Going to a Historic Wedding Today

Our friends Tim Bostic and Tony London - the lead plaintiffs in the Virginia marriage case - are getting married today at beautiful Christ and St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Norfolk today (the church is like a small cathedral as the images below shows).  The wedding ceremony is open to the community and the husband and I will be in attendance and are among those lucky enough to be included in the guest list for the elegant reception to follow.  Above is a photo from the rehearsal last night.  It should be an amazing wedding and we are so happy for these wonderful guys who had the courage to take a huge risk and put themselves out the to create change.Local media coverage is here.

I am hard on religion, but there are some good and decent denominations that put love and the Gospel message over hate and bigotry, and the Episcopal Church is one of them as is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to which I still formally belong.  Would that all Christian denominations would follow their lead.

Lead Plaintiffs in Virginia Marriage Case Plan Wedding

Attending friends' weddings is always moving.  Particularly the weddings of gay friends whose relationship has been challenged by anti-gay bigotry still prevalent in America and, up until recently, non-recognition under the civil laws - even when the relationship has endured for longer than many, many heterosexual relationships.  But on May, 2, 2015, the husband and I will attend a wedding that has special meaning to us.  Because the efforts of couple getting married, our own marriage in the District of Columbia became legally recognized in Virginia.  The couple I am referring to are Tim Bostic and Tony London, a couple who have been together for over two decades. The wedding will be something amazing from the ceremony in a gorgeous church to a reception that will have a stunning venue.  The Washington Blade looks at Tim and Tony's wedding planning (the article is written by Tim).  Here are highlights:

As a gay man who never thought getting married was possible, I tuned out when people started talking about weddings. We were so concerned about being able to get married it never occurred to me to think about the wedding itself. The one thing I would advise anyone is make sure you have people you can rely on. Our caterer, Cathy Carter with East Beach Catering, and our wedding planner, Ivory Morgan-Burton with Storybook Events, have helped me as I slowly came to understand all of the ins and outs of planning a wedding. The number of things that have to be done meant we had to choose between our wedding or our honeymoon. We had hoped to go on a safari after the wedding. The wedding won.

When we started our fight for marriage equality in Virginia, we were cautioned that it would not be a fast process. The attorneys told us it would probably take five years, so I wasn’t thinking about the wedding because I was focused on obtaining the right to marry the man I love. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided in October not to hear our case and uphold the 4th Circuit Court’s decision, I found myself with no more fight on my hands but a wedding to plan instead. The day after the decision, we met with the rector of our church and picked the first Saturday available, May 2. When I sat down with my caterer Friday of the same week, she knew I had a date set and she asked where the reception was going to be. I told her that I didn’t know, and that was why I was there.

Blanching, she looked at me and said, “You are getting married May 2nd, and you don’t have a venue?” I told her, “Cathy, I didn’t know we could get married until this week!” Bless her heart, she got on the phone, made about 10 phone calls in as many minutes, and found us a venue. The problem was it only held 200 people, so our hope of being able to invite all of the people in the community who supported us was shot. Of course, as I begin to understand the costs involved in a wedding, I guess it worked out.

While much of the planning has been stressful, there have also been some amazing moments. Once we had the church and our venue, I started to reach out to my friends to ask them to be attendants. It felt awkward calling people and asking them to spend money on clothes, airline tickets and hotel rooms. As I asked them to stand up with us, I apologized about them having to spend so much money. All of my straight friends laughed and said they’ve done this numerous times and they know what’s involved. They told me this is one time they were truly happy to do it.

Having a wedding provides a unique opportunity to bring the people in one’s life together. The female attendants, who are spread around the country, came in for the dress fitting and we had an amazing time. Our best men had everyone over for a dinner party. As we were getting ready to leave, I stood on the front porch looking in at these people who mean the world to me and realized there’s never been a reason to have all of these people, who represent my support structure from birth until today, together in one place.

