Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS Vacancy Caused By Scalia's Death

Today President  Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  D.C. Circuit to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court caused by the death of Antonin Scalia on February 13.

Garland, 63, is currently the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A former prosecutor, he's also viewed as a moderate. And he has cultivated a reputation for openness and collegiality at the D.C. Circuit, a bench that's sometimes called the second most important in the land. 

Garland will visit Capitol Hill on Thursday to begin meeting with legislators, Obama said. 

After the announcement was made, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated his pledge that the Senate would not take any steps toward confirming an Obama nominee. McConnell's fellow Republicans in Congress echoed his comments.

It should be noted that if the Senate does not hold hearings on Obama's choice it will be the first time in the modern era such obstruction has occurred. Despite Senator McConnell's statements, at least 8 Republican Senators have said that they will meet with Judge Garland.

Ding Dong Scalia Is Dead! Obama Will Get 3rd SCOTUS Pick!

Wow! There are multiple reports (first broken by the San Antonio Times) that 79-year-old Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving member of the United States Supreme Court (appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986) has been found dead at a ranch in Texas.

This means that President Barack Obama will have a 3rd opportunity to appoint a Justice to the Court. Previously he has appointed Sonia Sotomayor (2009) and Elena Kagan (2010)

The Republicans will almost certainly claim there is not enough time to approve a justice who will be breaking the now 4-4 tie between left-leaning and right-leaning remaining on the Court.

Regardless, the Supreme Court will become a major factor in the 2016 presidential race and that has to increase turnout and help the Democratic nominee.

SCOTUS Says Oral Argument Date For April 28 In Marriage Equality Cases

The United States Supreme Court has set the date for oral arguments in the four marriage equality cases from the 6th U.S. Circuit that it earlier agreed to hear appeals of: Tuesday April 28.

On January 16, the United States Supreme Court announced that this year, they will hear arguments in a case on the question of whether same-sex couples should have the freedom to marry and if anti-marriage laws nationwide should be struck down as unconstitutional. The Court granted review of an out-of-step ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which ruled in November against the freedom to marry in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. In each of these cases, federal judges had ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for all, and the 6th Circuit reversed each decision. 

The arguments are in the cases Obergefell v. Hodges from Ohio, Tanco v. Haslam from Tennessee, DeBoer v. Snyder from Michigan, and Bourke v. Beshear from Kentucky. The states' response briefs are due March 17, and final reply briefs are due April 17.

A final ruling deciding the fundamental question about whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry (or that denying this right to same-sex couples unconstitutionally discriminates against them) will be issued by July 2015.

SCOTUS Denies Kansas Request For Stay On Marriage Equality Ruling

The Supreme Court denied a last-ditch effort by Kansas to prevent marriage equality from coming to the Sunflower State on Wednesday. As you can see from the order, only Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would have granted the stay. There had been some question whether the Suporeme Court would continue allowing same-sex couples to get married in states after the 6th Circuit broke the string of appellate court rulings in favor of marriage equality last week, making it likely that the court will have to issue a ruling with national impact sooner rather than later.

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner

SCOTUS Upholds Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban 6-2, Sotomayor Vociferously Dissents

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a curious 6-2 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a Michigan ballot measure which precludes the use of "race-based preferences" in public education. The majority opinion by Anthony Kennedy went out of its way to say that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action policies but on whether voters had the power to ban affirmative action policies.

New York Times reports:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one. 

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.” 

His announcement of the decision from the bench was businesslike. Then Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent, an unusual move signaling deep displeasure. She said the initiative put minorities to a burden not faced by other college applicants and so violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 

“The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she wrote. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent. Justice Sotomayor seemed to mock one of Chief Justice Roberts’s most memorable lines. In a 2007 decision that limited the use of race in public school systems, he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” 

Justice Sotomayor recast the line. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” she wrote, “is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”

The result is significant for California, because the Golden State is one of 7 where voters have passed ballot measures banning affirmative action based on race (or gender) in public education. California's measure is called Proposition 209 and an attempt to place a repeal on the November 2014 ballot was abandoned earlier this year after Asian constituents expressed their displeasure with the idea of allowing UCLA and UC Berkeley to be allowed to take race into account when deciding who gets admitted to California's top state universities.

