On Long Waits & Enduring Hope

(The past 48 hours have been frustrating as hell. We just can't candycoat the sh-tshow that the Sevcik case has become. For the time being, marriage equality remains on hold in Nevada due to yesterday's epic courtroom confusion. Stay tuned here for further marriage updates.

In the mean time, let's take another trip to the Nevada Progressive archives to calm our nerves. Here, this might help us feel better: a classic from August 2010 on dealing with delays and confronting the bigotry that threatens to hold us down.)


This week has been a doozy for me. I was up. I was down. I was right. I was wrong. I was elated with joy. I was horrified and filled with fear.

And in the end, I just have to keep on chugging and do what needs to be done to move forward and achieve the full equality we so badly need and fully deserve.

I still have painful memories from 2008.

The yard signs that were stolen from my front yard. The homophobic insults coming from my own family. The belligerent Yes on H8 paid canvassers trying to bully my dad into taking away my civil rights. The "urine yellow" Yes on H8 signs being sprinkled all over my neighborhood by the anti-equality churches. These are my memories from the campaign.

The married couples wondering if their marriages were still "legally valid". The couples that waited too long and missed the chance to get a "limited edition marriage". The kids who were bullied in school before and after the election. These are still memories I have from the first days after Prop H8 passed.

Beating myself up constantly about why I didn't do more to stop this oncoming tragedy. This is the guilt I still have over my failure to do enough to stop Prop H8 from passing.

I still remember the drive home with my dad on the day after the election. (We were actually here in Nevada to help Obama win.) As soon as I heard on the radio that Prop 8 passed in California, I broke into tears... And cried all the way home. For the next two weeks, I was deeply depressed.

Am I sub-human? Are gay couples just inferior to straight couples? How could this happen here? Is this all my fault? These were the questions swirling around my head.

This week, I finally felt some closure. Prop 8 was overturned in federal court... And while marriage equality is still on hold in California, it was nice to see a glimpse of that "liberty and justice for all" I've heard about in this country.

I know we've all been frustrated by what may seem sometimes like a stunning lack of progress on attaining even the most basic of human rights for LGBTQ Americans. I know I have been. But this week, my hope was renewed. For once, the politics of hate and fear and bigotry was trumped by the possibility of a better America, an America that isn't ashamed to treat all her citizens equally.

Yes, I was feeling so great on Wednesday...

Then reality slapped me in the face yet again.

You see, last year I moved to Nevada. Yes, my dears, Nevada. I live smack dab in the middle of Henderson, which feels like the heart of that mythical "Middle America" I heard about when I was safe in the confines of "Left Coast California".

And believe it or not, this crazy lady is actually running for US Senate here.

Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, [Sharron] Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to "publicly acknowledge the Creator." [...]

In the questionnaire, submitted to the Washington-based Government is not God political committee, Angle said she would vote in Congress to prohibit abortion "in all cases," and considers a fetus a person under the Constitution.

The Washington-based group's website says it supports candidates who oppose abortion rights and "stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation."

And if you think that's all, think again. Sharron Angle is supported by "Christian Reconstructionist" religious right extremists who want to impose THE DEATH PENALTY on "homosexual sodomites".

An organization calling itself Vision to America sent out a recent fundraising appeal sponsored by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on behalf of Nevada Republican senatorial candidate Sharron Angle. "I have put together a plan to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Nevada Senate race — along with several others like it — to achieve conservative victory. This plan includes running statewide television and radio ads, sending direct mail to targeted voters, and operating phone banks — all geared toward defeating Harry Reid in November."

What is American Vision, and why do they love Sharron Angle? American Vision has a goal: "The goal is to return America to its Biblical foundations “from Genesis to Revelation” (a postmillennial reading of Revelation, which holds that the Second Coming will occur after an era of Christian dominance). American Vision is a non-profit, tax exempt, educational organization. Like many of these groups, DeMar also has a companion organization that can raise money and promote candidates for elected office: Vision to America." [link ...]

The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion," says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.

While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."

Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them." [...]

In 1993, American Vision helped county commissioners in Cobb County, Ga., pass an anti-gay resolution so strongly worded that it sparked a national controversy. Cobb County Commissioner Gordon Wysong spoke at American Vision's annual fundraising banquet the following year, saying of gay people, "We should blame them for every social failure in America." [link]

Frightening enough, right? Wait, it gets worse. Sharron Angle herself openly advocated the complete denial of even the most basic civil rights to LGBTQ Nevadans when she helped found the openly xenophobic Independent American Party of Nevada in the early 1990s. Yep, that's right. She thinks we SHOULD be discriminated against at work, when shopping, when on the bus, when applying for disability benefits, when searching for a place to live, whenever, wherever.

Oh, and Sharron Angle won't even take money from companies that treat their LGBTQ employees fairly and equally. Yep, she's that serious about her homophobia!