Waiting for everyone to say their goodbyes, I felt an overwhelming sense of joy, illustrating another reason to be grateful that Tony and I can get married. About three weeks after the decision, we went to a dinner party with three other couples from our neighborhood. As we sat down at the table, the hostess told us our next-door neighbor Jim brought champagne to toast our engagement. It seemed a little strange since we have been together for 25 years, but it also felt good. As he raised his glass to toast us, he said if 20 years ago someone had told him that this conservative, Virginia Military Institute graduate would support marriage equality, he would have told them they were out of their mind. However, he was so grateful that Tony and I moved in next door to him and opened his mind and heart. He thanked us for making him a better person. I think straight people understand just how important marriage is and these experiences illustrate how important it is that LGBT folks have the opportunity to partake in this major societal rite.

So on May 2, Tony and I will stand in front of our friends, family and community and pledge ourselves to each other for life, and while I know a piece of paper doesn’t make a difference in terms of our love for one another, it validates us a couple in the eyes of the law and our community. When we wake up on May 3, I don’t know if we will feel any different. But, I do know that on May 3, 2015 Tony and I will finally be married, just like everyone else.

We are looking forward to the event!  From my own experience, in some ways being married after being together for six years was anti-climatic.  But in other ways just knowing that we were finally recognized as a couple - we are going through the throes of having our accountant determine if we should file a joint return or not - makes a huge difference.  As does the ability to have the husband on my health coverage.   

Reasons to Be Optimistic for Marriage Equality at SCOTUS

As noted earlier in the week, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most vociferous homophobes, whined when the Court refused to extend the stay that had put same sex marriages on hold.  Meanwhile, an editorial in the Mobile Press Register similarly whines and shows that the column's author is an idiot given his lack of understanding of what the issues were before the Court in Windsor (only Sec. 3 of DOMA was under challenge).  Candidly, the Court's action makes perfect sense given its past refusals to take appeals from Court of Appeals rulings that struck down state marriage bans. And, as a column in The Advocate lays out, this week's action may signal how the Court will rule come June.  Here are excerpts:

It's impossible to predict exactly how the Supreme Court will rule on the marriage equality cases currently before it, but it's getting easier and easier to make a confident guess. Just ask Clarence Thomas.

Earlier this week, the court denied a request for a stay in Alabama, and Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent telegraphed a few key signals about the court's momentum toward equality. In addition, several recent court decisions all seem to indicate that the court already has a consensus that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.


Here are the key reasons Thomas lays out for why the court is unwilling to delay marriage equality, even though Thomas opposes that conclusion:

1. Weak Case from Antigay States . . . . Thomas indicates the other justices seem confident that Alabama would not be able to show that marriages would cause any harm.

2. Court's Approach Has Evolved . . . . the court has turned down stay requests, allowing marriage to begin immediately in several states. Cases that saw stays denied by the high court include the Florida case, Armstrong v. Brenner; the South Carolina case Wilson v. Condon; and the Kansas case Moser v. Marie.


3. Court Declined to Hear Cases in Which Bans Were Overturned. . . . Although it's only briefly mentioned in the dissent, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear pro-equality rulings is also worthy of note. Late in 2014, several states sent marriage cases to the Supreme Court, with the expectation that the justices would hear the cases. But the justices declined, effectively affirming the pro-equality rulings from lower courts. . . . . In his dissent, Thomas notes that he would have wanted to review the pro-equality rulings, but was unable to muster enough support from his colleagues.
 
4. ...But Accepted Cases in Which Bans Were Upheld.  In fact, the Supreme Court only accepted subsequent marriage equality petitions after a lower court upheld marriage bans, creating what is known as a "circuit split." . . . .  Clearly, that means that something has changed in the several months between the court's granting of the Utah stay and denying a stay in Alabama. It's impossible to say what happened, but it seems that a consensus may have emerged at the court behind the scenes, that a pro-equality ruling is inevitable.

5. Marriage Equality Is Becoming the Status Quo. Usually the Supreme Court defers to status quo, upholding existing laws until they are fully reviewed. Going slow, maintaining consistency, and avoiding rapid changes in the law are high priorities for the court. The fact that the court allowed marriage to begin in Alabama, as well as several other states, could mean that the justices expect marriage equality to be the new status quo. . . . Advocates who want to see the freedom to marry secured nationwide certainly hope Thomas's prediction is correct.

