#EqualityDay: Today is Anniversary of Obergefell, Hollingsworth and Windsor

Today is June 26, which some people are calling #EqualityDay, since it is the anniversary of numerous landmark Supreme Court decisions that have expanded equal rights for LGBT citizens. The most recent are 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which resulted in the dissolution of all the remaining state-based prohibitions on marriage equality, and 2013's U.S. v. Windsor which struck down the section of the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act that had barred the U.S. government from recognizing legally married same-sex couples and 2013's Hollingsworth v. Perry which invalidated California's Proposition 8, restoring marriage equality to the nation's largest state. Amazingly, June 26, 2003 was the day that Lawrence v. Texas was announced which struck down the last remaining state laws criminalizing consensual homosexual relations between adults. June 26 is a important day in the history of LGBT equality!

The Williams Institute has analyzed the impact of these decisions and these results can be summarized as:

• As of June 2017, nearly 1.1 million LGBT people in the United States are married to someone of the same sex, implying that more than 547,000 same-sex couples are married nationwide. 
• Since Obergefell, at least 157,000 same-sex couples married. 
• Since Windsor, at least 317,000 same-sex couples married.
• 10.2% of LGBT adults are married to someone of the same sex (Source: Gallup)

Gallup also notes that the latest data indicates that 4.3% of U.S. adults identify as LGBT and that even today in 2017, a larger percentage (13.1%) of LGBT people are married to someone of the opposite-sex. More men (11.4%) than women (9.3%) are married to a same-sex spouse.

Happy LGBT #EqualityDay!

California Legislature Passes Bill Enshrining Marriage Equality Into Statute

California Legislature Passes Bill Enshrining the Freedom to Marry in State Statutes

(Sacramento) Senate Bill 1306, authored by Senator Mark Leno and co-sponsored by Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, passed the Assembly on June 30 by a bipartisan vote of 54-16. The bill will bring California statutory law into line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision restoring the freedom to marry in California.

While both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts have affirmed the right for same-sex couples to marry, current state laws in many cases do not reflect that change. SB 1306 would ensure that references to “husband” and “wife” would be replaced with gender-neutral language such as “spouse” to recognize all married couples throughout the California code.

“In historic fashion one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the right of every loving couple to marry in California,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “Today we are sending a bill to the Governor’s desk ensuring that this landmark decision is clearly reflected in our state laws.”

"While we have achieved many milestones in the journey towards full equality for LGBT people – including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples – it's important that we completely erase discrimination from the books," said Rick Zbur, executive director-elect of EQCA. "This important bill does just that, ensuring that California statutes fully reflect and respect the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. We applaud Senator Leno for authoring this important legislation and are proud to be a sponsor of it."

“We are grateful for Senator Leno’s legislation that will ensure the fair and equal treatment of all married couples in California,” said National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. “Although there is no question that same-sex couples can marry in California, the discriminatory language that remains on the statutory books creates confusion about the rights of same-sex couples. This bill makes it clear to everyone that same-sex couples can marry and that all spouses have the exact same rights and responsibilities under the law, regardless of gender.”

The bill now moves to Gov. Brown’s desk.

Legal Bills Of Proposition 8 Federal Case Exceeded $6.4 Million

The Washington Blade reports that according to tax records, the federal lawsuit to eliminate California's Proposition 8 resulted in some $6.4 million going to the high-powered law firms of Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson and Boies were the unlikely due behind the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit in May 2009 that eventually became the successful Hollingsworth v. Perry win at the United States Supreme Court in June 2013.

The lawsuit was sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) which was created by Chad Griffin at the time the suit was filed. According to the same records, AFER has raised nearly $15 million dollars since its inception and March 31, 2013.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights between 2009 and 2013 paid more than $6.4 million to two law firms that successfully argued against California’s Proposition 8.

Tax filings indicate former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson’s law firm – Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP – received $1,691,714 from AFER for “legal and ancillary legal expenses”between April 23, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The organization paid the law firm $958,655between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, and another $2,758,352 between April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP received $537,939 from AFER between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The organization also paid David Boies’ law firm – Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP – $468,089 for “legal and ancillary legal expenses” between April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.