So how can someone like this even be taken seriously? How can someone like this earn votes in her run for the United States Senate? What happened here?

It's still saddening to see bigotry used as a "wedge issue" in political campaigns. It broke my heart with Prop 8 in California two years ago, and now it just infuriates me to see Sharron Angle flaunt in my face her hatred of me and my extended queer family.

It just goes to show how much progress we still need to make in this country. It's great to see federal judges like the Honorable Vaughn Walker rule in our favor and rightly decide that we are citizens deserving of equal rights... And then it's terrifying to see Senate candidates like Sharron Angle vow to oppose any and all remedies to wrongful discrimination. Of course, it's safe to say she doesn't agree with Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling.

OK, I guess I should mention the elephant... No, make that donkey in the room.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses. And I'm not saying it's wrong for GetEQUAL or any other LGBTQ advocacy group to demand full equality. As a gay person myself, I'm 110% there with you! I'm just saying that Harry Reid is NOT the enemy, but rather a friend who I know wants to do the right thing. Sometimes we need to give him the extra push and "make him do it", as both he and Nancy Pelosi said on Saturday at Netroots Nation. But in the end, it's important to keep building these relationships, holding leaders like Reid and Pelosi accountable when necessary, but also remembering that these are our friends and we don't have to fight against them.

Yes, Harry Reid is my Senator. And yes, I know he's not perfect. But whenever I feel frustrated about why DOMA is still on the books or why ENDA hasn't been passed yet, I remember what's at stake here. I remember the batshit crazy tea-nut queen running against him, and I remember I have no choice but to make sure the tea-nut queen gets nowhere near the US Senate.

Sometimes, change isn't fast. Most often, change isn't easy. But in the end, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was right. Change happens. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

That's what gives me hope... Hope that Prop 8 will soon be another sad footnote in our history, one that we will have overcome. It's what gives me hope that one day soon (oh, it should be soon!), Harry Reid and Barack Obama will be able to herd those cats often referred to as "US Senators" and deliver on basic freedom from discrimination in the workplace. It's what gives me hope that homophobic, transphobic extremists like Sharron Angle won't be able to win elections on pure, primal hate.

So I guess the hope is still alive. It's been a long walk to freedom and equality, but I guess we'll soon make it all the way up there.

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.

Closure

Last night, wedding bells were heard across California. While the US Supreme Court's dismissal of the Prop 8 law suit is now widely known, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to vacate the stay yesterday came as an interesting surprise. And once that happened, marriage equality finally returned to California for good.

Four years ago, I still had raw wounds over what had occurred.

Prop H8 had passed in California. And even though I didn't have any immediate marriage plans, I nonetheless felt like all my future hopes and dreams were ripped away from me. I didn't know what to do... Until I got active in working to undo the damage.

Yet even though I'm seeing progress in my new home state, I still have raw feelings about what happened in California last fall. I still have wounds that are only starting to heal.

The yard signs that were stolen from my front yard. The homophobic insults coming from my own family. The belligerent Yes on H8 paid canvassers trying to bully my dad into taking away my civil rights. The "urine yellow" Yes on H8 signs being sprinkled all over my neighborhood by the anti-equality churches. These are my memories from the campaign.

The married couples wondering if their marriages were still "legally valid". The couples that waited too long and missed the chance to get a "limited edition marriage". The kids who were bullied in school before and after the election. These are still memories I have from the first days after Prop H8 passed.

Beating myself up constantly about why I didn't do more to stop this oncoming tragedy. This is the guilt I still have over my failure to do enough to stop Prop H8 from passing.

This was the ghost that was constantly haunting me. That's why I was taken aback when this happened.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This week's marriage equality rulings have already been incredibly momentous. Yet even though they do remind us of all the work that must still be done to secure full equality in Nevada and nationwide, I must admit that yesterday's big news finally provided some major closure for me.

Shortly after the 2008 election, I felt sub-human at times. Why was it OK to campaign to strip away my civil rights and the civil rights of so many other Californians? That's why Judge Walker's 2010 ruling was so monumental... And why Wednesday's SCOTUS decision was such a relief. It finally provided closure.

One political campaign over one ballot initiative may not seem all that life changing at first. But when one looks at Prop 8 and all the other marriage ban initiatives, it's incredibly difficult to continue thinking that. Even though I was not in a relationship at the time, I truly felt like my dream was stolen from me. And I wondered when I could ever have it back.

That's truly the message of these discriminatory initiatives. These votes to take away people's rights dehumanize people. There's a reason why LGBTQ youth suicides and anti-LGBTQ hate crimes spiked after Prop 8's passage. That's why this one political campaign over this one ballot initiative mattered so much. It threatened not just the well being of families, but also the lives of many others with dreams of starting their own families in the future.


Now, I live in another state with its own marriage ban initiative that needs to be overturned or repealed. And one day, that will happen. And one day, LGBTQ Americans across the country will be able to fulfill their dreams. But at least for now, I'm finally experiencing some closure.

