Marriage Equality: Where We Now Stand

So where do we now stand in the ongoing Sevcik v. Sandoval legal psychodrama? Here's the latest:

- The Ninth Circuit judges just reinstated their mandate to end Nevada's marriage ban.

- As we reported earlier, the usual (H8 filled) suspects dropped their petition to the US Supreme Court for a stay on the Ninth's ruling in favor of marriage equality. While the SCOTUS drama continues in Idaho, it's officially over here in Nevada.

- Now, all eyes turn to Las Vegas Federal District Judge James Mahan. Since the case is now in his court, it's up to him to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban.

- Once Judge Mahan issues this injunction that everyone in The Silver State is now eagerly awaiting, Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses an hour later. Other Nevada county clerks will likely soon follow.

- But in the mean time, Lambda Legal's Tara Borelli is wondering why we're even waiting: “Finally, the confusion has ended and the Ninth Circuit’s decision is final and fully in effect. While the trial court will enter an order in the case finalizing relief, nothing prevents marriages from beginning immediately for same-sex couples in Nevada.” And technically, she's correct. Our hunch is that after yesterday's Supreme clusterf-ck, county clerks are exercising extreme caution (perhaps, too extreme).

- And finally, expect more legal movement in the coming days in Alaska, Arizona, & Montana. These are the remaining states covered by the Ninth Circuit that don't yet have marriage equality (other than Idaho, which is appealing Tuesday's ruling).

So here's where we stand now. As soon as we find an announcement stating when marriages will begin in Nevada, we'll post an update.

Hurry Up... & Wait.

We started the morning thinking it was about to happen. That was after we spent much of yesterday thinking we had to wait a little longer. But then, we were thrown another delay. And suddenly, we had to wait again.

But now, the wait may finally be coming to an end. Just hours after US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay on yesterday's Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling bringing marriage equality to Nevada and Idaho, Justice Kennedy recalled his own stay.

So what now? In Justice Kennedy's revised order, a temporary stay has been issued for Idaho. There, Governor Butch Otter (R) & Attorney General Lawrence Wasden (R) are requesting an en banc (or full court) hearing in the Ninth. The temporary stay will last until Thursday, when both sides have a deadline to respond to Otter's request for an en banc hearing and an extended stay of the Ninth's panel ruling.

The full Ninth Circuit is also asking for responses from both sides in Nevada by 5:00 PM Thursday, as the usual (H8 filled) suspects have requested a stay for Nevada. However, neither Governor Brian Sandoval (R) nor Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) is appealing the case. And considering the precedent the Supreme Court set in Perry v. Brown (the California Prop 8 case), it doesn't seem likely the Court will even grant the usual suspects standing to further appeal Sevcik v. Sandoval.

So what now? Officially, Nevada is about to receive legal marriage equality. But technically, Washoe County, Clark County, and other county clerks are turning away couples seeking licenses until Nevada federal district Judge James Mahan and/or the full Ninth Circuit clarifies next legal steps.

Today has felt like an infuriating game of "hurry up & wait". We can only imagine how the couples seeking marriage licenses must feel right now. Stay tuned here at Nevada Progressive as we continue attempting to wrap our heads around the legal ping-pong game this Sevcik case is rapidly devolving into.

Dammit, Justice (Kennedy) Delayed Again.

Of course, it can't be easy. It can't be simple. It must be confusing.

When we woke up this morning, marriage equality was set to become the law of the land here in Nevada today. Because the State of Nevada already promised not to appeal the case, the legal fight was supposed to end today.

But then, this happened. And mass confusion on Twitter soon followed. Some legal experts seem to think US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's temporary stay in Idaho also applies to Nevada because both cases were consolidated by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, but SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston is reporting Justice Kennedy's stay only applies to Idaho (as that state is appealing The Ninth's ruling).

