With the Ninth Circuit ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional (potentially reinstating it in the most populous State in the country) California gay marriage ban struck down, appeals court cites equal rights, and with Washington State poised to pass same-sex marriage, Current status the population living in States where it is legal will more than double to more than a quarter of the United States' population. Adding in the States where civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal brings it to more than a third. Moreover, polling indicates that Gay Marriage Opponents [Are}Now in [the] Minority (Polls; FiveThirtyEight). With the Obama administration no longer defending DoMA; with Don't Ask, Don't Tell history, I believe we have finally reached the tipping point where marriage equality will become a reality in the United States. It may take some time, but I think it will become universal in my lifetime.

Moreover, I think there are good arguments that the Supreme Court will not take the 9th Circuit Appeal. Proposition 8 'may not reach Supreme Court'; Prop. 8: U.S. Supreme Court might not take gay-marriage case (a position with which I agree).

What say the masses?

As do I. I’m what is referred to as straight though I’ve never cared much for that label and I have always been perplexed by conservative’s insistence that we should never allow gays and lesbians to marry. After all America is suppose to be a country of freedoms, right? Must a marriage only be between a man and a woman? I say emphatically NO! As it has often been stated why should gays and lesbians not be allowed the same blessings and miseries of those marriages between a man and a woman (or should I say between a woman and a man)?

The arguments against marriage for all are so weak it has always been clear that it is about imposing Christian sharia upon each and every one of us. No abortions, no "gay marriage", public funding for religion, etc etc.

These people don't respect freedom only their contorted view of religion. They are in a word subversives.

It is amazing how apparently inflexible attitudes change. During year 2000, I would have thought it to be a huge struggle to get rid of don't ask don't tell.... gay marriage seem a quixotic objective that hardly was considered.

Now it seems it is only a matter of time until gay marriage is quite normal

I think the Supreme court can read the trend lines... they know it is coming... and I doubt they want to be on the wrong side of the issue since it would tend to erode their credibility


And the easiest way would be to avoid taking a case until it is a foregone conclusion. So they could avoid this current case and not have to make an uncomfortable ruling no matter which way they rule.

I am really optimistic that this might be the tipping point for same-sex marriage. I think that it is ridiculous to try and legislate morality, especially since one persons moral path might be very different from others. Make it available, and those that want to participate can, and those who do not want to, can maintain their own status quo.

By way of background, decisions of the 9th circuit are technically only binding upon the 9th circuit. Other courts and circuits may, at their discretion, give some, a good bit, or a great deal of weight to decisions in other circuits. However, since the 9th is arguably the most liberal circuit, other, more conservative, circuits could well ignore the ruling.



If the 9th circuit refuses an en banc proceeding, the plaintiff/appellant may appeal to the Supreme Court, just as he or she could do after losing at the en banc level.

The Supreme Court does not have to hear an appeal. If they refuse to hear an appeal the decision at the next lower court level stands as written.

Assume for a moment that the court en banc upholds the appeals court panel ruling. A rejected appeal to the Supreme Court would rule the ban unconstitutional but only for the Ninth Circuit, which includes, besides California: Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona.

The decision would apply only in those states, and would most likely end up making unconstitutional similar referenda in one or more of those states.

If the en banc ruling reversed the ruling at the panel level, then the opponents of prop 8 would become the appellants at the Supreme Court level. If the high court refused to hear their appeal that would result in the upholding of Prop 8.

This is a big case with big issues. My guess is that the appellants (those who want Prop 8 upheld) will appeal directly to the Supreme Court rather than waste time on what is in all likelihood another loss even if the 9th circuit agrees to her the case en banc.

The Supreme Court would be in a touchy position. They could deny the appeal, leaving the 9th Circuit alone in holding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. If they take the case, since their court calendar is already pretty full for the court year, which began on the first Monday in October last, they would have to do some shifting.

They might decide to leave the matter until after the election. I think they will decide to hear the case and announce their decision in late summer, early fall.

It's going to be an interesting few months.

Personally, I think that the SCOTUS will decline the case, because the holding is so narrow. If not, they will have to address the Roemer decision, and it is unlikely that there would be a vote to overturn it, especially as Justice Kennedy authored it. Also, it has few corporate rights implications, so the majority would not see much profit to it. They already have the DoMA case to stir up the base with. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the Affordable Care Act to do so as well. Don't think THAT is not political!

Some articles I have read mentioned that the appeals court decision relies heavily on the fact that Californians had the right to same-sex marriage, and then the voters took away that right for no legitimate reason. (Classic Tyranny of the Majority case.) If their ruling stands, it will only affect states in the 9th circuit in which citizens had the right only to have it removed. In other words: Only California.

But still, California holds something like 13% of the current US population. A few more densely-populated states and we will end up with something like the red/blue presidential election map: Most states not allowing it, but most of the population living in a state that does.

We already have about 18,000 same-sex marriages in California, and the state has not slid into the ocean. No tsunamis, no gigantic earthquakes, and straight couples are still getting married in both civil and religious ceremonies. As more people come to see same-sex marriage as common and normal, the closer we get to full marriage equality. I think the rate of acceptance is accelerating toward a singularity-type event.

The sad fact remains - the court will ultimately define marriage. The court is a function of government. The government is still the ruler of all in one way or another. Just more government intervention and control.

This issue shouldn't be the government's concern.

The really interesting thing about the Republican's unfulfilled swan song: "the government is too big", really doesn't need to be all that big if they figure out a way to control sexual behaviors - regardless of orientation. That would solve their problems with gays and abortion.

Meanwhile...back in the closets on Capitol Hill...

Potentially is the operative word.


It's a generational thing. The folks against gay marriage are dying off - like the dinosaurs which they are.