Ultimately Thomas seems as though he's readying to concede defeat.

Virginia to Pay $520,000 to Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Same-Sex Marriage Case

My former law partners, Tom Shuttleworth and Bob Ruloff

Across the country we see Republican elected officials - usually bent on prostituting them selves to Christofascists in the GOP base - opposing same sex marriage and filing one motion and appeal after another seeking to stop the inevitable.  Not only does this run up huge wastes in government funds and legal staff time, but when the opponents of marriage equality ultimately lose, the state gets hit with paying the legal fees of the plaintiffs who had been discriminated against all because the "godly folk" seek to inflict their beliefs on all of society.  And these legal fees can be high as demonstrated by the fees Virginia must pay to the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey: $520,000 better spent on the needs of Virginia's citizens.  The Virginian Pilot has details:

Virginia will pay $520,000 to the lawyers for two same-sex couples who successfully challenged the state's gay marriage ban.

The settlement agreement was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Norfolk. The attorneys had sought more than $1.7 million.

The law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher will receive $459,000. Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock will receive $61,000.

Court papers show that attorneys logged 2,372 hours on the case. Their fees will be paid by the state Department of Treasury's Division of Risk Management.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen declared Virginia's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional last February. A federal appeals court upheld the decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case.

I hope Victoria Cobb and the hate merchants at The Family Foundation are happy with what their religious based anti-gay animus has cost the state.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies South Carolina Marriage Stay Request

I have noted before the manner in which South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson have been squandering taxpayer funds fighting the inevitable application of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Schaefer v. Bostic as binding precedent on South Carolina.  As a last ditch attempt, a request for a stay of the U.S. District Court ruling that relied on Bostic was filed with Chief Justice John Roberts.  Today, that request was denied in a 7-2 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Only lunatic Justices Scalia and Thomas voted to hear the request.  Here are highlights from WISTV:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court has decided to not issue an emergency stay in the ongoing political drama surrounding same-sex marriage, paving the way for the marriages to begin in the Palmetto State at noon Thursday.

With that decision, South Carolina becomes the 35th state in the United States to allow same-sex couples to marry.

In a brief statement, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices denied the stay, but Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas said they would hear it.

Thursday's decision means there is very little left for Attorney General Alan Wilson to do to stop marriages from beginning at noon.

The attorney general's office released a statement shortly after the decision came down, saying that despite Thursday's ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has not resolved conflicting rulings by other federal appeals courts.

"When the U.S. Supreme Court. decides to consider the  case, our office will be supporting the position of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is more consistent with South Carolina State law, which upholds the unique status of traditional marriage," the statement said.
Same-sex marriage supporters celebrated the high court's decision.

"The order from the U.S. Supreme Court officially puts an end to the long fight for access to marriage for South Carolina's same-sex couples and their families. This decision clears away the last obstacle to marriage equality in the state," attorney Beth Littrell said. “We congratulate all the happy couples as South Carolina becomes the 35th state where same-sex couples can marry.”

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel, who ruled the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional late last week.

After the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue an emergency stay on Gergel's ruling on Tuesday, Attorney General Alan Wilson said he would appeal to the high court.

The 7-2 decision is hopefully a good sign that the 6th Circuit's wrongly decided ruling will eventually be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Such a ruling would them make same sex marriage legal nationwide, including in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

Fourth Circuit Rejects South Carolina Attempt to Delay Same Sex Marriages

As noted before, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and that state's attorney general have been refusing to recognize the binding precedent of the ruling of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaefer v. Bostic and squandering taxpayer money in the process.  All so that they can prostitute themselves to the Christofascists who hold inordinate sway in the GOP base in South Carolina.  Today, the 4th Circuit basically bitch slapped South Carolina and refused to delay the effective date when same sex marriages will begin.  The 4th Circuit's ruling can be found here.  Lambda Legal has details in a press release:

Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the State of South Carolina’s motion to stay last week’s U.S. District Court ruling striking down the state’s discriminatory marriage ban, setting the stage for marriages to begin for same-sex couples  at Noon on Thursday, November 20. 