Some  have questioned why such prominent lawyers did not work on this seminal civil rights lawsuit pro bono, which has generally been the custom in other movements. Others point out that the $15 million raised (and presumably spent) by AFER is much less than a ballot measure campaign to overturn Proposition 8 would have cost. And you may remember in 2009 there were very many people (vocally opposed by  a coalition of groups that included yours truly) who wanted to go to the ballot as soon as possible. Also, no LGBT legal minds thought that a federal challenge to Proposition 8 would succeed and were strongly opposed to the Olson-Boies lawsuit at the time.

Another reason why this is useful information is that AFER is now involved in another federal lawsuit, Bostic v. Rainey, in which they are suing to have Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages invalidated. On Valentine's Day, a federal judge struck down that ban and put a stay on her decision pending a resolution on appeal to the 4th Circuit or above. Lambda Legal and the ACLU have successfully petitioned to intervene in that case, which was opposed by AFER.

There is currently a race to see which federal lawsuit will get to the Supreme Court. Even though a dozen U.S. district courts have struck down marriage bans, no U.S. circuit courts have (yet). Oral argument in the Utah case (Kitchen v. Hebert) before the 10th Circuit and in the Nevada case (Sevcik v Sandoval) in the 9th Circuit are scheduled for April. It will be interesting to see if AFER's profile or reputation will be negatively impacted by these revelations despite their winning track record on restoring marriage to California on a timeline faster than the LGBT establishment expected.

POLL ANALYSIS: Support For Marriage Equality Is Accelerating!

Andrew Flores of the Williams Institute has a piece of the Monkey cage blog that analyzes the latest polls on marriage equality and makes a compelling argument that support for marriage equality is increasing at an increasing rate. (For you Calculus fans, we say that the graph of public support for marriage equality is "concave up"). The key point he makes is that since the Supreme Court issued its two marriage equality decisions (United States v. Windsor striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Hollingsworth v. Perry effectively nullifying California's Proposition 8) in June 2013 (a date I like to call Gaytterdämmerung) popular support for marriage equality has ratcheted upwards at an accelerating pace.

The graphs below compare  the polling trends using a linear model or a polynomial model. It turns out that a polynomial model fits the polling data pre-Windsor and post-Windsor better than the linear model does for either time period..

This is a direct refutation of the idea that Kevin Drum posited recently that popular opinion on marriage equality has evolved about as rapidly as it did on interracial marriage. It also challenges an idea that Nate Silver promoted awhile back that the shift was due to opponents dying off and being replaced by a younger cohort which is overwhelmingly in support of marriage equality, leading him to predict an increase in support of roughly .5 percentage points per year in national polls.

Having a good estimate of the rate of increase in support for marriage equality is important, because as Flores says:

This has important implications for where public opinion is headed. If the stable linear trend were the right one, then by 2016 just over 56 percent of the public would be expected to support same-sex marriage. However, the accelerated trend predicts that support for same-sex marriage will be about 5 points higher by 2016. It is appropriate to infer that opinions are trending positively and changing exponentially as time goes on.

Regardless how you slice it, this is "good for the gays"!

(However, as a mathematician I truly wish that he hadn't used the word "exponentially" in that last sentence. There's a huge difference between polynomial growth and exponential growth. I think he meant the former when he said the latter. Regardless, it is still a good piece that I encourage you to read in full!)

POLL: Virginia Voters Oppose 2006 Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A new poll indicates that Virginia's ban on marriage equality, enacted by voters in 2006, would not survive if voters could vote again on the measure in next month's election. 56 percent of Virginia voters say they oppose the state's same-sex marriage ban while 36 percent say they favor it.

Although voters will not be able to vote to impact marriage equality any time soon, there are two pending marriage lawsuits in federal court in Virginia, one that includes the participation of the very high profile duo of Ted Olson and David Boies who successfully sued to have  California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban invalidated in federal court.

