Gay marriage Ban Struck Down in Utah.

[bedstuy]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

Don't you think some case is going to reach the Supreme Court before 2017 though?  I think the only real hope is either that Kennedy has a come to Jesus moment and decides to draw some arbitrary line in the sand or that one of the 4 Democratic appointed justices or Kennedy leaves the court suddenty and Republicans can delay a new appointment by an unprecedented amount of time.

Or maybe the Republican congress could take away the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower courts over same-sex marriage cases.  That's impossible too though because it would require a veto override or a Republican President. 

[SteveRogers]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

Don't you think some case is going to reach the Supreme Court before 2017 though?  I think the only real hope is either that Kennedy has a come to Jesus moment and decides to draw some arbitrary line in the sand or that one of the 4 Democratic appointed justices or Kennedy leaves the court suddenty and Republicans can delay a new appointment by an unprecedented amount of time.

Or maybe the Republican congress could take away the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower courts over same-sex marriage cases.  That's impossible too though because it would require a veto override or a Republican President. 

The time between the District court ruling and the Supreme Court decision in the prop 8 case was about 2 years and 11 months. So if this case were to follow a similar timeline we'd be talking about a decision in late 2016 or early 2017. We won't get a Supreme Court ruling before then.

[bedstuy]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

Don't you think some case is going to reach the Supreme Court before 2017 though?  I think the only real hope is either that Kennedy has a come to Jesus moment and decides to draw some arbitrary line in the sand or that one of the 4 Democratic appointed justices or Kennedy leaves the court suddenty and Republicans can delay a new appointment by an unprecedented amount of time.

Or maybe the Republican congress could take away the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower courts over same-sex marriage cases.  That's impossible too though because it would require a veto override or a Republican President. 

The time between the District court ruling and the Supreme Court decision in the prop 8 case was about 2 years and 11 months. So if this case were to follow a similar timeline we'd be talking about a decision in late 2016 or early 2017. We won't get a Supreme Court ruling before then.

If this takes takes the same timeline, it would be decided in 2016, so what I'm saying still holds.  But, this case will likely go up more quickly because Hollingsworth had that hiccup about standing at the Circuit Court level.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

Don't you think some case is going to reach the Supreme Court before 2017 though?  I think the only real hope is either that Kennedy has a come to Jesus moment and decides to draw some arbitrary line in the sand or that one of the 4 Democratic appointed justices or Kennedy leaves the court suddenly and Republicans can delay a new appointment by an unprecedented amount of time.

Or maybe the Republican congress could take away the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower courts over same-sex marriage cases.  That's impossible too though because it would require a veto override or a Republican President. 

You neglected the first part of my scenario.  As to your question, I had been expecting that arguments would be held in November 2016 with the decision handed out sometime in 2017.  It'll need to get finished with all district and circuit court appeals no later than the end of 2015 to be heard sooner.  It's clear the court wishes to move with all deliberate speed on this issue or it would have used the Prop 8 case to settle it.  It would not be too difficult for the Court to assert that if the case doesn't reach it until early 2016 that there simply is not enough time for it to properly consider the case in the then current term and hold off until the 2016-7 term and schedule the arguments to be held after the election.

But now, unless a justice departs leaving the court with a 4-4 tie, I expect it to hear an SSM case in the 2015-6 term.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

Don't you think some case is going to reach the Supreme Court before 2017 though?  I think the only real hope is either that Kennedy has a come to Jesus moment and decides to draw some arbitrary line in the sand or that one of the 4 Democratic appointed justices or Kennedy leaves the court suddenty and Republicans can delay a new appointment by an unprecedented amount of time.

Or maybe the Republican congress could take away the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower courts over same-sex marriage cases.  That's impossible too though because it would require a veto override or a Republican President. 

The time between the District court ruling and the Supreme Court decision in the prop 8 case was about 2 years and 11 months. So if this case were to follow a similar timeline we'd be talking about a decision in late 2016 or early 2017. We won't get a Supreme Court ruling before then.

Well, this case will be clearly different, since I imagine the Utah Governor and Attorney General will appeal, unlike in California. Jerry Brown forced Prop. 8 to be renamed  "Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California" and yet he ended up listed as a defendant. Hiliarious.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

"It always seems impossible until it's done." --Nelson Mandela

[H. Ross Peron]

Sometimes history does indeed churn up unexpected events.

[Tender Branson]

Excellent news.

[Joe Republic]

I foresee this ruling doing miracles in helping the Utah State Democrats recover from the depths of their tiny minority... and also helping them hold UT-04.

Because the Democrats even had a shot at holding that seat to begin with...

Get some perspective, dude.  This is never going to help or hinder a state party that is dead in the water anyway.  Don't be such a buzzkill.

[Cassius]

"It always seems impossible until it's done." --Nelson Mandela

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

[Likely Voter]

This isn't that surprising. Anton Scalia himself predicted it in his dissent of Windsor. Since that decision there have been dozens of suits against the states with anti-SSM constitutional amendments. And even though this one is the first post-Windsor Federal case with a decision, it may not be the one that ends up at SCOTUS. There is an OK SSM case that has gone up and back down from the 10th Circuit (same as UT) that has been pending for 9 years.