South Carolina’s Attorney General filed a motion for an emergency stay to delay marriages following a ruling by the U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina striking down the state’s discriminatory marriage ban in accordance with the Fourth Circuit’s earlier decision striking down a similar ban in Virginia.

"The end game is clear - marriage will soon be available for same-sex couples in South Carolina. This is a great victory for same-sex couples and their families because it removes one more hurdle to finally walking down the aisle," said Beth Littrell, Senior Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office based in Atlanta.

“We urge the Attorney General  to stop trying to delay the inevitable - their actions are damaging to families they were elected to protect,” said South Carolina Equality lawyer Malissa Burnette, partner at Callison Tighe & Robinson.

Lambda Legal and South Carolina Equality represent Colleen Condon and Nichols Bleckley who applied, and paid, for a marriage license in Charleston County soon after the U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to review rulings out of three federal appellate circuits - including the 4th Circuit - invalidating discriminatory marriage bans in five states. However, before they received their marriage license, South Carolina’s Attorney General asked the South Carolina State Supreme Court to step in and halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The South Carolina Supreme Court effectively stopped state court judges from issuing marriage licenses or weighing in on marriage equality pending an order from federal court. Last week U.S. District Court Richard Gergel struck down the discriminatory marriage ban, but delayed enforcement of his order for one week - until Noon on November 20 - to give the State a chance to appeal. Today’s ruling affirmed Judge Gergel’s order, allowing marriages to begin.

Greenville News: Drop Fight Against Gay Marriage

In a desperate attempt to prostitute themselves to the Christofascists elements of the Republican Party base, Republican elected officials are continuing opposition to same sex marriage despite the reality that the battle has been lost.  Among these willing political whores are South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson who refuse to concede that the 4th Circuit ruling in Bostic is binding precedent and that any appeal from the ruling of U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel in Charleston is futile and will only serve to waste taxpayer funds.  The Greenville News has come out with a main page editorial calling on the Governor and Attorney General to stop their continued opposition.  Here are editorial excerpts:

South Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage fell last week when U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel of Charleston ruled that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples with the right to marry. Gergel’s decision was as expected as it is firmly grounded in constitutional law as it has evolved.

A continued legal fight by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson will be futile and expensive.  Furthermore it will encourage false hope among state residents who don’t want the terms of marriage redefined, while it also will continue to deny gay couples the marriage license they clearly want and are allowed in 33 other states.

The other states in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals moved quickly to accept the October decision authored by 4th Circuit Judge Henry Floyd in a case involving a legal challenge to Virginia’s ban on gay marriage.

The 4th Circuit ruling was written by Judge Floyd, a South Carolinian. The judges found that Virginia’s ban on gay marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

The final paragraph of the ruling is worth repeating:

“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection under the law. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.”

The 4th Circuit’s ruling flowed naturally from legal precedent that has followed fundamental changes in our society.
[T]hese court decisions and state laws affect only civil marriages. Religious institutions still enjoy the right to determine who they will marry and what type of marriage they will recognize. 

[I]f the Constitution protects the rights of gay couples legally married in some states, that same Constitution surely must allow for nationwide recognition of gay marriage.The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to consider challenges to rulings from the 4th Circuit and two other circuits. A different ruling in the 6th Circuit ensures the Supreme Court will have to address this issue again, but the result seems inevitable. A right to gay marriage has been recognized in many states in the country, and that right cannot now be taken away. 