For now, it looks like Nevada officials are once again erring on the side of caution. Moments ago, the Clark County Clerk's Office recanted its proclamation from last night and will not issue marriage licenses today. And since the Washoe County Clerk's Office had already stated its plans to wait this out, that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

So what happened? Short answer: Idaho. Longer answer: Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) is appealing the ruling, and the state's lawyers requested a temporary stay from Justice Kennedy. So Kennedy granted the stay.

But because Idaho and Nevada cases are consolidated, we must wait even longer to find out where we actually stand. Will the Supremes "decouple" the cases? Will they decide to take up both cases? Or will both cases be subsequently dismissed (like all the other ones were on Monday)?

Stay tuned. This isn't over yet.

What We Have... & What We Will No Longer Be Denied

(So we're still waiting for the federal district court to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban. Once that happens, marriage equality will finally be a reality here in Nevada. However that day may come sooner than originally thought, as Ninth Circuit Judge Steven Reinhardt ordered a prompt issuance demanding the lower court issue that injunction ASAP. And Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses at 2:00 PM today!

Here at Nevada Progressive, we've been waiting just over 5 years for this joyous occasion. To celebrate, we took to our archives and pulled out this gem from 2009. Oh, yes. That's right. We're going all the way back to the beginning of SB 283, and of this blog.

This not only explains what we've had for the past 5 years, but also why a few brave people decided to sue for full equality. And now, we're here. Hallelujah, the wait is finally over!)



Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".



OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality. But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.

.... As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does).

First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses.

Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.

Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development. And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.

But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.


I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.

Marriage Equality... Is Finally Coming to Nevada!

Boom goes the dynamite. Just like this, it's over.

We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we adopted in SmithKline.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion. Judges Marsha Berzon and Ronald Gould agreed, so the panel was unanimous in rendering this decision. The full Ninth Circuit opinion is now up. And like that, marriage equality is coming to Nevada! Oh, and it's coming to Idaho, too!

Actually, this is no suprise. Back in September, the Ninth Circuit judges were highly skeptical of the H8ers' whines and screams. H8ers are going to hate... But the Ninth Circuit panel wanted none of it.

Now keep in mind that this decision will not be appealed by the State of Nevada. And since the US Supreme Court just turned down seven cases appealing lower court pro-marriage rulings, it's probably a good idea for our world famous wedding chapels to prepare for the onslaught of wedding requests that's about to begin any day now.

Moments ago, Reps. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) tweeted their congratulations. We're still awaiting word from Cresent Hardy (R-"Segregation Laws"), Adam Laxalt (R-"Political Issues"), & Barbara Cegavske (R-License to Discriminate). And we have a feeling we'll see far more reactions from elected officials across the state as the news sets in.

Justice... Just Fashionally Late

Finally, we must wait no more... At least when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The nation's highest court had several marriage equality cases awaiting action. And now, we know the Supreme Court has denied petitions (for appeal) in all those cases.

So what does this mean? In short, marriage equality is now the law of the land in at least 5 more states: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah. By denying petitions of appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage will stand. This also means SCOTUS stays on those rulings expire today, and this is why marriages will likely begin today in Virginia and Wisconsin.

But wait, there's more. The Supreme Court essentially upheld these federal appellate court rulings de facto by dismissing the appeals. This will require lower federal courts within these appellate court circuits (4th, 7th, & 10th) to abide by these appellate court rulings. And this most likely opens the door to marriage bans being struck down quite soon in North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina (all 4th Circuit), Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado (all 10th Circuit). (Maryland, Illinois, and New Mexico already have marriage equality.)

But wait, what about us? Well, that's the downside of today's ruling. Because the 9th Circuit hasn't yet issued a ruling on Sevcik v. Sandoval, we'll have to wait a little longer here in Nevada.

But then again, we may not have to wait that much longer. If the 9th overturns Nevada's marriage ban (as most legal observers expect), the Supreme Court may not decide to place a stay on that ruling should opponents appeal. After all, the Court just dismissed all these cases.