AFER Joins Federal Marriage Lawsuit In Virginia

AFER, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is the organization behind the ultimately successful federal lawsuit against Proposition 8 in California in May 2009 which led to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hollingsworth v Perry on June 26, 2013. It should be noted that at the time AFER filed its federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, the traditional LGBT legal organizations issued a joint statement declaring the action to be "wrong."

AFER is announcing today that it is joining another federal lawsuit to win marriage equality, and they are doing it in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There's a current lawsuit already filed in Virginia to win marriage equality there called Bostic v. Rainey and the superlawyer team of David Boies and Ted Olson.

From the press release:

Washington, DC – The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsor of the landmark federal constitutional challenge that eliminated California’s Proposition 8 and restored marriage equality in the nation's most populous state, will announce that it has joined the federal legal challenge to Virginia’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples, Bostic v. Rainey.  The case, filed in U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples, calls the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples from marrying, unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, violates Due Process and singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

The Bostic case once again joins the bipartisan legal team of Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who successfully defeated California’s Proposition 8 in Federal Court, to continue the fight for marriage equality.

Virginia has an interesting resonance on the issue of marriage equality because it is the location of the landmark lawsuit Loving v Virginia which the Supreme Court used to strike down all state laws banning interracial marriage and re-affirmed the principle that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

Virginia is a purple state (Republican controlled on the state level, but has voted twice for Barack Obama for President) and has no statewide protections for LGBT individuals at the state level. If a federal lawsuit against a state marriage amendment can succeed in Virginia then the thirty-five other states which have amendments and bans against same-sex marriage are likely susceptible to lawsuits.

Chris Geidner notes that the Virginia marriage amendment was passed in November 2006 by voters 57 percent to 43 percent and gives the text:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Note that this measure not only bans same-sex marriage but it also bans recognition of domestic partnerships as well. Most of the state bans on marriage (20) include similar language.

California Supreme Court Denies Attempt To Revive Prop. 8

As expected, the California Supreme Court has denied requests from heterosexual supremacists to revive Proposition 8 and halt civil marriages by same-sex couples in the Golden state. In a terse order issued on Wednesday afternoon, the Court ended any last remaining legal challenge to marriage equality in California.

The Los Angeles Times explains why marriage equality is here to stay in California:

A federal judge in San Francisco declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010, and state officials refused to appeal. ProtectMarriage did appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that initiative sponsors have no right to defend their measures in federal court. The decision left in place the ruling by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

In its challenge before the state’s highest court,  ProtectMarriage argued that a single judge lacked the authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment.  The group also contended that Walker’s injunction applied to two counties at most and that state officials had overstepped their authority by ordering county clerks throughout California to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

State officials countered that the challenge was a veiled attempt to persuade a state court to interfere with a federal judge’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Same-sex couples began marrying in California in late June after a federal appeals court lifted a hold on Walker’s injunction. ProtectMarriage went back to the U.S. Supreme Court the following day, arguing the appeals court acted prematurely because the high court’s decision was not even final. The Supreme Court refused to intervene.

Then the group went to the state Supreme Court, asking the justices to halt the marriages immediately while considering the legal arguments. The seven-member court unanimously rejected the request for a “stay” or hold.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued a statement reacting to the news of Proposition 8's demise:

“Once again, equality and freedom triumph in California. The California Supreme Court has denied the Proposition 8 proponents’ latest attempt to deny same-sex couples their constitutional right to marry. I applaud the Court’s decision and my office will continue to defend the civil rights of all Californians.”

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed.

08/08/08: Today is my 5th Wedding Anniversary

On the plane back from Barbados to Miami on May 30, 2013

Five years ago marriage equality was in effect in California and I got married to my Other Half on August 8, 2008. So, today is my 5th wedding anniversary and is the first time since then that other same-sex couples can also get legally married in California, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Hollingsworth. Generally, this is the only day of the year I post pictures of The Other Half. There are previous pictures for our 4th anniversary, our 2nd anniversary, and our 1st anniversary.

According to About.com, the traditional wedding anniversary gift for the 5th anniversary is wood, while the modern 5th anniversary gift is silverware.

Happy 5th anniversary, husband!