South Carolina leaders, including Wilson and Gov. Nikki Haley, have an opportunity to provide leadership at this time by helping the people who elected them understand that this battle against gay marriage is over. And it is.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Motion To Intervene Claims Gay Marriage Will Force Man To Stop Worshipping God

If nothing else, the various same sex marriage rulings striking down gay marriage bans are shining a spot light on the absolute insanity of the Christofascists.  Prior posts have looked at the batshitery in Kansas were a clearly deranged straight couple alleged that same sex marriage would steal their property rights in their marriage.  Fortunately, the Court did not buy their insane argument and denied their motion to intervene.  Now, an even more insane claim has come out of South Carolina where an obviously mentally ill individual filed a motion to intervene claiming that same sex marriage deprived him of his right to worship.  The deranged rant - full of misspellings - can be found here.  Here's a sampling of the raving lunacy:

DON BOYD, MUSICIAN AND PSALMIST, Anointed and Assigned as a Watchmen of the souls of the people errantly calling themselves lesbian and gay WOULD PURSUE DISMISSAL of what is in essence and in truth a RELIGIOUS matter couched of late as a secular deprivation of constitutional rights by the Gay Agenda (of said people errantly identifying and calling themselves lesbian and gay) apostate and rebellious from The Most High GOD and Creator LORD of all the Earth, covetous of the Portion of those marrying and given in marriage in this world, troubled and incited of that Wicked One Lucifer the Devil unto discontent with Divine Constraint their Portion and glorious Calling in this life unto Reward of the Next. [snip] Any ratifying of gay "marriage" would compel me to leave off worshipping THE LORD with music and psalms - free exercise of my religion -to assume the life of a protester and wedding crasher.

As I have said before, I wonder at times how individuals become so insane and untethered from objective reality.  Yes, it is scary, but it is the true face of conservative Christian - and more and more of the GOP base.  And worse yet, it doesn't even get to the issue that these individuals - and officials of South Carolina - are filing motions in bad faith when controlling authority (i.e., the 4th Circuit ruling in Bostic) confirms that their efforts are frivolous and, in my view, meriting sanctions. 

Seeking a Same-Sex Marriage Case Fit for History

Next Monday, the U.S. Supreme Curt will have its first meeting to consider which same sex marriage case, if any, to take up when its new term commences in October.  For obvious reasons, I'd like to see the challenge to Virginia's animus inspired Marshall-Newman Amendment be the vehicle chosen not only because of the historical precedent of Loving v. Virginia, but also because the case transcript is full of anti-gay animus fueled statements by individuals like homophobe extraordinaire Del. Bob Marshall and tortured self-loathing closet case Ken Cuccinelli.  An article in the New York Times looks at the competing cases and attorneys.  Here are excerpts:

The jockeying among the titans of the Supreme Court bar for a place at the lectern when the justices hear the next same-sex marriage case is as understated as it is unmistakable.

In a half-dozen briefs filed in recent weeks, some of the best lawyers in the nation spent many pages arguing that their case was the right one in which to establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. They pointed out the attractive features of their own cases and the shortcomings of others.

In legal jargon, streamlined cases without procedural pitfalls are said to be good vehicles. That made the fancy lawyers sound a little like car salesmen.

The case from Virginia, one brief said, is “an excellent vehicle.” The one from Wisconsin, said another, is “an ideal vehicle.” The one from Utah, perhaps the leading candidate, was said to be, with the swagger of understatement, “an appropriate vehicle.”

The battle is for a place in the history books.

“Every attorney in the world, it seems, is now eager to be the one that stands before the court in the freedom to marry case, but what really counts is the compelling collective presentation we will all make, no matter which case it is,” Mr. Wolfson said.

The lawyers challenging the same-sex marriage bans are confident they will win in the Supreme Court, which is why they have all urged the justices to hear their cases even though they had won in the lower courts.

The justices will consider whether to hear one or more of the cases at their first private conference of the new term, next Monday, and they may announce their choice or choices in the following weeks. If they do, they could hear arguments this winter and announce a decision by June.

Theodore B. Olson, a former United States solicitor general in the administration of George W. Bush, argued that case for the challengers of the California ban, and he is now one of the lawyers challenging Virginia’s ban. As before, he is joined by David Boies, his adversary in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that delivered the presidency to Mr. Bush.

Virginia, he pointed out, was home not only to several of the giants who wrote the Constitution but also to Mildred and Richard Loving, who successfully challenged the state’s ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.  “It’s pretty potent stuff,” he said of his case’s connection to another civil rights movement.