Nevada's LGBTQ families have been waiting 12 years for this. And sadly, they will have to wait just a little longer for justice to finally arrive. But now, we can feel more confident about justice arriving to The Silver State. Just pardon her for arriving fashionably late.

How It All Started

(Today, we're sifting through the Nevada Progressive archives, all the way back to April 2012. Yes, we've been monitoring the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit since its infancy. And now, we await both a decision from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and a possible intervention from the US Supreme Court. So today, let's go all the way back to the beginning of this groundbreaking civil rights law suit.)

Last night, the lead plaintiffs in the case that's destined to shake up Nevada's marriage law went to Ralston to make their case.

(Start at 9:00.)



Yet while we see a new round of media buzz on this issue, let's not forget that there's an actual case to be tried in court. As we touched on yesterday, how the federal courts taking up this case interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be key. And while there are similarities to the Prop 8 case in California, there's one key difference that Prop 8 Trial Tracker noted yesterday.

Lamdba Legal’s suit is no doubt in part inspired by the success of the American Foundation for Equal Rights in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, which led to historic rulings in favor of marriage equality in California both at the district and appellate court levels. Nevada, like California, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so lawyers in the Sevcik case could cite the Prop 8 ruling in the Ninth Circuit as precedent. Additionally, any appeal of the eventual Sevcik ruling would end up at the Ninth Circuit just like Perry did.

Despite these similarities, the legal arguments that Lamdba Legal are pursuing in Sevcik are not quite the same as AFER’s arguments in Perry. The central complaint in the new Nevada case is an equal protection claim that domestic parternships violate the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. In the Prop 8 case, AFER made the same equal protection claim but also argued for a fundamental right to marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lamdba, explained to MetroWeekly that the group “certainly believe[s] that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples, but this court doesn’t need to answer that question to rule for the plaintiffs here. We’re convinced that our equal protection claim is so clearly correct that we want to keep the focus on that claim.”

Lambda Legal’s strategy makes the Sevcik case a more conservative one than the Prop 8 case in Perry, and would appear to be a response at least in part to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Prop 8 case, which declined to address the fundamental right question and instead focused more specifically on the circumstances unique to California’s situation.

In explaining Lambda’s complaint, Borelli said, “One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state’s decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage.”

So the Sevcik case here in Nevada will come down to whether domestic partnership actually provides "equal protection under the law", and if we can ever have true equal protection as long as the Question 2 marriage ban remains on the books. Unlike AFER's argument for a broad, nationwide fundamental right to marry that's being made in the Perry case in California, Lambda Legal is making a narrower argument based on the inequality present in Nevada family law and how that can not make federal Constitutional muster. It looks like Lambda Legal is confident that even if some federal judges are hesitant to use one stroke to knock down all the state marriage bans at once, they have to closely examine situations like ours and realize that we're experiencing clear and illegal discrimination.

So where will we go from here? For now, this will be in courtroom of Senior Judge Roger Hunt. And regardless of how Hunt decides, this will likely head next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough, The Ninth is the same court that issued a narrow ruling in the Perry case back in February, a narrow ruling centered on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And funny enough, the Sevcik case will be argued on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Coincidence?

And like the California case, don't expect any immediate resolution. This may very well end up on the Supreme Court docket, but perhaps not for another 3-5 years. So buckle up and get ready for a long and bumpy and fascinating and trailblazing ride.

The Waiting Game

Last week, the State of Nevada had no one present. No one even bothered to show up for court in San Francisco. Instead, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals instead had to endure this bucket full of crazy last week.

We will likely receive a ruling from the Ninth on Sevcik v. Sandoval fairly soon. And so far, marriage equality seem to be liking their odds.

Yet now, other states may have leapfrogged ahead of Nevada on the way to the US Supreme Court. However, Nevada may yet slip onto The Supremes' docket if the Ninth issues a ruling on Sevcik this week.