This is not surprising, because figures that came out this week show that Asians are a plurality (36.2%) of all admitted students from California to the University of California, with Latinos (28.8%) surpassing Whites (26.8) for the first time this year. Black students made up a paltry 4.2% of the total number of admitted California students.

SCOTUS blog reports on how strongly Justice Sonia Sotomayor attempted to convince her colleagues that what they were doing in allowing the majority to ban policies intended to help minorities was wrong:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who recited orally from the bench a lengthy version of her dissenting opinion, said the ruling would make it much harder for racial minorities to defend affirmative action programs.  What had happened in Michigan, she protested, was “the last chapter of discrimination” — changing “the basic rules of the political process in that state in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.” 

The Sotomayor opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ran to fifty-eight pages – surpassing by more than three times the length of the lead opinion by Justice Kennedy and even exceeding the forty-four pages that all of her colleagues had written.

Viva Sonia!

SCOTUS Grants Utah's Motion To Halt Same-Sex Marriages

The United States Supreme Court has granted Utah's motion for a permanent stay on the federal district court's injunction against Utah's ban on same-sex marriage while appeals in Kitchen v. Herbert continue, thus ending marriage equality in the state.

SCOTUSblog reports:

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents.  The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman.  Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law.

Since the Monday order provided no explanation, it was not clear which of the arguments made by state officials had been convincing to the Justices.  The state had argued, among other things, that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s decision nullifying Utah’s ban had preempted the power of the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on that question.  The state also had contended that its interest in enforcing its ban would have been undercut by a refusal of a stay.  And it had said that it would be difficult to untangle marriages that had occurred in the meantime, if the ban were ultimately upheld in the courts.

[...]

As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision.  The appeals court has ordered briefing to begin on January 27 and to be completed by February 25.  It has indicated it is not likely to grant any extensions of time to file those documents.  It has not yet set a hearing date.

With the Justices’ order in the case, it now appears almost certain that the question of state power to bar same-sex marriages will not be before the Justices during the current Term.  A case on that issue would have to be granted this month to be reviewed before the Court is expected to finish this Term in late June.

As Rick Hasen notes, this decision from the high court is not surprising. The only reason why the lower federal court did not issue a stay earlier was because Utah's stay requests were so badly botched. The key point to note is that by the end of June 2015 the United States Supreme Court will almost certainly issue a ruling on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.

Same-Sex Couples File Brief Opposing Utah's Motion For Emergency Stay

The attorneys for same-sex couples hoping to permanently strike down Utah's ban on gay marriages have filed their brief opposing Utah's motion for an emergency stay of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejection of their multiple requests to stay the District Court's order that resulted in marriage equality coming to Utah on December 20.

Utah AG Files Emergency Stay Request With SCOTUS; Next Action 1/3/14

As expected the state of Utah, as represented by the brand new Attorney General Sean Reyes, has filed an emergency stay request with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor to halt the issuance of
marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the Beehive state. You can read the 26-page filing here.

Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed reports:

The filing, an application to stay judgment pending appeal, was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who can decide the motion on her own or refer it to the entire court to decide. 

The lawyers for Utah first argue that the Supreme Court would be likely to accept the case, Kitchen v. Herbert, on appeal should it — currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — later be appealed to them. 

Then, the lawyers argue that they are likely to succeed on appeal and that the Dec. 20 ruling for U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby will be overturned.

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees to stay the district court ruling during the appellate process. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court has already issued an incredibly fast schedule for hearing the appeal whereby briefing will be completed by February 25, 2014 barely 2 months after the initial district court ruling in December 20. (In contrast, the 9th U.S. Circuit took nearly 18 months to issue its appeal of the district court's ruling striking down Proposition 8.)

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

10th Circuit Refuses To Stop Utah Marriage Equality!

Well, well! The other shoe has dropped and now (for the 3rd time!) the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Utah's request for a stay of last Friday's order declaring the Beehive's Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage illegal.