San Diego County Clerk Files Suit To Revive Prop 8

The heterosexual supremacists are taking the return of marriage equality to California pretty badly. The Proponents of Proposition 8 have been rebuffed by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so far.

Now it is a county clerk from San Diego County named Ernest Dronenburg (the level of government which actually is responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses in California) filing a petition before the California Supreme Court asking the Court to issue an immediate stay to prevent him (and all county clerks) from continuing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

As I said before, there is some truth to what the heterosexual supremacists say about the state of marriage equality in California right now. The text of Proposition 8 is still contained in the California Constitution. But it is also true that two couples filed a federal lawsuit and won an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 8 in Alameda and Los Angeles Counties by the Attorney General and the Governor. This federal injunction is now in force.

Attorney General Kamala Harris (love her!) issued a statement in response to the San Diego County Clerk's lawsuit:

"The filing offers no new arguments that could deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights. The federal injunction is still in effect, and it requires all 58 counties to perform same-sex marriages. No exceptions."

At some point the California Supreme Court is going to have to make a definitive decision on the merits on what legal effect Proposition 8 has now that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no one who supports Proposition8 has standing to appeal its loss in federal court, or the people of California need to vote to remove the discriminatory language from the sate's founding document in an election. There happens to be two statewide general election next year, in June 2014 and November 2014. I say, go for it!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Cal. Sup. Ct. Denies Order To Revive Prop 8, But...

Whoa, nelly! On Monday, the California Supreme Court denied another desperate attempt by the heterosexual supremacists at ProtectMarriage.com (a.k.a. the proponents of Proposition 8 who lost at the United States Supreme Court three weeks ago) to stop county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That was expected.

However, what was somewhat unexpected was that the state Supreme Court also agreed to hear the merits of the case Hollingsworth v. O'Connell filed by marriage equality opponents last Friday that Proposition 8 is still the law of the land for the 56 counties in California that they claim were not covered by Judge Vaughn Walker's injunction against it.

They are expediting their consideration of the case with opposing briefs (from the good guys, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Jerry Brown) due on Monday July 22 and then reply briefs from the homophobes on Thursday August 1.

SCOTUSblog summarizes the state of play:

Some uncertainty hangs over gay and lesbian marriage rights in the nation’s largest state nearly three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court had appeared to clear the way for those couples to wed, with its decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry.  A series of legal maneuvers by the “Proposition 8″ supporters has put the issue back before the state’s highest court, which has given signs that it intends to act speedily.

At this point, the seven-judge tribunal that sits in San Francisco has sharply conflicting arguments before it: a claim by state officials that marriage equality is now fully established throughout California’s fifty-eight counties and that the state court will only get into conflict with the federal courts and put county clerks at legal risk if it acts now to stop such marriages, and a rival claim by “Proposition 8″ backers that the right to marry is in effect in, at most, two counties, and that the state court has the authority and a legal duty to order the continued enforcement of that ban in the other fifty-six counties.

There is also a direct conflict over what the two sides say the state court should do at this point: state officials have said it should refuse to get involved at all, and should deny immediately all of the claims of the ban’s supporters, while the “Proposition 8″ legal team has said that the court should act now to put everything on hold until it can rule finally on the legal status of the ban under California law.

State officials are relying on their interpretation of a ruling in August 2010 by a federal district judge in San Francisco, striking down “Proposition 8″ under the federal Constitution.  There is nothing left that the California Supreme Court can do, they assert.  The ballot measure’s defenders are relying on a provision in the state constitution that says that state officials must continue to enforce state law until a definitive court ruling invalidates it.  That, they said, has not yet been done completely under the terms of the state constitution.

So, basically the CASC denied the emergency motion but is still considering the separate question of whether (or which counties) Proposition 8 is in effect.

Stay tuned!

#FAIL: CA Heterosexual Supremacists Claim Prop 8 Is Not Dead

Wow! How invested in your own bizarro view of the world warped by rampant homophobia that you refuse to acknowledge reality? I guess the heterosexual supremacists over at ProtectMarriage.com are going to let us know. Two weeks ago their last-ditch attempt to (again) stop same-sex couples from getting married in California was summarily aborted by the United States Supreme Court, so they have decided to return to the California Supreme Court, a place they have won twice before, to try to claim that Proposition 8 is not dead.