As we've discussed before, the US Supreme Court set this chain of lower court marriage rulings with its US v. Windsor. Will the SCOTUS Justices who ruled so passionately in favor of LGBTQ civil rights reverse course so suddenly? We seriously doubt it, but we can't take anything for granted there.

Now here's where it becomes even more interesting. The State of Nevada dropped its legal defense of marriage discrimination in February. That's why no one from the State of Nevada even bothered to show up in San Francisco last Monday to argue for the Question 2 marriage ban. And that's why US Supreme Court Justices will have to determine standing (a la Prop 8 California) should the usual suspects decide to appeal the Ninth's ruling.

This is why we're now playing the waiting game. If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of equality, Nevada may become State #18 for marriage equality by next month. Or we may not, should SCOTUS decide to place that ruling on hold. Perhaps our case may be one of the marriage cases that will set a national precedent next year. Or perhaps not, should SCOTUS decide not to take up Sevcik at all.

Whatever happens, this month promises to be an exciting one for civil rigts activists here in The Silver State. We're just waiting to see what comes next.

Matter of Time

What happens when one walks into a law suit and can't find the defendant? In San Francisco yesterday, no one appeared at the dais where an attorney for Governor Brian Sandoval (R) was expected. But then again, many of us already expected this to happen.

Yet how many court watchers were expecting this? Perhaps they needed to pay closer attention to what Monte Stewart had to say about Brown v. Board of Education.

Yesterday, Sevcik v. Sandoval received its day in court at the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. But since the State of Nevada decided to drop its legal defense of the Question 2 marriage ban. That's why Monte Stewart and these crispy critters were left to defend their sacred cow of discrimination.

Judging from the three judges on yesterday's panel and their reactions to oral arguments, supporters of equality have plenty of reasons to feel optimistic. And perhaps this is why opponents have turned up the bombast as they continue their last ditch attempt at saving their prized "political issue" of "segregation laws".

Over the past five years, we've witnessed remarkable progress on LGBTQ civil rights. And deep down, we always knew this was coming. It was just a matter of time.

And now, the time finally seems to be coming. Think about that. And keep in mind the empty spot in that San Francisco federal courthouse where Governor Sandoval's lawyer was supposed to defend the Question 2 marriage ban. This is simply a matter of time.

Some "Issues"

This morning, 3 very important judicial decisions dropped. So let's take a look at them.

In Denver, the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling overturning Utah's ban on marriage equality. And in doing so, the 10th made a very critical announcement. In their ruling, the majority of 10th Circuit Justices made a major declaration that may end up further accelerating the arrival of nationwide marriage equality.

“Today’s ruling marks the first time a federal court of appeals has ruled that excluding same-sex couples from the freedom to marry is unconstitutional," said NCLR executive director Kate Kendell in a statement. "The court makes clear that the promise of equality embedded in our revered U.S. Constitution includes the lives and loves of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. That recognition marks an indelible milestone in our nation’s journey to full inclusion — and one that will undoubtedly influence other courts in the months to come.”

Attorney Peggy Tomsic, who presented the arguments on behalf of the Utah couples — Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge, and Karen Archer and Kate Call — noted the far-reaching consequences of a federal appeals court's involvement.

"The court’s ruling is a victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case," Tomsic said in a statement, "but for our entire state and every state within the 10th Circuit.”

  
The 10th Circuit includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. In its opinion, the 10th Circuit noted that the Windsor case "left open the question presented to us now in full bloom: May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?" Then it sided unequivocally against the ban. "Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union."

Every so often, we've examined the awfully strong Constitutional case for marriage equality. None other than 5 US Supreme Court Justices hinted at it in their Windsor ruling almost exactly a year ago. In fact, several federal district judges have cited Windsor in their rulings striking down state marriage bans...

Including the latest one in Indiana. Judge Richard L. Young didn't mince words when ruling in favor of couples seeking the freedom to marry. And while it's unclear how soon marriages will begin in Indiana, this ruling just adds to the favorable trend for equality in federal court.