This means that same-sex marriages will be allowed to occur while the appeal is considered by the 10th Circuit, which could take 12-18 months. It is likely that Utah will appeal the request for a stay to Justice Sona Sotomayor  who would likely forward the matter to the full Supreme Court.

GetEqual: History is Watching The Supreme Court

This is a pretty compelling video from the direct action group GetEqual, basically warning the individual Justices of the United States Supreme Court that they might not want to get on the wrong side of history with their rulings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases. GetEqual is calling for nothing short of full federal equality under the law for LGBT citizens, something the Court is unwilling to do in the cases, but substantial progress, such as marriage equality in an additional 9 states and heightened scrutiny paid to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation  or gender identity are not unlikely results of decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor.

I'm pretty sure the voice-over is done by my friend Ben Patrick Johnson.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Analyzing This SCOTUS Term To Predict The Next

In today's New York Times reporter Adam Liptak analyzes the just-completed 2011-12 term of the United States Supreme Court and unearths some interesting (and surprising) facts. The Court heard oral arguments in 65 cases and summarily decided 10 other cases without oral argument. That's 75 decisions in which certioari was granted despite getting literally thousands of appeals from all the lower courts in the land.

Chief Justice John Roberts was only 1 percentage point behind Anthony Kennedy, who is widely viewed as the fulcrum around which the nation's highest court pivots around, in the percentage of cases in which they were in the majority (92% to 93%). This number is a widely watched measure as a signifier for the most "powerful" or influential member of the Court.

The court decided 15 cases by 5-to-4 votes, roughly in line with earlier terms. It was also not unusual that two-thirds of those decisions divided along ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy joining either the court’s four more liberal members (Justices Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) or its four more conservative ones (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Clarence Thomas). 

What was striking this year was that Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, swung right and left an equal number of times. Since 2000, there have been only two terms in which Justice Kennedy did not vote with the conservatives at least 60 percent of the time in such ideologically divided cases.

Is Kennedy evolving to the left? I guess I'm pretty happy with a 10-point shift towards liberal results instead of his usual 60-40 split between conservative and liberal positions. Maybe it's because he seems to be getting closer to Elena Kagan, since the two voted similarly 83% of the time this term. There are only two pairs of justices who voted similarly more than 90% of the time  (you guessed it!) Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas with the other (somewhat surprising) pair being George W. Bush appointees Roberts and  Samuel Alito. I guess "Scalito" is not living up to his reputation to become "a little Scalia" on the Court.
And that's a good thing. As his absolutely unacceptable fit of pique in the Arizona immigration ruling aptly demonstrated, even one Scalia on the Supreme Court is one too many!

You should really read Liptak's entire piece for yourself. There are some big gay rights cases coming up in the 2012-13 term, most likely involving the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and another determining the constitutionality of California's attempt to withdraw marriage rights from same-sex couples by allowing voters to amend the state constitution after California's Supreme Court had ruled such a right exists (2008's Proposition 8). These cases are known as Gill and Perry, respectively. We'll know on the first Monday of October whether the Court will indeed accept these cases for final review (and issue a ruling by this time next year). There are also some very high-stakes cases coming in the new term dealing with race. The Court has already agreed to hear oral arguments in Fisher v. Texas which it could use to completely strike down race-based affirmative action in higher education. In addition, there are several voting rights cases at the federal appellate circuit level, particularly Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which will almost certainly reach the Court in the 2012-13 term and could be used to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's this provision of federal civil rights legislation which has been instrumental in putting a check on Republican politicians' attempt to suppress the voting rights of Black and Latino voters in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin and others through enactment of "voter identification" laws.

In the meantime it is useful to analyze last year's term to see if any ideological movement can be discerned which can help predict how the Court will rule in Gill and Perry, though as the ruling upholding the health care reform law demonstrated, accurately predicting how the Court will rule in any particular case is almost impossible!

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law!

The United States Supreme Court has apparently upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare or health care reform law! Chief Justice John Roberts voted with Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan to uphold the individual mandate under the taxing power of Congress. Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined Justice Scalia's relatively polite dissent.

Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan: 1/3 of the Highest Court

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan

  
This picture just make my heart sing. I can't wait until the day where the United States Supreme Court actually has a majority of women on it!

Kagan Confirmed To SCOTUS; It's Now 1/3 Female

By a vote of 63 to 37, the United States Senate confirmed President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, 50, to the country's highest court. That body will have three women serving simultaneously, the most ever when Kagan joins Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77, and Sonia Sotomayor, 56, as the 112th Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Obama Nominates Elena Kagan To SCOTUS

Kagan is only 50-years-old and would become the 4th woman ever on the nation's highest court, with 3 serving simultaneously for the first time.

I think she's a lesbian, and so do other people. Whether this will prevent her from being on the Court is anyone's guess. Regardless of whether she is a lesbian or not, having another single woman (Sonia Sotomayor was briefly married and now is a permanent divorcee) on the nation's highest court will do wonders for gender equity in this country.

Obama's List For SCOTUS Has 10 Names On It

The New York Times reports that although the top 3 favorites have not changed (Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland) President Obama is interviewing up to 10 candidates for the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court due to Justice John Paul Stevens already-announced retirement.

The other seven on the (not-so short) list are:

Sidney R. Thomas, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Ann Claire Williams, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan;

former Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears of the Georgia Supreme Court;

Martha Minow, dean of Harvard Law School;

Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the California Supreme Court;

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

I'm curious as to why liberal judicial rock stars Pamela Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan are not being publicly considered. Could it be because they are openly lesbian? It is heartening to see that Justice Carlos Moreno is still under consideration, however.

Justice Stevens, 89, Announces Summer Retirement

John Paul Stevens, was appointed to the court
in 1975 by President Ford

Ending speculation, Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest and longest serving member of the nation's highest court announced that he will retire at the end of this year's term in June, giving President Barack Obama a second opportunity in as many years to name a new member of the Supreme Court.

For the second summer in a row, Washington will face the "drama" of a Supreme Court nomination fight. Last year, Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring David Souter. At 55, Sotomayor became the third woman and first Hispanic justice to serve on the Court when she was approved by a United States Senate vote of 68-31 on August 6, 2009.

The short list to replace Stevens looks like:

Merrick B. Garland

57 years old

Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Harvard College, 1974; Harvard Law School, 1977

A former federal prosecutor now on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Garland is well regarded by Democrats and influential Republican senators like Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

Diane P. Wood

59 years old

Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago

University of Texas at Austin, 1971; University of Texas Law School, 1975

Judge Wood opposed some abortion restrictions and is respected for standing firm against strong, conservative judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She and President Obama were colleagues at the University of Chicago.

Elena Kagan

49 years old

Solicitor general

Princeton, 1981; Oxford, 1983; Harvard Law School, 1986

With no judicial record, Ms. Kagan is less known. As dean at Harvard Law School, she hired conservative professors to expand academic diversity and has supported assertions of executive power.

Jennifer M. Granholm

51 years old

Governor of Michigan

University of California, Berkeley, 1984; Harvard Law School, 1987

Ms. Granholm is nearing the end of her second term as the first female governor of Michigan. As governor, she has generally opposed legislation to restrict abortion and twice vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion. She was born in Canada and became a United States citizen at age 18.

Janet Napolitano

52 years old

Secretary of Homeland Security

Santa Clara University, 1979; University of Virginia School of Law, 1983

A former Democratic governor in Republican-dominated Arizona, Ms. Napolitano takes pride in defying easy labels and is as strongly supportive of abortion rights as she is of the death penalty. Her prospects might be hurt by criticism that she portrayed a thwarted Christmas bombing of a Detroit-bound airline as a test that the air safety system passed.

I have my money on Elena Kagan, who would also be the first openly gay member of the Court. Other lesbians under possible consideration are Kathleen Sullivan, 54, former Dean of Stanford Law School and Pamela Karlan, 50, another Stanford Law Professor.

Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009

It's that time of year! No, I'm not talking about Chrismuhkwanzakkuh, I'm talking about the annual ritual of making of Top 10 lists. Herewith is my list of the Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009 in the United States.

10. Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the United States Supreme Court: August 6, 2009.

Hey, the United States Supreme Court doesn't get new members every year. Lots of presidents don't get to appoint any justices, and their influence can extend far beyond a presidential quadrennial or octennial term of office. So it must have been music to the ears of former University of Chicago Law School professor Barack Obama when Associate Justice (and confirmed bachelor) David Souter announced he wanted to return to New Hampshire and leave the nation's highest court. With 60 votes in the majority caucus, Obama could have forced almost anyone through the Senate (including openly gay law school deans Elana Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan) but he chose the person at the top of everyone's short list: Sonia Sotomayor, the New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent who went to Princeton and Yale Law School and went on to become the the first female, Hispanic justice. Although she was asked (and politely declined to answer) her thoughts on LGBT issues there's no question that Sotomayor's vote will be key to achieving full equality under the federal constitution for LGBT Americans in my lifetime.

9. The Vermont Legislature overrides the Governor's veto to enact marriage equality: April 7, 2009.

In a breathtakingly brief period of a few weeks late this Spring, the legislatures of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont all passed marriage equality measures.Vermont was particularly stunning, because the Republican governor had the temerity to veto the measure and the Legislature was able to achieve a two-thirds majority in both Houses (by a margin of one vote in the lower body) to enact the law ending discrimination against same-sex couples having their relationships recognized by civil authorities in the Great State of Vermont.

8. The District of Columbia becomes the first Southern jurisdiction to pass marriage equality legislation: December 18, 2009.

Just squeaking in before the end of the year, the District of Columbia, which has a population slightly larger than the state of Wyoming and slightly less than the state of Vermont, passed a marriage equality ordinance through its unicameral legislature, the DC City Council 11-2. What makes the action so significant is the fact that the District of Columbia is below the Mason-Dixon line, which means that it is the first jurisdiction in the Southern United States (which also has a majority African American population) to affirm the principle that equality for all includes gay and lesbian couples access to civil marriage.

7. Barack Obama becomes 2nd sitting President to address LGBT rights fundraising event, reiterates promises to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": October 10, 2009.

After an increasingly impatient LGBT community complained that the Obama administration's moves towards institutionalizing LGBT progress were distressingly slow, the President agreed to attend the Human Rights Campaign's annual DC gala, which this year was occurring a few hours before hundreds of thousands of LGBT citizens would walk the streets of DC for the National Equality March. At the dinner, Obama gave a typically stirring speech where he reiterated his opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act and called for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act and the federal hate crimes act for his eager signature. Obama became the first president to attend an LGBT fundraising event in the first year of his first term (Clinton attended in 1997 after his re-election the year before) but it was not enough. LGBT critics complained that Obama did not layout a timeline for when his legislative accomplishments would be achieved.

6. Openly lesbian Annise Parker is elected mayor of Houston, the nation's 4th largest city: December 12, 2009.

After being elected by her hometown six consecutive times statewide in races for City Council and as City Controller, Annise Parker built up a resume and reputation that one would expect for a leading contender to be elected mayor of the nation's fourth largest city. That she was also openly gay and had been so for her entire electoral career gave the race against African-American Gene Locke extra media attention. In the end, Parker was elected handily. Whose to say that she will stop at Mayor? What her election does show is that there is no lavender ceiling for openly LGBT politicians in electoral politics.

5. California Supreme Court refuses to strike down Proposition 8 but affirms marriages of same-sex couples entered into prior to its passage: May 26, 2009.

Almost exactly one year after the California Supreme Court released its landmark ruling In Re Marriage Cases (which struck down Proposition 22 and the state's 1974 marriage statute, legalized marriage for same-sex couples and elevated sexual orientation to a category receiving the highest level of judicial analysis) the same court disappointed millions of people by refusing to exhibit similar judicial courage to invalidate Proposition 8. In a 6-1 vote (only Justice Carlos Moreno, under consideration by President Obama for the United States Supreme Court at the time, was willing to strike down the constitutional amendment which stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry) the Court upheld the legality of Proposition 8 under the California constitution. The Court also unanimously upheld the legal principle that all people married during the 173 days between June 15, 2007 and November 3, 2008 had all the rights and responsibilities of civilly married couples. This will not be the last word on whether Proposition 8 will remain in the California Constitution, however, the legal superduo of Ted Olson and David Boies have filed a federal lawsuit against the measure, and a full trial has been scheduled for January 11, 2010.

4. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of marriage equality: April 3, 2009.

In the last three years all of the half-dozen or so state Supreme Court decisions which have decided marriage equality prior to Iowa's unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision had been 4-3-vote majorities (Favorably: Massachusetts, 2004; California, 2008; Connecticut, 2008. Unfavorably: New Jersey, 2005; New York, 2006; Washington, 2006; Maryland, 2007). That's what makes the ruling by the Iowa State Supreme Court so significant. The logic that there is no rational basis or legitimate state purpose for preventing same-sex couples from being issued civil marriage licenses is unassailable. The decision went into effect three weeks later, and same-sex couples have been getting married ever since without much publicity. In Iowa, the state constitution can only be amended by passing through the state legislature and the Democratic majority is refusing to consider such a measure. Iowa puts paid to the idea that gay marriage is an idea that is a purely liberal or geographically centered. If same-sex couples are getting married in Iowa, can Kansas be far behind?

3. On election day, Maine voters reject marriage equality law while Washington voters retain "everything but marriage" comprehensive domestic partnership statute: November 3, 2009.

The weeks and months leading up to election day were dominated by the "Proposition 8-redo" in Maine called Question 1 where heterosexual supremacists again forced a public vote on whether private relationships would be treated equally by the state. Another public vote, another devastating loss. For the 31st time in 32 tries, the public voted against marriage equality for LGBT couples, this time by a margin of 52.75% Yes to 47.25% No (even larger than Proposition 8's 52.3 Yes to 47.7% No in 2008). However, thousands of miles away in Washington State, voters overwhelmingly Approved Referendum 71 (by a margin 0f 53.15% to 46.85% or 113,00 votes) to retain a recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law modeled after California's landmark AB 205 from 2003. (Interestingly, Nevada was able to enact their comprehensive domestic partnership act over their Republican governor;s veto on May 31, 2009.)

2. John A. Pérez is named the next Speaker of the California Assembly, the first openly gay person of color to head a state legislative body: December 10, 2009.

John A. Pérez is someone I have hung out with at parties and sat next to at banquets and stood next to at rallies. He is also the first LGBT person of color ever to be elected to the California legislature (in 2008). In January 2010, he will become the Speaker of the Assembly, one of the Top 3 positions in California politics. Yes, he's the cousin of the Mayor of Los Angeles and had to defeat my own Assemblyman Kevin de Leon in order to win over a majority of the California Democratic caucus as a first-term legislator in order to have up to 4 years of eligibility to serve as head of the lower body of the California Legislature, the first gay and third Latino to do so. His elevation among his peers, along with Annise Parker demonstrates the assimilation of sexual orientation into the mainstream of Democratic politics. It is more likely John's sexual orientation helped him rather than hurt him in becoming Speaker of the California Assembly and that speaks volumes for the trajectory of the LGBT civil rights movement in the future.

1. President Barack Obama signs the federal hate crimes bill (the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act) into law: October 28, 2009

Despite the carping from some corners that the legislation only gives rights to LGBT people only after they are victimized or dead, the historic echoes of the President's signature on H.R. 1913 should not be under-estimated. The federal hate crimes bill became the first piece of federally enacted legislation to ever include the words "gender identity" and only the second to expand rights based on sexual orientation. Yes, the measure was attached to a "must-pass" piece of legislation, the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2009, instead of a stand-alone bill. But this did not make Republican opposition any less fierce or morally questionable.

US Supreme Court 2009-10 Term Begins Today

The official new term of the United States Supreme Court begins today, with a new member of the Court, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. NPR's Nina Totenberg has a rundown on what to expect.

VIDEO: Sotomayor Sworn In As 111th SCOTUS Justice