity of people why want the Court to recognize your Constitutional Rights. A March on the Supreme Court.

  • 197. RepublicanLutz  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Woah. I understand the frustration, but some of these comments are a bit much.

    Keep in mind that the Court has ten different cases involving gay rights to sift through. It has to decide how to best deal with the issues raised. There may be some rewriting of the questions presented going on. There may be a dissent from denial of cert in the Prop 8 or Arizona cases. Lots could be happening behind the scenes. No one outside of the Court knows.

    Also, any opinion in a DOMA case was never going to be handed down before next June. When they grant the case is mostly irrelevant in a landmark case such as this. It's going to be an end-of-term opinion no matter what.

    The main point is that this is probably the most important set of cases this Court has ever had to consider all at one time. Taking time to make sure the issues are handled with care doesn't make them bigots.

  • 198. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    My more immediate concern is Prop 8. It shouldn't be a heavy lift to deny hearing it. That would allow gay couples in California to wed immediately. That means a lot even if we still have to wait for DOMA to be struck down in order to achieve FULL marriage equality.

  • 199. Anthony  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:08 am

    I had a feeling I wouldn't hear anything today. December 10th better be the day they take action or else I'm going to go certifiably insane.

  • 200. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 4, 2012 at 4:28 am

    Isn't insanity one of the reasons California can deny marriage? I know in several states it is a disqualifying standard.

    So if you go certifiably insane, you'll have to wait until the doctors, then the courts, decide if you can marry. And that very well could take you well past June 2013, and maybe (if you are found to be insane) you'll never get clearance to marry.

  • 201. Anthony  |  December 4, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    Good point. lol

  • 202. Stephen  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Sorry, but we have been waiting years, not just one week.

  • 203. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 4, 2012 at 3:27 am

    And the people of Hawai'i have been waiting for 20 years, soon to be 21.

  • 204. Anthony from SoCal  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:27 am

    As much as I'd like to, I simply cannot be mad at the Supreme Court (at least not all of them). With all the hurdles we had to jump over to get this far, I know in the end Marriage Equality will prevail. It has been shown that NOM has been using every nasty delay tactic along the way. So am I surprised? No. I had a gut feeling ever since the first available Supreme Court conference that more time will have to pass before ANY new information is given to us. And I'm pretty damn sure they'll wait until they reviewed all the LGBT cases before we find out if the grant or deny any of them.

    Everything from waiting to hear about Proponents' Standing, Hiding the courtroom tapes, Certifying a question to the Cali Supreme Court, Petitioning the 9th En Banc to rehear a case, Questioning whether or not Judge Walker's sexuality can have the case be dismissed… If that doesn't prove that this is a case of GREAT IMPORTANCE, I don't know what will. And I haven't even mentioned the families that these laws HURT!

    I have a hard time picturing every judge of SCOTUS, sitting there and pretending that this isn't affecting tons of families out there.

    They KNOW the great deal of importance behind these cases. Why then are they waiting and delaying all they can? My bet is on the dissent. Hear me out… If you were Judge Scalia, and were 100% against marriage equality, wouldn't YOU use every delay tactic and trick in the book to keep the LGBT from marrying? If you could not convince your peers (the other judges) to keep delaying week after week, wouldn't YOU agree to write a dissent but take your sweet ass time doing it?

    We need to remain focused on the things we CAN change. At the moment, there isn't too much that we can do while SCOTUS reviews these cases. But what we CAN DO is keep changing the attitudes of the average American out there. Every day, more and more people are realizing that Marriage Equality is a beautiful thing that strengthens families and harms nobody.

    Remember, your opponents are the ones pouring millions of dollars against you. They lie, conduct false "scientific research", and will do everything that they can to prevent the truth from reaching your friends, neighbors, coworkers, and the nation as a whole. Your opponents are not the ones wearing black robes (again… a few bad judges – but not ALL of them) Your opponents are NOM, FRC, NARTH, etc…

    To my fellow brothers and sisters of the LGBT community out there, Be Strong, Remain Focused, and Let's Celebrate like there is no tomorrow when our time comes. To our Straight Allies out there, thank you for all that you do.

    Those are my 2 cents.

    – Anthony from SoCal

  • 205. knrivers  |  December 4, 2012 at 12:44 am


  • 206. Jon  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:33 am

    In the Prop 8 case, the delay may be good news. If there aren't four votes to review it, or if there are four votes, Scalia may well spend this week spewing an invective dissent to a denial of cert…. much like O'Scannlain did in his dissent of en banc review.

    In the DoMA cases, they may need more time to decide which case to take, or there might be a dissent in the works. DoMA is going to be reviewed anyway, so it doesn't matter whether that one is announced today or next week.

    Another dynamic that could be at play here is that there are four votes for reviewing the cases, but not five votes to overturn them. In that case, the conservative wing may be feeling out Kennedy on whether taking the cases will lead to a "disaster", and they want more time to consider. It's not hard to imagine they need more that four hours to talk all of that out.

    In any case, try to remember that the delays could be good omens.