And speaking of federal court, let's take a glance at some big news happening closer to home. In San Francisco, the full 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals rejected an en banc (or full court) review of an earlier decision requiring heightened scrutiny in all cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. Remember that Sevcik v. Sandoval is now in the 9th as it awaits a November hearing. And even before this confirmation, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) & Governor Brian Sandoval (R) had already abandoned their legal defense of Nevada's marriage ban. So today's announcement further signals the arrival of marriage equality to Nevada is no longer a question of if, but when.

So today, we have 3 more federal court rulings in favor of LGBTQ equality. And all 3 suggest Question 2's stoppage of marriage equality in Nevada are numbered. Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R) and his "TEA" tinged ideological soulmates may have "political issues" with this, but judges who actually interpret the US Constitution for a living only seem to have issues with those who want to deny millions of loving families their b civil rights.

No Leg Left to Stand On

What a turnaround here. Last month, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) submitted a brief for the State of Nevada to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that raised eyebrows and dropped jaws. And it did so for all the wrong reasons.

Perhaps the backlash finally got to them, or perhaps they finally did realize they have no legal leg left to stand on in Sevcik v. Sandoval. Whatever the case, both elected officials announced late yesterday that they're dropping the legal defense of Question 2. And all of a sudden, no one is left to defend Nevada's marriage equality ban.

So what's next? Most likely, we're about to see a replay of what happened when Perry v. Brown (aka the California Prop 8 suit) reached the US Supreme Court. After the Governor & Attorney General of California declined to defend Prop 8 in court, the Yes on 8 campaign stepped up to do so. But once the case reached SCOTUS, the Justices ultimately issued a 5-4 ruling that determined the Yes on 8 campaign had no legal standing to represent the entire State of California.

Now that Governor Sandoval & Attorney General Cortez Masto have dropped the State of Nevada's official defense of Question 2, there's no one left with the legal heft to represent the State of Nevada. Even if "the usual suspects" try to step in for the State, they will likely run into the same trouble that the Yes on 8 campaign did thanks to the precedent set by the Supreme Court last year in Perry v. Brown.

In many ways, we're now approaching a rather anticlimactic end to what has been a difficult (and ultimately embarrassing) period of Nevada history. Not too long ago, Question 2 was considered to be "settled law" and marriage discrimination was "the norm". But when a few plucky Nevadans decided to sue for equality, everything began to change. And when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) announced the ultimate change of heart, even more monumental change followed.

But now, the end of marriage discrimination in Nevada is looking increasingly inevitable. And yesterday's announcement from Brian Sandoval & Catherine Cortez Masto only confirms this. Simply put, marriage discrimination has no leg left to stand on.

The Last Laugh

Roughly 18 months ago, a whole lot of heads were exploding in Carson City and Las Vegas. Why? Sevcik v. Sandoval was filed in federal court. And with that, Nevada finally had its own marriage equality law suit.

Last November, the trial court judge dismissed the suit... But he did so in such a laughably bizarre way that he was basically daring an appeal. And now, his dare has been granted in San Francisco.

On Friday, Lambda Legal filed their opening brief inSevcik v. Sandoval, the challenge to Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban. The same-sex couples who are plaintiffs in the case lost at the district court in late November last year. Their appeal to the Ninth Circuit was filed within months of the challenge to Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban, and the cases were put on a parallel track (although Hawaii’s is now on hold pending a special session of the state legislature to take up a marriage equality bill.)

The brief, filed along with a request to allow for 26,500 words, is the first argument in favor of marriage equality to reach a federal appeals court following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And theWindsor case figures prominently in the new filing. Picking up an argument made in Garden State Equality v. Dow, a state court challenge to New Jersey’s same-sex marriage ban, the plaintiffs argue that Nevada’s marriage ban now has stateand federal repercussions:

"Same-sex couples’ exclusion from the institution of marriage brands them as less deserving of equal dignity and respect and demeans them and their children. The marriage ban also blocks same-sex couples from rights and responsibilities across the entire spectrum of federal law."