The Long Road Ahead

This week has been an incredibly momentous one for LGBTQ civil rights. As soon as the US Supreme Court issued its rulings on two critical marriage equality cases, Americans across the country (and here in Nevada) celebrated. Locally, we've been reminded of the continuing struggle for marriage equality here.





And yesterday, Jon Ralston provided another reminder. Specifically, Ralston was speculating on what might happen under a worst case scenario of a Republican takeover of the Nevada State Senate in 2014 and a loss of Senator Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno, and the lone GOP Senator to vote for SJR 13 this year) to higher office or a primary challenge. Under this worst case scenario, what should otherwise be a re-passing of something that already passed could quickly become an ugly demise for equality.

This is a stark reminder of the high stakes and fragile road ahead for equality here in Nevada.

Sure, the Nevada Legislature is not the only path forward for marriage equality. As we speak now, Sevcik v. Sandoval is still pending in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which is the same court that ruled on Prop 8 early last year. But as we saw with the Prop 8 and DOMA cases, federal law suits take a long time to resolve. And while the DOMA case especially sets a good precedent for LGBTQ civil rights going forward, it's still a gamble to speculate on how the US Supreme Court will specifically rule on Nevada's marriage suit.

So there are two paths forward to full civil marriage equality. Both are doable, but neither is 100% guaranteed. One likely requires Democratic control of both houses of the Nevada Legislature in 2015, while the other requires an amenable US Supreme Court with a majority inclined to use US v. Windsor (the DOMA suit) as precedent in Sevcik v. Sandoval. Equality activists will need to prepare to continue traveling up that long road ahead.

The Journey Continues.

Yesterday, we saw history made. Even though the US Supreme Court did not "go full throttle" to endorse nationwide LGBTQ equality, civil rights did advance in a big way with the scrapping of DOMA Section 3 and invalidation of California's Prop 8 marriage ban. And even though the rulings don't directly (legally) affect most Nevada families, Southern Nevada's LGBTQ community nonetheless found reason to celebrate the historic occasion at The Center.





And there were a number of special guests stopping by to celebrate with the community. Several Nevada legislators spoke, including State Senator Justin Jones (D-Enterprise). He came with his brother-in-law, and reminded the audience of the many reasons why today's rulings and the ongoing effort for SJR 13 matter.



And that wasn't all. Several other legislators spoke, including the sole Assembly Republican to cross the aisle to support SJR 13. And not only that, but Assembly Member Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas) took to the stage with her mother! Now that's what I call real family values.



We saw many poignant moments at The Center yesterday. It was particularly moving to see longtime community advocates take the stage to take in what had just occurred. After all, they remember the (not so) long ago days when queer folk had to fight like hell just for the right to exist.





Long before Assembly Member James Healey (D-Enterprise) and State Senator David Parks (D-Paradise) were elected to serve in Carson City, they were fighting for equality. Obviously, they've never stopped doing so. And they certainly had something to say about it yesterday.





And so did Senator Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), as she's also been working on this for some time.



As we discussed yesterday, this was a long time coming. Yet with that being said, we still have a long way to go to reach full equality in Nevada and nationwide.

There were many reasons to celebrate yesterday. Overall, the nation inched ever so closer in the direction of full equality. And for LGBTQ families in California, the long and harrowing nightmare of Prop 8 finally began coming to a close.

I should know. After Prop 8 first passed, I fell into incredibly deep depression. It took days for me to leave the house again. But ultimately, I had to pick myself up and realize what needed to be done next.

In many ways, what happened yesterday felt like closure to me. Finally, that horrifying nightmare was over. Finally, I felt more human again. Finally, I felt more equal again.

However, this journey is still far from over. There's still more to be done here in Nevada, and all the speakers at The Center yesterday reinforced that message. Relief and jubilation were quite palpable in that very hot parking lot, but so was the drive to continue the journey to full equality.

Some on that stage yesterday had to fight a number of political obstacles to advance LGBTQ civil rights in Carson City. Many in the crowd have had to overcome intense bigotry and discrimination to reach The Center and its very hot parking lot. There's been plenty of progress over the years, and yesterday marked another promising milestone of progress. Yet today, the journey continues. This story isn't finished just yet for us.

Long Time Coming... But Still Long Road Ahead

Today, something amazing happened. Today, I felt a little more equal under the law. And I wasn't alone.

Edie Windsor was stuck with a $300,000 tax bill after her wife passed away. She and her lawyer decided to do something about it.



And as a result, not only does Edie Windsor have to worry about that $300,000 tax bill, but she's also just set incredible legal precedent for LGBTQ equality going forward.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It can and will be used exactly that way, and for marriage-equality supporters, it suggests the DOMA ruling in U.S. v. Windsor is not only a breakthrough victory today, but it will continue to offer opportunities for further victories fairly soon.