  • 207. Jamie  |  December 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    I think Brian Brown from the National Organization for Marriage might be right after all. He said the Supreme Court will take the "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices" approach. This might be true. The administration chose not to appeal these DOMA cases. The people re-elected Obama. So what if there is a circuit split? The administration doesn't seem to mind, so the Supreme Court may just wash their hands and get onto more important things, like patenting DNA.

  • 208. Jon  |  December 3, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Another (happy) possibility here is that both Kennedy and Roberts are in play for us here. Roberts may be playing for consensus, or on the fence. If Roberts is the deciding vote for cert, he may want more discussion before he casts his vote.

  • 209. F Young  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:36 am

    If the court were to deny certiorari on Proposition 8 next Monday, is that definitely the end of the road, or is it possible for a party to ask the court to reconsider?

    If so, but the court ultimately refused that request, what would the minimum delay before marriages could start?

  • 210. Anthony  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:57 am

    End of the road.

  • 211. MightyAcorn  |  December 4, 2012 at 9:46 am

    The delay before marriages will start is the big question. No one knows; both Therese Stewart (SF) and Dean Logan (L.A. County) have requested that the Ninth Circuit give them some notice before issuing the mandate–that is, lifting their stay so marriages can start again– but as far as I know the Ninth hasn't responded. I think the smart money is that weddings can start pretty quickly, within a few or maybe ten days.

    Can't wait. Well, I have to wait, but….you know what I mean. 🙂

  • 212. C. Scholar  |  December 3, 2012 at 11:58 am

    What in the name of Holy Heaven & Hell is taking them so frucking long?

    It's not hard:

    1. Either you hate the Constitution, freedom, fairness and equal application of the law (and are therefor a traitor to this country)


    2. You uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, along with the equal application of its laws.

    It's THAT simple. Not rocket science at all.

  • 213. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 3, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    No, it's not rocket science at all.

    However, even some things that are not rocket science take time.

    I have a genetic eye disease (as do about 20% of the direct descendants of my paternal grandparent's family, who now number at least 200) that will eventually cause me to go blind if I don't eventually get corneal transplants. It is variously estimated that from .5% (1.5 million) to 5% (15 million) Americans have the disease. As an example, two of my cousins married persons who have the disease (undiagnosed at the time of the marriages), and the disease was first diagnosed in those couple's children, then the parents. Diagnosis today is examination of the cornea with lights, looking at the backside of the cornea – not difficult for an ophthalmologist to do, but they have to be trained on how to do it.

    More than a dozen years ago, doctors and researchers at the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins Hospital began a detailed search for the gene that causes the eye disease I have. To date, they still haven't found that gene, and in fact now think it might be a combination of several genes.

    Finding a single gene common to all who suffer this genetic disease – not rocket science. And yet, after searching for more than a dozen years, that gene (or genes) still hasn't been found. And JHH has been joined by MANY other major research institutes (at least eight, literally from coast to coast and multiple places in between) in trying to find that gene or genes, including at least one research institute in London and one in The Netherlands. And the search for the cause has now received monetary funding from the National Eye Institute (NEI), part of the National Institutes of Health.

    And still, the search for a single gene or multiple genes is not rocket science at all, even if it has taken more than a dozen years and the search still goes on, even with funding now from the NEI.

  • 214. Theo McKinney  |  December 3, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    There is – and always has been one – HUGE PROBLEM with litigating Antigay Marriage bans:ARTICLE III STANDING!

    Once Flop 8 got to the federal level of litigation, the proponents had to demand special rights to defend a "law" that will have zero civic effect on any of them, win or lose.

    There is every reason to believe -as Judge Walker once warned- that the proponents' generous granting of Standing my not be replicated at the supreme level.

    You either have "standing" in federal case, or you don 't.

    The antigays…DON'T.

    So what's a careful glacial conservative court to do but kill Flop 8 on the standing issue, restoring marriage equality to CA ONLY; perhaps no DOMA cases will ever get heard until a faction with true standing (ie. a qualified "law"-maker)shows up, which is impossible.

    We must remember that BLAG was also a gift to the proponents, otherwise, no one would have standing to have appealed any of the DOMA failures to date.

  • 215. Jamie  |  December 3, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Agree 100%

  • 216. Kevin  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Exactly. I still think that the Court might take Hollingsworth and reverse on standing alone. It's the most politically expedient means of disposing with Prop 8, and it would be fully in line with existing jurisprudence.

  • 217. Theo McKinney  |  December 4, 2012 at 11:03 am


  • 218. Reformed  |  December 3, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    If I were from the other side, I would post a nasty comment about the supreme court here and forward a link to a few justices. That is to say, I would persoanlly like to see some some moderation here. There are plenty who would love to screenshot and circulate as it is. I think too much time has been put into this blog and it has been too much of a refuge for civil discussion over time to let it fail on PR when people are about raw from frustration at the courts pace. It is what it is. If it were not, there might be some downside to that in other matters.

  • 219. Elizabeth  |  December 3, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    I'm just glad we aren't paying these people…wait, what? And we pay them how much?

  • 220. Jeremy  |  December 3, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    If the SCOTUS denies cert. on the Prop 8 case and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issues the mandate can the Proponents come back and ask for the 9th Circuit to issue it’s mandate so it only applies to the Plaintiffs? Given that the Proponents claim this should be the case because this wasn’t a class action.