A second set of challengers is also involved in the Virginia case. Their lead lawyer is Paul M. Smith, who argued Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that struck down laws making gay sex a crime. That team also includes lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

Mr. Smith told the justices that “the collective experience of counsel” in the two Virginia challenges mattered, as their groups “have litigated every major gay rights case decided by this court” from 1996 on.

There are two sets of plaintiffs, too. Mr. Olson represents two gay couples. Mr. Smith represents a class of gay couples who seek to marry.

Hearing the Virginia case, he told the justices, would “enable the court to resolve all aspects of the marriage-equality question in a single opinion without leaving lingering questions and uncertainty for lower courts, states and the American public.”  On this, at least, the lawyers in the Utah case agreed. “Piecemeal review risks that litigation will drag on for years,” they wrote.

The justices need to pick a case or cases and they need to end religious based discrimination sooner as opposed to later.

VIRGINIA: Anti-Gay Norfolk Circuit Clerk Files Appeal with Supreme Court

George E. Schaefer III - the face of anti-gay hate

One thing the local Hampton Roads gay community needs to do is come up with a plan to make sure George E. Schaefer III, the clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court, is defeated the next time he runs for re-election.  If the region is to prosper and move forward in a changing world, the last thing we need is a raging bigot in charge of the circuit court of the area's largest city.  The same holds true in Prince William County where reportedly Michele McQuigg stands for re-election next year.  Typically, circuit court clerk elections are low profile, but these two individuals demonstrate what can happen when the wrong individuals hold these positions.  I stand ready to write campaign contribution checks to any credible candidates who challenge these douche bags.

In his filing yesterday seeking an appeal from the ruling of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Schaefer argues that the lower federal courts have “subverted” the Supreme Court’s decision last year in United States v. Windsor.  If anything is perverted, its religious extremists and bigots like Schaefer and McQuigg who want to subvert the U.S. Constitution and inflict their poisonous religious beliefs on all Virginians (and who have perverted Christianity into something hideous).  Adding to the hypocrisy is the fact that Schaefer is represented by the former law firm of former governor Bob McDonnell now under federal corruption charges who has shown the true face of GOP family values. The following is Schaefer's basic claim:

Contrary to these mistaken decisions, the Fourteenth Amendment does not override “

state sovereign choices” about whether to adopt same sex marriage.

If this reasoning is correct, then Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided and the bigotry of the majority can strip minorities of their civil rights as American citizens.  It goes without saying that Schaefer is a Republican. I always find it amazing who the opponents of gay marriage continue to make the same arguments as their segregationist forefathers.  I also have to question how their legal counsel can file such disingenuous arguments.    SCOTUS Blog has details on the filing:

Arguing that lower federal courts have “subverted” the Supreme Court’s decision last year on same-sex marriage, a Virginia court clerk on Friday filed his own petition – the second filing seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of that state’s ban on such marriages and the fourth on the basic constitutional issue.  The filing may complicate the Court’s chances of promptly considering that issue.

The new document was filed by lawyers for George E. Schaefer III, who is the circuit court clerk for the city of Norfolk.  He has been taking part in the Virginia case since it began, and he is now defending the ban, after state officials opted not to do so.  Already pending at the Court are another petition from Virginia, one from Utah, and one from Oklahoma.  Another is expected soon from Virginia, to be filed by a different clerk.


On Wednesday, the Court blocked the issuance of licenses for same-sex marriages in Virginia pending the filing of a petition by the other clerk who is defending the ban, Michele B. McQuigg of Prince William County.  Her petition is being prepared now by her lawyers, who may file it within the next week or so.

In the other two Virginia filings, one by the state attorney general and now by the Norfolk clerk, each claimed that it was the proper vehicle for the Court to review the validity of the Virginia ban.  But the two are on slightly different procedural timetables within the Court, and that will be true as well for the McQuigg petition when it is filed.

The Windsor decision “taught that state citizens are free to make up their own minds about this issue by exercising their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,’” the filing said, quoting from that ruling.

Perhaps someone should buy Schaefer a set of KKK robes since he in making a KKK like argument and applying it to gays.  Just a thought.  As I said, Schaefer needs to be challenged and defeated if he runs for reelection. 