Note, the Supreme Court had some options, even once the majority agreed to strike DOMA down. In fact, while the outcome was widely expected, many predicted a narrow ruling -- the justices would point to federalists principles, and say that if a marriage is legal at the state level, the federal government will recognize it, too.

But the majority went considerably further than this, saying that DOMA didn't just violate principles related to states' rights, but also that the law was discriminatory.

There are legal scholars who can speak to this in more detail, but it appears that every state with anti-gay laws has a real problem on its hands. Windsor didn't establish marriage equality in all 50 states, but it did hand a meaningful legal precedent to everyone challenging discriminatory state laws.

Going forward, any and all laws challenged as discriminatory against LGBTQ Americans will face strict scrutiny in federal courts. And yes, this is a big f**king deal. Even though SCOTUS didn't enact nationwide marriage equality today, the days of marriage discrimination in America are likely numbered.



Yet with this being said, the Prop 8 ruling was still bittersweet. LGBTQ families here in Nevada and in the 37 other states without marriage equality will still have to wait for their day in court. At least we in Nevada can look forward to progress on the Sevcik case, that will take a while. How much longer will families here and in the other 37 less fortunate states have to wait for full equality under the law?

Still, even this is progress. Less than five years ago, the "great liberal Blue State" of California narrowly voted to ban marriage equality just months after marriages began. I had to live through that, and so did many others. But now, finally, marriage equality will be restored to California. And this truly does further the momentum for marriage equality nationwide.


We've come a long way to reach this point. However, we're far from finishing the beautiful struggle for equality. This was a long time coming, but we still have a long road ahead.

So What Happened to Prop 8?

We continue to get more details on what just happened... And what will happen going forward. Here's SCOTUS Blog (via Maddow Blog) on what will happen in California going forward.

"After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case."

So what now? Again, marriages will soon resume in California. It may even happen as soon as today!



What The Court ultimately did was to invalidate the Ninth Circuit Court ruling and essentially revert all the way back to (then) Judge Vaughn Walker's historic ruling that struck down California's marriage ban on broad 14th Amendment equal protection grounds. While there may be some early confusion at some County Clerk offices in California (since there's no binding legal order just yet to mandate marriage equality), we will likely see marriages happen somewhere in The Golden State soon.

However, wedding bells won't ring here in Nevada... Just yet. But with the Sevcik v. Sandoval now pending in the Ninth Circuit, it may not be too much longer before marriage equality again makes a splash at SCOTUS.

So today, LGBTQ civil rights activists didn't score a complete victory. However, they still won battles big and small. And this story is still far from finished.

SCOTUS Marriage Equality Liveblog

We've been waiting... And waiting... And waiting. But now, it's finally here. The US Supreme Court has dropped its final rulings, and two of them are on marriage equality.

And...

7:03 AM: SCOTUS just ruled DOMA unconstitutional! In a 5-4 ruling, The Court explicitly described DOMA as discriminatory & illegal. There's more to come soon.

7:23 AM: After a few minutes of rumors and confusion, we now have a better idea of what's happening to Prop 8.

NorahODonnell: .@JanCBS: #SCOTUS suggesting it doesn't have jurisdiction for ruling on Prop 8; same-sex marriages likely to resume in CA @CBSNews

We're not 100% sure just yet, but it looks like SCOTUS is about to restore marriage equality to California this year! We in Nevada (and elsewhere) will have to wait a little longer.

Stay tuned here for more breaking news and more in-depth analysis on what's happening today.

7:27 AM: This was another 5-4 ruling. But in this case, Chief Justice Roberts joined the progressive Justices. And yes, we now know for sure marriage equality will soon resume in California!

His Testimony, Her Gavel, Their Decision, Our Families

So Easter is tomorrow. This is our big family holiday of the spring. It has us all thinking about family.

This past week has been especially important for LGBTQ families. In Washington, all eyes were on the US Supreme Court as the DOMA and Prop 8 cases faced oral arguments. And in Carson City, SJR 13 finally had its hearing in the Nevada Legislature.





As mentioned Tuesday, there was an abundance of powerful testimony during the hearing in the Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. One who certainly couldn't be ignored was Assembly Member James Healey (D-Enterprise). Healey not only discussed the merits of the bill, but his own family experience and his own life's journey as an out gay man in Nevada.

You just have to see and listen to this to believe it. So watch it below.







By the end of James Healey's testimony, many in the room were on the edge of their seats. And this, along with Senator Ben Kieckhefer's (R-Reno) surprising and incredibly strong endorsement of SJR 13 and marriage equality, set the tone for the rest of the day. And what a day Tuesday was!

Later in that hearing, prominent anti-equality trolls Richard Ziser and Janine Hansen tried to spin away everything that had just occurred... As well as the huge shift in public support for marriage equality in recent years. When Ziser went too far in playing fast & loose with facts & figures, Senator & Committee Chair Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas) delivered a stunning rebuke. In a measured response that helped preserve decorum, she just asked him to provide real evidence for his lofty claims.