Here's where it gets quite interesting. Keep in mind that this is the first marriage law suit to reach a federal appellate court since the US Supreme Court took a major bite out of marriage discrimination in its US v. Windsor ruling this past June. In that case, "The Supremes" essentially established a precedent in applying strict scrutiny to cases involving anti-LGBTQ discrimination while also striking down Section 3 of DOMA (or the "Defense of Marriage Act").

Now add this to The Ninth's history on marriage equality suits, and we can understand why Steve Sebelius is feeling bullish about Sevcik's future. Both The Ninth and The Supremes have ruled against government denying LGBTQ families the same relationship recognition and legal protection afforded to other families. Lambda Legal and the attorneys working for the couples suing Nevada recognize this, and that's why they cite the Windsor decision quite a bit in their brief.

Last November, Judge Robert C. Jones laughed this case out of his trial court. But in the end, the last laugh may be on him. Both legal trends and public opinion have shifted dramatically in favor of equality in just the past four years. Judge Jones may have thought he was thwarting a challenge to Nevada's current marriage law, but he may ultimately play a role in setting up an even bigger legal battle with even bigger results for LGBTQ families in Nevada and throughout the nation.

Supreme Shift for Marriage Equality

It's happening. It's finally happening. California's landmark Prop 8 case is heading to the US Supreme Court.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to deny an appeal of February's ruling against Proposition 8 paves the way for a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage by next year.

The decision means the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have two major gay-rights cases on its docket in the near future. Another federal appeals court last week struck down a federal law that denied federal recognition to same-sex marriage.

Backers of Proposition 8 said they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit ruling. [...]

A majority of the circuit's active judges voted against such reconsideration. [...]

Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins, who voted in February to overturn Proposition 8, responded in a concurring opinion that their ruling was narrow.

"We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California's Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage.

"That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time."

So what happens next? I'll let the experts at Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker explain.

Now that en banc rehearing was denied, the proponents have 90 days to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision striking down Proposition 8. It’s likely that Justices at the Supreme Court would have their conference to take up the petition and decide whether to grant review or not sometime after their summer break in October. Oral argument would follow a few months later, and then a final decision would be issued by June or July 2013. [...]

No one is certain if the Supreme Court would grant review of the case as it currently stands. Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel is very narrow and the holding is specific to California’s unique legal circumstances. A denial of rehearing in this case leaves the decision California-specific and there may not be four Justices – the number needed to grant certiorari – who want to visit an issue that’s so limited in scope. On the other hand, the panel’s decision did strike down an amendment to a constitution of an enormous state involving a contentious issue. And allowing gay couples to marry in California would nearly double the amount of people in the United States who live in an area that allows same-sex marriage.

Remember that since the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Perry v. Brown (the Prop 8 case) was narrowly tailored to just the (mis)use of the initiative process to deny the already granted right of civil marriage equality in California, The Supremes may actually decide that this case is not worth their time. However since this case is already in federal courts and addressing federal Constitutional issues, they may yet take the case. They may particularly want to take the case if they're out to broaden the scope again and make a ruling applicable nationwide, so now the final fate of the Perry case rests on how "activist" the Supreme Court Justices are feeling this fall.

At the very least, the early signs look good for Nevada's own Sevcik v. Sandoval marriage equality law suit. After all, Lambda Legal is also presenting a narrowly tailored case in arguing how forcing LGBTQ families to take domestic partnerships instead of civil marriages does not provide equal protection under the law. While Nevada's case is different from California's in that we never had any time period of marriage equality to start with, the same logic that most Ninth Circuit Justices used in their Perry ruling can also be applied to Sevcik.

So we can at least celebrate some good news on the equality front in the Ninth. However, we'll have to wait until the fall to see if the nation's highest court is ready to make some broad strokes that could affect LGBTQ equality nationwide.