Boise and Olsen (who successfully argued Windsor) recently joined a case in VA. That would be in the 4th Circuit which has more Dem appointees on it. The 4th circuit recently struck down VA's sodomy law (which Ken Cuccinelli got heat for defending). VA and the 4th Circuit are also where the Loving case (ending the ban on inter-racial marriage) came from. Boise and Olsen must have joined the VA case because they feel it has the best chance of going all the way. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

To be fully honest, I'm a bit worried that it's too soon for such a ruling. This might well turn into a Roe vs. Wade, abruptly blocking the natural evolution of public opinion and enraging the religious right. So far, there isn't even a clear majority in America that supports SSM... If let things happen normally, chances are that by 2020 that majority will be overwhelming. But if gay marriage is forced down the conservatives' throat by the SCOTUS now, chances are we'll get the same never-ending debates on this, with possibly very bad repercussions on assorted issues such as anti-discrimination laws or adoption.

Sorry for the concern trolling.

[Flake]

What in the mother of God?

I'm so proud of you Utah.

[Thomas D]

A question for those comparing this to Roe.

What Percentage of Americans would have to back gay marriage for you to say:     

"Okay, the Country is ready for this now."  ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

A question for those comparing this to Roe.

What Percentage of Americans would have to back gay marriage for you to say:     

"Okay, the Country is ready for this now."  ?

I'd say 60% and 37-40 States should be good.

The cause for marriage equality seems to have a pretty bright future through State initiatives, and the SC decision could be limited to making the last few opponents abide once everyone else already has.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A question for those comparing this to Roe.

What Percentage of Americans would have to back gay marriage for you to say:     

"Okay, the Country is ready for this now."  ?

It's not so much the percentages as wanting to have some more states do this by non-judicial means.  A good deal of the backlash against Roe was due to the fact that it was perceived as a usurpation of legislative authority by the court.  That was used effectively by abortion opponents to the point that by 1985 there was just barely a majority in support of legal abortion in the first trimester, and Roe not only legalized first trimester abortions, but also second trimester ones as well.

However, if one wants to compare Roe to SSM, a comparable timing for Roe would have an SSM decision handed down at a time when only four states had gay marriage, another thirteen had civil unions, and three more states giving LGBT couples some partial recognition.  So we're definitely farther along than was the case with Roe.  Still, if it is at all possible, I'd like for SCOTUS to hold off with a final ruling until after the 2016 elections so as to give SSM more time to establish its little-d democratic credibility.

[SteveRogers]

A question for those comparing this to Roe.

What Percentage of Americans would have to back gay marriage for you to say:     

"Okay, the Country is ready for this now."  ?

I'd say 60% and 37-40 States should be good.

The cause for marriage equality seems to have a pretty bright future through State initiatives, and the SC decision could be limited to making the last few opponents abide once everyone else already has.

The country didn't have that level of support for Brown in 1954. There was backlash. It was bad. People got over it. We all recognize it as being the right decision today.

State initiatives have been moving along at a surprising pace, but sadly we're still talking about leaving gays in the South high and dry until sometime in the 2030s if change is limited to the state by state approach.

I'd like to think the big difference between this and Roe is that once a state has had gay marriage for a little while and people see that letting gay couples get marry does not in fact lead to the "destruction of marriage" or the unraveling of society as we know it, all of the right's arguments against gay marriage start to ring hollow. This is the first deep red state (atlas blue, I know). Let's see how that plays out.

[7,052,770]

Right, this is a discrimination issue along the lines of Brown, after a couple decades of it being legal in all 50 states, opposing gay marriage will be a fringe issue.

Abortion is still a major controversy because its opponents believe it's a form of murder, and that's not something that will go away easily.  It's not really comparable to gay marriage.

[politicallefty]

Is the 10th circuit particularly conservative?

I don't know the leanings of each particular judge, but the Tenth Circuit is split evenly 5-5 (with two vacancies) between Democratic and Republican appointees. At worst, it's hard to see that court overturn the lower court, as I believe a split ruling lets the lower court ruling stand. This may very well be the ultimate gay marriage case before the Supreme Court that makes a final ruling on the issue.

[bedstuy]

Is the 10th circuit particularly conservative?

I don't know the leanings of each particular judge, but the Tenth Circuit is split evenly 5-5 (with two vacancies) between Democratic and Republican appointees. At worst, it's hard to see that court overturn the lower court, as I believe a split ruling lets the lower court ruling stand. This may very well be the ultimate gay marriage case before the Supreme Court that makes a final ruling on the issue.

Huh?  This case will not be heard by the entire circuit en banc.  It's going to be a 3 judge panel. 

Also, you're forgetting about the senior status judges who are 6-4 Republican nominees. 

[Brittain33]

Won't it get stayed? This means marriage for people getting married now, but then the door slams shut after the weekend...

[Cory]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

[Zioneer]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

[Hifly]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.