Yet in just doing that, it was another ground breaking moment. Who thought the day would ever come when an out lesbian African-American State Senator would check Richard Ziser?! It finally happened on Tuesday. And Nevada history HERstory was made.



At some point, we'll all be thinking about family this weekend. On Tuesday, Nevada's LGBTQ families finally had a chance to tell the Nevada Legislature about their experiences and explain why civil marriage equality is so important. It's certainly an experience that I will never forget.

It's Coming! (Marriage Equality, That Is.)

This week is shaping up to be a huge one on the marriage equality front. Tomorrow and Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. Depending on how narrowly or broadly the court rules (especially on the Prop 8 case), marriage equality may come to Nevada this year, even as our own Sevcik v. Sandoval suit is still pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile in Carson City, the Nevada Legislature will officially take on SJR 13, the constitutional amendment to repeal the Question 2 marriage ban passed in 2002. Tomorrow morning, SJR 13 will receive its first hearing in the Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. And funny enough, this is happening just in time for the start of (grassroots LGBTQ lobbying) Equality Days! And of course, it's happening at the same time as the Prop 8 oral arguments in the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Might this be serendipity?

And then, there's this. Surprise, surprise: Las Vegas' lucrative wedding industry is realizing just how profitable equality can be for them, the community, and the state.

According to economist M.V. Lee Badgett, research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, legalizing gay marriage would generate $23 million to $52 million in business revenue and $1.8 million to $4.2 million in tax revenue over the next three years in Nevada.

The brunt of the revenue impact from gay marriages, however, would come from out-of-state couples bringing their ceremonies and celebrations to Las Vegas: Eighty-five percent of the 86,203 marriage licenses issued in Clark County in 2012 were to couples from outside Southern Nevada.

“Vegas' strengths lie in the fact that it is an event town," said Kathryn Hamm, president of GayWeddings.com. "It has a vibrant collection of wedding chapels, it's a destination location for many, can serve bachelor and bachelorette parties and honeymoons alike, and has featured on its stages every gay icon who has ever electrified and unified and entertained our community.”

The same-sex marriage industry in New York offers some inkling of what to expect in Las Vegas. In 2011, the first year gay couples could legally wed in New York state, marriage license fees, celebrations and wedding-related purchases helped shore up New York City’s economy by $259 million, according to the New York City Clerk’s Office and NYC & Company, the city’s tourism and marketing bureau.

Dianne Schiller, owner of Renta-Dress and Tux Shop in Las Vegas, said she can hardly wait. “It would definitely increase my business and add another dimension to it,” said Schiller, whose shop presented a fashion show at last month’s LGBT Wedding Expo at Circus Circus and has been marketing to gay couples for years. “If we really want to sell ourselves as the Wedding Capital of the World, we need to open the doors and embrace everyone.”

Las Vegas has already become one of the nation's top five LGBTQ business & leisure travel destinations. And again, weddings are big business here. So Nevada only stands to gain by enacting marriage equality soon.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In just the last five years, the political landscape on this matter has changed dramatically. Then, it was seen as incredibly controversial. Now, however, we're approaching critical mass.

Consider the national polls since early February: in the latest Fox News poll, a plurality supports marriage equality (49% to 46%); in the latest CNN poll, a majority supports marriage equality (53% to 44%); in the latest Pew Research Center poll, a plurality supports marriage equality (49% to 44%); in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, a majority supports marriage equality (58% to 36%); in the latest Quinnipiac poll, a plurality supports marriage equality (47% to 43%); in the latest CBS poll, a majority supports marriage equality (54% to 39%).

Just yesterday, the Columbus Dispatch published a statewide poll in Ohio that found 54% of the state wants to overturn a statewide ban marriage equality.

A few hours later, Sen. Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat from the increasingly "red" state of Missouri, announced that she too now supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

[Anti-equality religious right activist Gary] Bauer and his allies can embrace reality or they can stick to their "skewed" line, but either way, they're losing.

The nation overall has changed dramatically. And by the way, so has Nevada. The evolution is happening. It's now just a matter of how soon full equality for LGBTQ families will come to Nevada and the nation... And how it will happen.


What an exciting week this is already shaping up to be!

How Obama Admin's Prop 8 Brief Can Expedite Marriage Equality's Arrival in Nevada

Yesterday, we discussed the surprising amicus brief in favor of marriage equality (and specifically the overturning of California's Prop 8 marriage ban) from a group of over 100 Republicans. Today, we might as well talk about what President Obama submitted to The US Supreme Court yesterday. But first, I'll let SCOTUSBlog's Amy Howe explain what's in there. Believe it or not, there's a prominent Nevada angle to this story!