  • 221. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    I don't think that's remotely possible. Doing that would only clog the courts with the exact same cases.

  • 222. Jeremy  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    What makes you so sure they couldn't do this? John Eastman a lawyer that works with NOM has even said the Prop 8 case would only affect the Plantiffs because this wasn't a class action lawsuit. This is what they want is to slow and stall the whole case.

  • 223. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Because it will set a precedent and that's very important in the rule of law.

  • 224. Jeremy  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    You don't get what in saying. I am just saying that they will probably attempt to did this to delay this even further. Never underestimate what the idiots will do.

  • 225. Keith  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    If the SCOTUS denies cert., the federal court/appeals court ruling stands. This would make same sex marriage immediately available in California. I guess I'm not understanding your question because there is nothing the anti-gay groups can do at that point.

    They can't petition the California courts afterwards because no court will hear it because it will be considered a case that's been settled. At least that's how I understand it.

    Deep down, I'm hopeful they take the Prop 8 case and then strike it down in broad, sweeping terms that not only makes marriage equality legal in California, but in every state by saying for the 15th time that marriage is a fundamental right for every American, gay and straight, and regardless of what state they live in.

    I really don't expect them to do that though. I think they will just deny cert. for the Prop 8 case so the fight for equality will continue, state by state.

  • 226. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 4, 2012 at 4:40 am

    I thought a decision on class action had to be taken before judgement passed from one court to a superior court (if appealed)? And since an appeal of the 9th Circuit's judgement on Prop H8 is at SCOTUS, that means the 9th Circuit HAS made judgement on the case.

    And when Hitler signed the Munich accords, he promised NOT to invade any countries beyond the 'German-populated' areas of Czechoslovakia. The world would have appreciated him not commenting and not going back on his word, wouldn't it?

  • 227. Kevin  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Actually, this is a pretty interesting question that Judge Reinhardt asked about during oral argument. It seems like plaintiffs are litigating in the gray area between a facial attack and an as applied challenge. But after a cert denial, I don't think that the 9th Cir. will bog itself down in a procedural morass when the purpose of the lawsuit is clear to all.

  • 228. dwpiper  |  December 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    If it is unconstitutional to deny two specific same sex couples, the Plaintiffs, a marriage license then it would be equally unconstitutional to deny other same sex couples a marriage license.

  • 229. knrivers  |  December 4, 2012 at 12:35 am

    While I recognize the risk, I can't help but hope that the court will decide to hear these cases and thereby empower my wife and I to be legally married (even when either of us sets foot in another state). I've been feeling like this is just too painful to continue to drag on…

  • 230. bayareajohn  |  December 4, 2012 at 1:29 am

    Keep in mind that if they eventually decide against us, you'll be saying they should have considered longer.

  • 231. chris  |  December 4, 2012 at 8:03 am

    I think the four justices who hate us are aware that we will win either way, and are just trying to delay it as long as possible.

  • 232. bayareajohn  |  December 4, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I disagree with those who say the judges are delaying deliberately to postpone what they know is inevitable. To delay at all is to move further into a pro-marriage trend. If you want to kill this thing, you need to strike sooner. The judges know there is no use in adding days or weeks or even months to the status quo if the end is clear. What they DO want is an orderly, defensible, and enforceable decision. So do we all. Brown v Board of Education, Roe v. Wade weren't snap decisions. This will be as historic. The judges know they will be judged for generations. They prefer to nail it.

  • 233. Theo McKinney  |  December 4, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Watch the SCOTUS put a hold on all DOMA appeals and rule that the House and Senate – who came up with this illegal and odiously inspired "law" are to be the ones who will have to fix this mess of a "law", since there is no proponent or witness on planet earth who can pass the "Article III Standing" requirement to proceed in a conservative federal courtroom.

    No standing. No appeal. NO SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of marriage.


    And maddening.

    But…watch the whole thing backfire: they prey to "protectmarriage" with their appeals and ensure their own ultimate failure.

    Sooner than later, at their own odious hands.

    As 1 of 2 of 18,000 for whom all this COULD just be seen as grand theater, I will be laughing at DOMA's hideous demise on the very floor it was conjured on…and killed faster that any SCOTUS MIGHT…by months!

    Hilarious, right? (Like one of their failed boycotts that more often incited equality once all gets said and done (CA has our 18,000+ recognized SSMs *right now forever* BECAUSE Flop 8 passed, not in spite of its passage…


  • 234. Stephen  |  December 4, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Will the Nevada ruling against Gay Marriage have a negative impact on the Supreme Court decision about Prop 8??????? Can someone please comment

  • 235. Elaine  |  December 7, 2012 at 9:03 am

    @Stephen…Nevada's recent ruling won't have an effect on SCOTUS's prop 8 ruling.

    The Nevada judge responsible for the recent decision is a member of the Mormon Church, a famously gay-hostile political entity. IMHO, any Mormon judge who has ever tithed (given $) to the Mormon church should recuse himself from any gay-related cases as giving money to that church directly supports anti-gay activism.

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