They have filed a claim called Hollingsworth v. O'Connell before the California Supreme Court making the (frankly ludicrous) argument that the federal injunction currently in effect against Proposition 8 only applies to the two counties in which the original plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit are from, namely Los Angeles County and San Francisco.

Moments ago, we filed a new petition in the California Supreme Court against all of California’s 58 county clerks, and state officials, seeking to restore the enforcement of Proposition 8, the state’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  The undeniable fact is, the man-woman definition of marriage, as passed by a majority the voters, is still a valid part of our state constitution. 

Yet county clerks statewide are lawlessly defying that law by issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses. We are asking California’s Supreme Court to restore the rule of law and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the initiative process. 

The action we filed today contends that at least 56 of the 58 county clerks must continue to follow Proposition 8 because they were not parties to the recent federal lawsuit against Prop 8, and that the state’s governor and attorney general have no legal authority to order local county clerks to disregard the state constitution.

Amusingly, AFER, the organization behind the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit, has not even bothered to dignify ProtectMarriage.com's claim with a response.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera was not so kind, and gently explained the basics of the law and reality to the fuzzy thinking homophobes:

This motion is a desperate obstruction tactic used in the vain hope of pursuing an unconstitutional agenda. The opponents of the freedom to marry have chosen to ignore the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and the well-settled California marriage case of Lockyer v. San Francisco, which they themselves celebrated at the time. Their motion has essentially no chance to succeed. The most basic concepts of American law tell us that a state court cannot and will not overrule the federal judiciary. The citizens of California are left wondering when these people will realize that, having lost the moral struggle years and years ago, they have now lost the legal struggle as well. Marriage equality is now the law in the State of California, and will remain so from this point onward. Together we will soon see the day when it is the law all across America.

I've emphasized the key sentence in the middle of the quote. The homophobes won before the California Supreme Court in 2009 in Strauss v. Horton when the state's highest court ruled that Proposition 8 did not violate the state constitution. But in Perry v. Brown, the homophobes lost in federal court and the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry that they have no right to appeal that ruling. Ergo, Proposition 8 is dead.

Actually, what is even more ironic is that the case of Lockyer v. San Francisco which the homophobes won is now coming back to bite them on the butt. Then the state Supreme Court ruled that state officials and not local county officials have the sole right to determine who can or can not get married in response to Mayor Gavin Newsom's wilful defiance of state law way back in 2004. This resulted in the annulment of thousands of same-sex couples' marriages who had been married at the time between February 12 and March 11 in San Francisco. But that same principle is now what prevents ProtectMarriage.com from claiming that 56 of 58 counties can enforce Proposition 8 while 2 of them do not. (Actually the make the even more nonsensical argument that all 58 counties have to enforce Proposition 8 because it is still present in the California Constitution, but I digress.) The responsible state officials Attorney General Kamala Harris and  Governor Jerry Brown have recognized that a federal court is stopping them from enforcing Proposition 8 and thus same-sex couples can get married.

That being said, to end the debate completely again, the Legislature should pass a state constitutional amendment removing Proposition 8 from the state Constitution and re-affirming marriage equality so that the people can have their voice heard again on this question in November 2014.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Gaytterdämmerung: A Perfect Graphic Depiction

The above political cartoon perfectly depicts the results in the Windsor and Hollingsworth cases that resulted in two huge wins for marriage equality.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

LOOK: Gaytterdämmerung In Cartoon Form

This is a fun cartoon depiction of the recent advances in LGBT equality thanks to the recent Supreme Court rulings in the Gaytterdämmerung cases of United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Check out the rest of the Sunday Funnies at I Should Be Laughing.