In the brief that it filed [last night], the federal government urged the Court to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but it did not go as far as supporters of same-sex marriage would have liked and argue that all same-sex couples, throughout the United States, should necessarily have the right to marry. That question, it told the Court, could be decided later. Instead, it wrote, when a state such as California allows committed same-sex couples to have virtually all of the rights and benefits of marriage through laws allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, but doesn’t allow those couples to get married, it is treating the same-sex couples differently because of their sexual orientation. Because that different treatment, the government explains, makes no sense, it violates the Constitution’s requirement that everyone will be treated equally. Moreover, the government observed, “California’s extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8” —that is, promoting the conception and rearing of children.

If the Court were to agree with the federal government, that would be enough to decide the case in the challengers’ favor and rule that Proposition 8 cannot stand. The Court would not need to decide (as the trial court did in the case) whether there is a broad constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married. And its ruling wouldn’t have any immediate effect beyond the eight states – in addition to California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii, and Illinois – that currently have such civil unions and domestic partnerships. However, the Court’s reasoning might then lay the groundwork for it to strike down other states’ laws banning same-sex marriage, even when the states do not offer a civil union for same-sex couples. But that might take a while, by which point the country and the Court might be more ready to do so – which may well have been the Obama administration’s goal all along.

While The White House's amicus brief wasn't as broad as some equality activists were hoping for, it's still quite significant. Here's what the President said himself on the matter today.



And here's Steve Benen decoding the significance of yesterday's amicus brief.

[... T]he key principle to keep in mind is that of "heightened scrutiny." For proponents of marriage equality, including the White House, the argument is that measures banning same-sex marriage must be subjected to a higher level of legal scrutiny because they deliberately single out a specific group of people for unequal treatment.

In practice, this means it's incumbent on opponents of marriage equality to defend measures like Prop 8 by explaining how and why these laws "substantial related to an important governmental objective." And for the right, that's awfully difficult -- why in the world would the government need to stop two consenting adults who fall in love and want to get married from doing so? -- and leads to easily mocked arguments such as the one over "unplanned and unintended offspring" that I made fun of in late January.

The Obama administration's argument, in other words, is not only sound, it opens the door to sweeping national change. Here's hoping a high court majority finds it persuasive.

So while the administration's brief doesn't demand marriage equality nationwide immediately, it essentially sets up a legal chain reaction. If the high court agrees, then the legal burden going forward will be on opponents of marriage equality to try to defend discrimination. And since "The Supremes" will have already ruled in favor of marriage equality this year, it will have a handy dandy precedent (in favor of equality) for future marriage cases.

This is actually better than the very narrow Ninth Circuit ruling last year. In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tailored its ruling to just California and cited Romer v. Evans as precedent. That was the 1995 US Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Colorado's ban on non-discrimination ordinances because it unfairly attacked the civil rights that LGBTQ people already had. If the Court takes this route, a Prop 8 overturn will only apply to California for now... Though even that still sets up a favorable precedent for Nevada's own Sevcik v. Sandoval, along with other future marriage suits.

What The White House is arguing for is much broader than the Ninth Circuit ruling. And if agreed to by The Supreme Court, it's one that will be experienced here in Nevada quite soon. Here's Towleroad's Ari Ezra Waldman with a clear explanation.

President Obama takes on eight states --California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island -- whose policies can be described as "everything but marriage." These states give gay couples all the trappings of marriage, the right to adopt as couples, and all the protections a gay person could want other than the word "marriage." It is for this reason that bans on marriage make no sense in California and, by implication, in these seven other states. This compromise allows the President to make a forceful argument in favor of the freedom to marry, but still leave some wiggle room for the rest of the states.

There is reason to believe that this makes strategic sense.

First, the President knows that Justice Kennedy is the likely swing vote in this case and Justice Kennedy is a cautious, conservative jurist. He has a history of respecting states' rights above all else and often rejects sweeping policies that reek of overreach. Incremental change, if any change at all, seems to be his mantra, as Professor Kenji Yoshino has argued many times before. The compromise position may be aimed at Justice Kennedy's cautious nature, giving him room to support gay rights without undermining the driving force of his judicial career. [...]

[In addition], it gives the Supreme Court a way out of a nationwide right to marry other than simply dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds while still supporting the freedom to marry. Many legal experts are concerned that the Supreme Court may not be ready to find a sweeping right to marry that upends so many state constitutional provisions. Making a pro-gay marriage decision akin to the President's middle ground allows the Court to make a strong statement about freedom while still allowing the popular consensus to keep developing further and further in favor of the freedom to marry. A decision along the lines of the President's argument would nudge the already favorable popular view of same-sex marriage even further, thus giving the debate time to work itself out without a Roe v. Wade-type premature intervention.

Even if the President's middle ground may disappoint some vocal activists, the significance of his brief cannot be overstated. Yesterday marked the first time that a presidential administration has stated that a ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. His brief will be read and taken to heart. Through this brief, President Obama -- the first "gay" President -- has solidified a legacy of compassion and progressivism that surpasses Lyndon Johnson's and Franklin Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's. His brief in Hollingsworth will be remembered as a watershed, a moment after which the freedom to marry seemed inevitable.

