Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage

[Antonio the Sixth]

Alfred, trying to argue with JCL = fail.

[Holmes]

More decisions today. If there is nothing on the two same-sex marriage cases and Roberts announces that today is the before-last day, it would be really interesting. Having the gay rights decisions come down on the 10th anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas could either be really symbolic if it's a victory, or cruel if it's a loss.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The court has announced that Wednesday will be their last day, with the two marriage cases and Sekhar v. US as the three remaining cases to be decided.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the way, please keep things civil tomorrow.  I do not expect to be online at the time the decision is announced.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

That won't be a problem on my end. What its a mixed outcome and both sides get victories tomorrow?

[Thomas D]

That won't be a problem on my end. What its a mixed outcome and both sides get victories tomorrow?

DOMA gets struck down and Prop 8 gets upheld leaving it to the voters of CA to overturn it in November 2014.

[they don't love you like i love you]

That's basically my prediction above.

[Thomas D]

I'm sticking with my 50 state prediction. But I'd be happy just to see DOMA go down.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I stated in another thread, the probable order of the decisions tomorrow, DOMA, Sekher, and Prop 8, suggests that DOMA will not be a 50-state decision that renders Prop 8 anticlimatic, with the Sekher case included in the mix to give reporters a brief chance to finish their initial DOMA report before having to start reporting on the Prop 8 case.

So I don't expect Kennedy to strike section 3 of DOMA on equal protection grounds, but on some sort of quasi-federalism grounds.  That would leave same-sex marriage to be decided state-by-state, but with the Federal government following the lead of the states.

[Thomas D]

Thursday June 27 it is I guess. Stonewall anniversary. Could be a nice bookend.

So it won't be that. It's the 10th anniversary of the Lawrence case though.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

SCOTUSblog says DOMA's overturned - the usual 4-4 split with Kennedy joining the liberals. Equal protection grounds.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

SCOTUSblog also says that the DOMA dissents make it seem like Prop 8 will be dismissed on standing.

[Blue3]

It is as I thought. Legal again in California, and DOMA struck down.

And when gay marriage does come before the Supreme Court, this new standard/precedent makes it very likely to legalize it nationwide.

[SteveRogers]

It is as I thought. Legal again in California, and DOMA struck down.

And when gay marriage does come before the Supreme Court, this new standard/precedent makes it very likely to legalize it nationwide.

This. The equal protection language in the DOMA ruling is stronger than what a lot of people expected. Should be a very helpful precedent the next time gay marriage winds its way up to the Supreme Court.

[Jgerald]

It is as I thought. Legal again in California, and DOMA struck down.

And when gay marriage does come before the Supreme Court, this new standard/precedent makes it very likely to legalize it nationwide.

This. The equal protection language in the DOMA ruling is stronger than what a lot of people expected. Should be a very helpful precedent the next time gay marriage winds its way up to the Supreme Court.

No. In fact, this is Kennedy virtually saying, "The States can do what they want here." His language is some of the strongest States' Rights that I have ever read.

There is absolutely no basis for using Windsor to overturn a State ban. In fact, Kennedy for all intents and purposes says that States will be treated differently in this area than the Federal Government.

It does leave an open question as to what happens when someone goes to one State, gets legally married, and then moves to another that doesn't recognize.

Existing law, including some that was quoted by Kennedy in his opinion would suggest that person is out of luck.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It's just as most of us voted, California only/Yes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is exactly the sort of moderate hero opinion I was afraid Kennedy would write.  It wasn't the worst sort of decision Kennedy could have written, as it made clear that it was only finding that marriage was a relationship defined only by the States, and not embracing a broader rule that State definitions in general trump Federal ones which would have caused considerable havoc.  Still, I foresee that wherever a State and Federal definition conflict, we're likely going to have a lawsuit for the foreseeable future.  Still, I can't help but wish the progressive four had written a concurrence based only on equal protection with none of Kennedy's sham federalism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This poll should be locked now.

[ilikeverin]

I'm fascinated by how important standing was in both of these cases.  Here's how (I believe) people voted:

Yes/Yes ("Let's Get This Done") Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor
Yes on W/No on H ("Slow And Steady Wins Teh Gayz") Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
No on W/Yes on H ("") Thomas
No/No ("Maybe If We Punt It Will Just Confuse Everyone Into Silence") Roberts, Scalia

To me, the Yes/No group seems most coherent ideologically: liberals who don't want to things to get too ahead of themselves.  Roberts, notably, skipped out on Scalia's Article II, where Scalia rants about how teh gayz are taking over the world and how wonderfully perfect DOMA's abettors are, and instead attached a note that was basically like "take a chill pill, brah".  And Kennedy, Alito, and Sotomayor?  Weeeird.  It might be heartening to the librulz that Kennedy wanted to get things done now, considering his surprisingly bleeding-heart Windsor opinion.  I mean, this was positively warm-fuzzies inducing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thinking of the children of same-sex married people!  Sniff!

[Thomas D]

Well. I got 75% of what I wanted. I'm happy.