 

4th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down Virginia Marriage Bans

I will have more commentary later today, but today the U.s. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit released its ruling that found that Virginia's bans on same sex marriage violate the United States Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law to all citizens.  The ruling impacts not just Virginia, but also the states of South Carolina, North Carolina and It goes without saying that there is likely wailing and gnashing of teeth - between spittle flecked rants - over at the offices of The Family Foundation.  Sadly, individuals like Victoria Cobb and her animus inspired followers only feel good about themselves when they are persecuting and stigmatizing others. Congratulations to my friends Tim Bostic and Tony London, plaintiffs in the original case!!   Here are some brief excerpts from the Richmond Times Dispatch:

A federal appeals court panel today struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In a 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges agreed with U.S. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's ruling in February that the 2006 amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision goes into effect in 21 days, unless the defendants file a motion to stay the ruling – which they are likely to do. The case will then head to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

“Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security,” Judge Henry F. Floyd wrote in his majority opinion.

“The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance,” he wrote.

Today’s decision is significant because it also renders unconstitutional similar marriage bans in North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia – states that are part of the 4th Circuit. Same-sex marriage is already legal in Maryland, which is also under the court’s jurisdiction.

This marks the third time that an appellate-level court has ruled on state marriage bans following the dismantling of a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last summer, and sets the stage for the Supreme Court to consider state-level laws.

 

Tony London and Tim Bostic

Will America Have Nationwide Marriage Equality Within a Year?

The husband and I have a number of gay couple friends who like us have traveled out of Virginia to marry.  Others that we know want to wait until they can marry legally here in Virginia.  One attorney who argued the DOMA case before the U. S. Supreme Court believes that it is possible that same sex marriage will be legal nationwide by next summer (i.e., June, 2015).  I can understand his reasoning inasmuch as the motivations behind state marriage bans are identical to those that motivated Congress in enacting DOMA: anti-gay animus,  If such motivation was deemed improper when engaged in by Congress, the same result should hold under the 14th Amendment in terms of state sponsored discrimination.  Here are highlights from The Advocate:

Same-sex couples could have the right to marry throughout the United States within a year, estimates a leading litigator in marriage equality cases.

That prediction comes in a Vox interview with Paul Smith of the law firm Jenner and Block, who was part of the team that successfully challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

As state bans on same-sex marriage continue being struck down and the decisions appealed, the two cases that are farthest along in the appeals process as those from Utah and Virginia. In the best-case scenario, Smith says, appeals courts could decide those this summer and whichever side loses would appeal to the Supreme Court, which would issue a decision in the summer of 2015. Even in a slower scenario, with procedural hang-ups, Smith estimates a Supreme Court decision would come no later than 2016. And he expects the decision would be on the side of marriage equality.

“I think that most observers think there are five [of nine] votes for the pro-equality side — the same five that felt the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional,” he told Vox.

Here is more from the cited story in Vox:

By Paul Smith's estimate, it's going to take at most two years for the nation's top court to retry the same-sex marriage issue — and this time, they're expected to settle the issue once and for all.

There's another, although less likely, possibility. First, the appeals courts could unanimously rule in favor of marriage equality. Then, the Supreme Court could refuse to hear any of the appeals of those cases. That would, in effect, legalize same-sex marriage across the country: if the Supreme Court doesn't agree to hear any of the pro-equality appeals, opponents of same-sex marriage would have no other court to turn to.

Smith, however, remains skeptical of that scenario. "My personal view is that the Supreme Court wants to be the one to decide this issue, not the lower courts," he says. "So the Supreme Court will probably take it."

One thing has, however, taken Smith by surprise: how fast it's all happening.

"It's interesting and surprising how quickly courts are getting to the merits of deciding the cases — expediting briefings, expediting cases," Smith says. "Courts usually take their time about things, but somehow there seems to be a perception that this is an issue that needs to be decided fairly quickly."

I concur with Smith - I think the U.S. Supreme Court will take one of the appeals.  Moreover, give the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, I honestly do not see how the Court could do anything but follow through and hold all state level bans to be unconstitutional.