If The Supreme Court agrees with this Obama Administration amicus brief, then we will see marriage equality here in Nevada this year. After all, this argument meshes quite well with Lambda Legal's argument in Sevcik. SB 283 is supposed to provide legal equality to gay & lesbian couples, yet Question 2 keeps them in a separate & unequal status because they can't actually have the same marriage rights as straight couples. If the high court takes this route, then Nevada's Question 2 (along with marriage bans in other states that have civil unions & DP's) must fall along with California's Prop 8. And this enables the Court to issue a fairly broad ruling in favor of marriage equality and expanded LGBTQ civil rights without risking the backlash of a "blanket" nationwide order for immediate marriage equality (for all 50 states). Still, this leaves the door open for just that kind of outcome in the not-too-distant future.

So there's plenty at stake for Nevada's LGBTQ families at The Supreme Court this spring. President Obama may ultimately expedite Nevada's evolution to full marriage equality. We'll have to wait and see if the high court green lights this.

An Evolution on Equality

Want to be blown away? Read this.

More than 80 Republicans and conservatives have attached their names to a brief to be filed with the Supreme Court later this week arguing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

First reported last night by The New York Times,the brief will be filed in the Proposition 8 case before the high court. The signees include two Republican members of Congress —Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York —as well as a number of former Republican advisors and elected officials. Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman also attached his name to the brief. Last week,Huntsman, who is Mormon, announced his support for same-sex marriage. They all join Ted Olson, the former solicitor general for President George W. Bush and conservative attorney, who has been leading the suit against California's Proposition 8. [...]

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and co-founder of AFER, praised the news, declaring in a statement, "We're proud to have these prominent Republicans join Ted Olson in supporting a freedom-based Constitutional argument for equality. None of us —Democrat, Republican or Independent —would want to be told that we can't marry the person we love, and these signatories are blazing the trail for the next generation of fair-minded Republicans still to come."

While a few of the names on the list were expected, there were many surprises. Former EBay CEO, current Hewlett Packard CEO, & 2010 California Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman (R) notably switched her position from support for Prop 8 to support for marriage equality. Former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman (R, no relation to Meg) also signed onto this amicus brief. And as noted above, Former Utah Governor & 2012 Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman (R) finally announced his support for marriage equality.

Perhaps most surprising are all the former George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney staffers who signed onto this amicus brief. Even top Republicans are now realizing that their party's embrace of bigotry in recent cycles is only endangering its future.

Next month, The US Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on two marriage cases: the above mentioned law suit challenging California's Prop 8 marriage ban, and the law suit challenging DOMA (the ban on the federal government recognizing gay & lesbian marriages, as well as allowing states to deny recognition of marriages performed in other states).

So why are these Republicans speaking out now? Of course, there are political ramifications, as I hinted at above. However, there's also an important legal argument that can't be dismissed. Towleroad's Ari Ezra Waldman tries to make sense of both.

For us, the freedom to marry sits squarely within the American progressive tradition of fundamental fairness and equality. Constitutional lawyers have special terms -- substantive due process and equal protection -- for those basic concepts and both are on prominent display in AFER's brief to the Supreme Court. The decision to marry, AFER argues, is a right of fundamental importance, one recognized by the Supreme Court 14 times in a diverse array of cases. It is so fundamental that the Court has refused to limit the right of even prison inmates to marry, for example. When a right is so fundamental, any restrictions on that right have to pass a high hurdle to pass constitutional muster; Prop 8 doesn't even clear a low hurdle. Prop 8 also violates equal protection because it treats identical couples differently simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. AFER argues that such discrimination can only be constitutional if it passes a high hurdle --namely, heightened scrutiny -- that puts a considerable burden on Prop 8 proponents to argue that banning gays from marrying somehow advances an important social interest; but the brief makes the correct argument that Prop 8 cannot survive under any level of scrutiny. Of course, raising well-adjusted children encouraging opposite-sex couples to have their children inside marriage are not consequences of keeping gays out of the institution of marriage. Therefore, marriage discrimination must go.

The Republicans who filed their brief in support of the freedom to marry don't disagree with AFER's analysis; in fact, their brief starts from the premise of the existence of the fundamental right to marry. But they chose to emphasize a different part of the American legal and political tradition and imply that Prop 8 is no longer justified rather than never justified. The Republicans argue that the institution of marriage is central pillar of human freedom and limited government, situating themselves within the classically liberal tradition of individual rights. They also argue that although the judicial directive is one of restraint, courts cannot remain blind to developing social science: Prop 8, like other laws that outlived their purposes, is "outmoded" and subject to equal protection challenge because the newest social science evidence suggests that there is no difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Notably, I agree with where the Republicans' brief ends up -- namely, calling for the end of Prop 8 and all bans on the freedom to marry; but I cannot abide either of the Republicans' arguments. Marriage is not simply about freedom. If it were, why is the state involved in it at all? And, for that matter, why are we stopping at two-person marriages? Plus, Prop 8 is not "outmoded." It was never a constitutionally justified form of social policy. It was always bald discrimination regardless of whether 75 Republicans bought into the biased pseudo-science and outright lies that got Prop 8 passed in the first place.