Last-Ditch Motion To Stop CA Marriage Equality Denied By SCOTUS

A desperate (and frankly frivolous) motion to (again) stop same-sex couples from marrying in California and resuscitate Proposition 8 that was filed by the heterosexual supremacists at ProtectMarriage.com on Saturday was denied without comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy a little after noon on Sunday. Kennedy, who wrote the 5-4 majority in the pro-gay marriage decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act United States v. Windsor was actually in the minority of Justices in the 5-4 Hollingsworth v. Perry  majority deciding the fate of Proposition 8. Perry effectively ended California's state constitutional same-sex marriage ban from 2008 by denying the Proposition 8 proponents legal standing to continue their appeal of Vaughn Walker's 2010 ruling declaring the measure violated  the federal constitution.

SCOTUS blog reports the delightful news of the final nail being hammered in Proposition 8's coffin:

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court had ruled that the measure’s backers did not have a legal right to defend the measure in either the Supreme Court or, earlier, in the Ninth Circuit Court. While the Supreme Court considered that case, the 2010 decision by a federal judge in San Francisco striking down “Proposition 8″ had been on hold. It was that hold (or “stay”) that the three-judge Circuit Court panel lifted on Friday. Very soon after that, gay and lesbian couples started getting married in ceremonies across the state. Thousands of such couples have now obtained marriage licenses from officials in the state.

Since Justice Kennedy offered no explanation for denying an application claiming that the Ninth Circuit panel had no authority to lift its stay, there is no way to know what legal rationale he had used. It could have been that the sponsors of the measure lacked a legal right to pursue their challenge further, that even if they had such a right it was without legal merit, that the lower court did have the authority to decide for itself when to lift the stay, or perhaps that events had just moved too rapidly in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that it would be inappropriate to try to roll them back.

Although attorneys for the ballot measure’s sponsors have been creative in finding new ways to try to press the challenge, the brief action by Kennedy on Sunday may have removed the final barrier to the full achievement of marriage rights for gays and lesbians in the nation’s most populous state. California is the thirteenth state where same-sex marriages can occur now, or soon, when new laws in a few of the states take effect this summer. The District of Columbia also allows such marriages.

The Hollingsworth v. Perry case (which began as Perry v. Schwarznegger)  is finally over. Proposition 8 is dead. The bittersweet feeling from election night on 2008 (Obama wins! Marriage Equality loses!) is now dissipated. The kultukampf is finished in California and the forces of "equal justice under law" have won this battle.

 But the culture war goes on in the country because there are 37 states which do not have marriage equality, and the vast majority of those states (exactly thirty, according to Wikipedia)  have explicit state constitutional bans on recognizing or enacting same-sex civil marriages. New Mexico and New Jersey are the only two states, I believe, that have neither laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. I guess there must be five states which only have statutes banning same-sex marriages (according to Freedom to Marry, these five are Illlinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Wyoming).

In fact, New Jersey currently has a civil unions law, and Lambda Legal announced it is refiling a case there, opening up the famous Lewis v Harris New Jersey State Supreme course case which ruled that the legislature had to offer all the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as it does to different-sex couples. With the addition of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, no state that purports to claim that a civil union meet the Lewis v. Harris (and 1999's Baker v. Vermont) standard has a legal leg to stand on.

In New Mexico, which also does not have any law banning same-sex marriages, the question of whether county clerks have the right to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is being asked directly of the state Supreme Court. The Court has not decided whether it will take the case, and the state Legislature has repeatedly refused to pass legislation enacting marriage equality of even domestic partnerships.

And of course, in 29 states you can be fired (without a state-based legal recourse) if your employer merely thinks that you might be gay, lesbian or bisexual. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal as a measure of federal law for that to be the case.

WATCH: AFER's Highlight Reel on Prop. 8 Case

This is a fun video depicting the momentous events from June 26, 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued not one but two rulings in favor of marriage equality!

A key thing to note in the video is that it appears as if somehow President Obama (or the White House) has HRC head Chad Griffin's cellphone number?)

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Gaytterdämmerung: Prop 8 is Dead! Marriage Equality Returns To California

With a short 1 sentence order published at 3:21pm PDT, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay of their 2012 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, eschewing the typical 25-day wait for the United States Supreme Court ruling to be officially communicated to them, putting the district court ruling of Perry v Brown back into effect, returning marriage equality to California and its nearly 40 million residents.