Next Steps in Prop H8 Challenge, Our Equality

So yesterday was an amazing day, wasn't it? But hey, it ain't over yet. An appeal was just filed to take the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court that handles all federal suits in the Western region (including California AND Nevada).

And of course, we all know where this will end up. And this morning, The LA Times offered some good news on our chances with The Supremes.

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University Law School.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality was a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children didn't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality were "going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Ultimately, it may all come down to just one person, just one judge who will one day hold the fate of LGBTQ equality in his hands.

Two decisions in the past two decades, however, have effectively reversed Bowers [v. Hardwick, the 1986 decision that upheld state anti-sodomy laws]  and could well impact the gay marriage debate as cases from Massachusetts and now California wind their way through the system.  First, the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans invalidated Colorado's constitutional Amendment 2, a measure passed by referendum which precluded "all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."

Justice Kennedy's 7-2 majority opinion recalled Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy that the Constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." (Justice Scalia, citing Bowers, of course dissented.) Citing the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Kennedy struck down the Colorado provision and rejected the "special rights' language of its proponents:

The State's principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons by denying them special rights is rejected as implausible...Even if, as the State contends, homosexuals can find protection in laws and policies of general application, Amendment 2 goes well beyond merely depriving them of special rights. It imposes a broad disability upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions.

Kennedy, also citing the Equal Protection clause, similarly rejected the notion that the State had a compelling interest or legitimate legislative end in enacting Amendment 2:

In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end...Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry...Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit.

In the 2003 Lawrence v Texas case, the Court in a 6-3 decision invalidated the prosecution of two men under a Texas sodomy statute and reversed Bowers altogether. Again writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy overturned Bowers on both privacy and due process grounds:

Bowers' rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.

If that language sounds familiar, it should.  Looking at Judge Walker's decision Wednesday in the California Proposition 8 case, Slate's Lithwick noted, "I count--in his opinion today--seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law)."

If Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with us, we win. Simple as that. That's why Boies and Olsen have presented arguments that seem to go along with Kennedy's legal reasoning, and why Judge Walker cited so many of Kennedy's opinions yesterday. They know who will be crucial to win over in the coming months.

But for now, we must wait to see what happens next in the Ninth Circuit. This will most certainly drag out through the rest of this year and into the next, and we don't even know yet when marriages will resume in California. But without a doubt, this is great news and new hope for so many of us who have felt hopeless with the otherwise lack of progress on our civil rights in DC.

And this most certainly has implications far beyond the California state line. Even if the case succeeds on a narrow basis that just strikes down Prop H8 in California, this will be the first time ever that a state marriage ban has been struck down on federal constitutional grounds. And even better, Judge Walker's ruling included another precious legal gem.

Under both the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause, whether a law is constitutional comes down to whether the state has a good enough reason for it. So, the core of Judge Walker's opinion today is his factual findings - the determinations he made based on the evidence presented to him at trial. Judge Walker's methodical opinion relies on the impressive and authoritative trial testimony of the Perry plaintiffs and their expert witnesses to conclusively refute every argument ever advanced against permitting same-sex couples to marry.

Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 and laws like it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny even under the most forgiving legal standard, the "rational basis" test. But he also held that because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, Proposition 8 should be evaluated under the "strict scrutiny" standard - the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of race. Discussing the way that the law discriminates based on both sex and sexual orientation, he explained that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage." And "[t]hat time has passed."

What Shannon Minter from NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights) is saying is that Judge Walker wrote that Prop H8 failed both the "rational basis" test applied to most questions of discrimination, as well as the "strict scrutiny" test typically applied only to questions of the most egregious discrimination. And in this and Walker's conclusion that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, it will allow for future challenges of other state marriage bans even if the higher courts just take down California's marriage ban with this specific case.

There's a whole lot riding on this, and I'll be keeping a close eye to see if we may finally achieve full equality sooner than I had originally thought. :-)