I also cannot bring myself to embrace the theory that all these Republican signatories have legitimately "evolved" on the freedom to marry. Some of them, including prominent congressional voices from the past decade, came to Congress before "gay marriage" entered the public consciousness. They may have truly evolved, and I heartily embrace their support! But, Republicans like Meg Whitman, who ran for governor of California on a staunch pro-Prop 8 platform just 2 years ago, is either the beneficiary of rapid social chance or a craven politician who never really believed in discrimination but was willing to say anything to get elected. In a way, that form of anti-gay leader is worse than the true believer. The latter has the benefit of honesty of conviction, however disgusting and hateful those convictions might be. The Meg Whitmans of the world were willing to destroy the lives of gays just to achieve power.

But the Republicans' brief may serve an essential legal and political purpose. It is clear that if Prop 8 is going to be declared unconstitutional, it will be because of the vote(s) of one or several of the Court's conservative justices. The Republicans' brief not only gives these justices a conservative legal argument to vote against Prop 8, it also gives them political cover and provides evidence of an emerging consensus across the political spectrum that bans on gay marriage are things of the fringe.

So these signatories likely have a variety of reasons for signing onto this amicus brief. Some truly do have ideal reasons, while others may be doing so for more craven reasons. Nonetheless, all have evolved on this matter.

Yet several prominent Nevada Republicans are still resisting evolution for any reason. Nevada's own federal marriage law suit is called Sevcik v. Sandoval because Governor Brian Sandoval (R) is defending Nevada's Question 2 marriage ban in court. And both Dean Heller & Joe Heck dismissed calls to evolve on marriage equality just last year.

We may very well see "The Supremes" strike down DOMA & Prop 8 (either narrowly or perhaps broadly) this year. And voters have evolved dramatically on marriage equality in just the past three years. So what are Nevada Republicans like Heller, Sandoval, & Heck waiting for? Why keep fighting progress & equality?

Supreme Moment for Equality?

This is the moment we've all been waiting for. It's finally here.

The Supreme Court has just announced in an order that it will take up the Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act cases for further review. The next step in the review process for both cases is a scheduling order, which should come soon, laying out the date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court, although the case will likely not be heard until the spring of 2013. The Court’s term lasts until June, so we should have final news by then on the fate of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in California. This decision means that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional continues to be stayed, and couples cannot wed in California.

In the cases involving DOMA, which prohibits same-sex couples’ legal marriages from being recognized by the federal government and therefore denies 1,138 federal rights and benefits due to those couples, the Court specifically chose to hear the CASE challenge, and will likely make no public announcement regarding the other cases until after it rules on DOMA’s constitutionality.

Oral arguments are expected during the week of March 25 (2013), and a final ruling is expected during the week of June 24. And I'm the mean time, we can expect plenty of speculation as to what the Supreme Court will do. While the Court tends to have a conservative majority, some court watchers think most Justices won't ignore growing public support for marriage equality, as well as the long and painful history of the struggle for LGBTQ civil rights.

“I don’t think justices get in this position very often because everybody knows what the judgement of history is going to be,” Lucas Powe, a Supreme Court historian at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law, told TPM before the court’s announcement. “I don’t think think anybody doubts that gay marriage is coming — it’s only the issue of time. This is one of those times where no matter what you think you know you’re going to be wrong if you oppose it.”

The Supreme Court has not weighed in on gay marriage, leaving the outcome uncertain, but earlier rulings in favor of gay rights give hope to proponents of marriage equality. The four Democratic-appointed justices are widely expected to strike down DOMA. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a presumable swing vote, has written passionately against laws persecuting gays.

“I think Kennedy’s vote is very secure,” Powe said. “I think there are comfortably five votes to overturn DOMA. … Kennedy has a libertarian streak — he has written the key gay rights opinions and I think he will continue to do so.”

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, told TPM ahead of the announcement that “conservatives are probably afraid they will lose Justice Kennedy.”

And while Chief Justice John Roberts has a mostly conservative record and is thought to be a social conservative, some court watchers think his vote may even be in play because he will have his Court's legacy in mind. Will he want his Supreme Court to be known as the Court that stood in the way of a historic civil rights achievement?

Without a doubt, the next session of the US Supreme Court will be quite historic. What happens there in the coming months will determine how much longer we will have to wait before marriage equality spreads nationwide. And while it doesn't look like the Court will take Nevada's own marriage suit just yet, what happens in the Prop 8 & DOMA cases may very well determine the final ruling of our case.