The order was simple but its effect was not: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."

American Foundation for Equal Rights sent out the information 12 minutes later by tweet:

BREAKING: The stay has been lifted. Gay&lesbian couples can now get married in California.  

Details> http://t.co/mV8ERz1s5H #Time4Marriage
— AmericanEqualRights (@AFER) June 28, 2013

The above picture is of the Northern California plaintiffs, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, getting their marriage license in San Francisco City Hall. with Bruce Cohen, Dustin Lance Black, Chad Griffin in the background behind them.

Woo hoo!!

Gaytterdämmerung: DOMA, Prop 8 Both Struck Down 5-4

Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 26, 2013

Double Victory! The Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy joined by the 4 liberal justices.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has decided in Hollingsworth v. Perry that because the proponents lack standing to appear in federal court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to hear the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger from Vaughn Walker's powerful district court ruling which found Proposition 8 unconstitutional on August 4, 2010. The effect is that marriages between same-sex couples will resume again in California once the stays on that decision is resolved by the federal courts. That should happen in a few days or weeks. The Perry decision was another 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the  curious combination of Scalia, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg. Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.

Happy Pride!

Gaytterdämmerung: Prop 8 and DOMA Decisions Tomorrow 10am EDT

NEWS ALERT: Supreme Court Will Issue ALL Remaining Rulings Tomorrow at 10 a.m. ET, according to @SCOTUSblog
— The Advocate (@TheAdvocateMag) June 25, 2013

Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Lawrence vs Texas which struck down the nation's remaining sodomy laws, ending the "gay exception" to the Constitution by restoring privacy rights to LGB citizens. It will also be known as the day the fates of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 were determined.

The Supreme Court has announced it will release its decisions in United States vs Windsor (DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8) cases tomorrow. My prediction is that the good guys will win both of them, with DOMA going down 6-3 and Proposition 8 being effectively struck down by either being remanded back to the 9th U.S. Circuit or declared to be improvidently granted by a large majority (possibly even 7-2).

No LGBT SCOTUS Rulings Today, Tuesday Possible

Supreme Court announces that the next decision day is tomorrow, Tuesday, at 10 a.m.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) June 24, 2013

Gaytterdämmerung delayed! The Supreme Court usually issues its decisions on Mondays and Thursdays so there was wide expectation at least one of the four major cases remaining (Fisher, Shelby County, Hollingsworth or Windsor) would be released today.

The only case that was released was Fisher, in which the court ruled 7-1 that it was vacating a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the University of Texas' affirmative action program. It remanded the case back to reconsider its analysis of strict scrutiny involving racial classifications in view of the Court's previous decisions in Grutter and Bakke. Basically, the Court decided to give itself more time to issue a final ruling on the question of whether race can play a role in university admissions (and whether "diversity" in a student body can be a compelling state interest). So the first of the four "blockbuster cases" ended up being a dud! Since a decision that could have made affirmative action illegal anywhere in the United States was a distinct possibility from the conservative majority, today's ruling must be considered a "surprising win" for progressives and good people who support civil rights and equality.

More importantly, the Court announced that it will issue decisions tomorrow (there are 6 decisions left), which means that the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case will have to wait a bit longer to discover when they can get legally married in California.

I still expect that the marriage cases will not be announced until Thursday June 27th. Stay tuned!

Saturday Politics: The Marriage Equality Map After Next Week

This is a screenshot from a useful interactive map created by the New Yorker which demonstrates the possible scenarios of the likely outcomes in the two Gaytterdämmerung cases before the United States Supreme Court expected to be announced by Thursday June 27.

As I have indicated in the graphic, the most likely outcome is that DOMA is struck down in U.S. v. Windsor and Proposition 8 is struck down due to a lack of standing by proponents in Hollingsworth v. Perry. This would result in same-sex couples having access to full state and federal marriage equality in 13 states and the District of Columbia by the end of the summer (Delaware's marriage law goes into effect on July 1; Rhode Island and Minnesota on August 1).

The great thing is by this time next week we will know with great certainty what the marriage map will look like in the near future.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God