How long will it be until same-sex marriage is legal throught the entire United States?

[scream4ever]

With our movement pretty much having reached the end of our legislative victories (at least until 2015 that is), most of our focus will now be on litigation for our rights. Personally I give it 1-3 years. I think the case that will produce our Loving v Virginia-esque ruling will either be Sandoval v Sevik (Nevada), Deboer v Snyder (Michigan), or the case from South Carolina which I can't remember at the moment. The cases in Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania are all likely to not advance past the district level as their attorney generals appear unwilling to defend/appeal them in the event of victory for our side.

I would also like to add that Maggie Ghallagher herself has said she expects such a ruling from the Supreme Court within the next 2 years . What do you guys think?

[kallipolis]

My crystal ball tells me it will occur....without declaring the time frame.

[Alnitak]

Good think piece.

My money is on Spring 2016, but we do not know enough information yet to name the case that is most likely to be "the one."

Sevcik v. Sandoval from Nevada is the closest to the Supreme Court, but I do not believe that there is sufficient political will for the court to make a decision on it, and we will lose Deboer v. Snyder at the 6th Circuit, so there will be no reason for SCOTUS to hear that one. Virginia cases Bostic v. Rainey and Harris v. McDonnell probably will not be appealed by Attorney General Herring or Governor-elect McAuliffe.

That leaves Whitewood v. Wolf (Pennsylvania) or Bradacs v. Haley (South Carolina). Whitewood is the oldest of the two and could reach the 3rd Circuit before Bradacs reaches the 4th. The 3rd Circuit is marginally Democratic. Of the five cases pending under the 4th Circuit's jurisdiction, Bradacs is the most likely to be heard on appeal, although the West Virginia case McGee v. Cole is only a month behind and could join Bradacs on appeal. Now Democrats outnumber Republican appointees at the 4th Circuit two to one. A victory is very likely, and the Supreme Court will not ignore two circuits whom have made broad reaching decisions.

The other lawsuits have been filed in adverse courts or were filed recently, and are not likely to catch up to the ones filed in July or earlier.

[Alnitak]

For reference I have drawn up a chronological table of cases challenging state DOMAs

State	Case	Filed
Oklahoma	Bishop v. United States	11/3/04
Nevada	Sevcik v. Sandoval	4/10/12
Michigan	DeBoer v. Snyder	9/7/12
New Mexico	In the matter of Association of Counties (state)	3/21/13
Utah	Kitchen v. Herbert	3/25/13
North Carolina	Fisher-Borne v. Smith	6/13/13
Pennsylvania	Whitewood v. Wolf	7/9/13
	Commonwealth v. Hanes (state)	7/30/13
	21 Couples (Caption?)	9/25/13
Virginia	Bostic v. Rainey	7/18/13
	Harris v. McDonnell	8/1/13
Arkansas	Jernigan v. Crane	7/15/13
	Wright v. Beebe (state)	7/2/13
Louisiana	Robicheaux v. Caldwell	7/16/13
Kentucky	Bourke v. Beshear	7/26/13
	Franklin v. Beshear	8/16/13
	Kentucky Equality Federation v. Beshear (state)	9/10/13
South Carolina	Bradacs v. Haley	8/28/13
West Virginia	McGee v. Cole	10/1/13
Oregon	Geiger v. Kitzhaber	10/15/13
Tennessee	Tanco v. Haslam	10/21/13
Texas	De Leon v. Perry	10/28/13
Colorado	Brinkman v. Long	10/30/13
Idaho	Latta v. Otter	11/7/13

--------------------------------------------------------------

Most of this information came from http://marriageequality.org/lawsuits and independent research.

[Ninja108]

What I think is going to happen with Sevcik v. Sandoval is that the 9th will go farther this time and not only strike down Nevada's ban but all the other ones within their jurisdiction which means Oregon,Alaska,,Idaho,Montana and Arizona's bans will be history.
I still think the court will punt on that though.
But we will see marriage equality being discussed in the next couple of years at the Supreme court,the bans simply aren't substainable now.

[JayHawk]

I fear that while a SCOTUS decision will appear to resolve the issue, the subsequent religious fervor will drag this out for more than a decade. I am an optimist but do not feel the issue will easily come to pass. That is having lived in red states for 8 of the last 10 years.

[scream4ever]

I fear that while a SCOTUS decision will appear to resolve the issue, the subsequent religious fervor will drag this out for more than a decade. I am an optimist but do not feel the issue will easily come to pass. That is having lived in red states for 8 of the last 10 years.

Of course some states will have to be dragged forward kicking and screaming, but it's essentially a technicality.

[scream4ever]

I'm genuinely shocked at how many people are saying it will be longer then 5 years. Based on the information Alnitak laid out I honestly don't see how it will be beyond the spring of 2017 for us to receive our Loving-esque ruling.

[T-Rexx]

^ 5 years is crazy, scream

It's going to be at least 10, and quite possibly a lot longer.

[Alnitak]

^ 5 years is crazy, scream

It's going to be at least 10, and quite possibly a lot longer.

Less than three actually. I'm fairly confident of that, and one of our greatest foes, the one and only Maggie Gallagher has said publicly on TV that it will only be two years.

The problem for SCOTUS is we are going to have several circuit court victories, at least in the 3rd, 4th, and 9th, and who knows how many of those individual cases will stand. That is too many states for SCOTUS to ignore. It is most likely that we will have them within three years. SCOTUS doesn't have 10 years to punt because the circuit splits will be too prominent.

[bendted]

Could any of these gains be reversed if the Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court appointments and etc.? That is my worry and why it is imperative to keep these fuckers out of power at all costs!

[Alnitak]

Could any of these gains be reversed if the Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court appointments and etc.? That is my worry and why it is imperative to keep these fuckers out of power at all costs!

Yes. If conservatives pick up Ginsburg's seat, everything is in danger.

A Republican president is also unlikely to cooperate with LGBT rights initiatives, or enforce federal laws that protect us, the national guard snafu is just one example. The best we can hope for is Christie, who would at least not veto any LGBT rights legislation that makes it out of Congress, other than a DOMA repeal.

[rareboy]

I'm genuinely shocked at how many people are saying it will be longer then 5 years. Based on the information Alnitak laid out I honestly don't see how it will be beyond the spring of 2017 for us to receive our Loving-esque ruling.

As long as it remains a viable wedge issue, there will not be universal homo marriage across the US for at least a decade. And some Courts will continue to chip away at it...and it will only take one conservative bench to put everything back by another decade.

[Alnitak]

As long as it remains a viable wedge issue, there will not be universal homo marriage across the US for at least a decade. And some Courts will continue to chip away at it...and it will only take one conservative bench to put everything back by another decade.

Fortunately, US federal courts have absolute power to determine the constitutionality of laws, and the federal courts of appeals cannot overrule each other. One conservative circuit such as the 6th is contained to its jurisdiction of four states, and probably not persuasive to other appeals courts on an issue such as this. Circuit splits on important issues are usually heard by the Supreme Court, but not always.

There will be a limit beyond which SCOTUS cannot ignore the circuit splits on marriage equality, and that may come within two years.

I have discussed and researched this with scream over Facebook for many hours, and while we certainly can be wrong, a lot of evidence supports this conclusion that a final ruling from the high court is coming sooner than anyone expects. The intent of this thread was to have a completely open and good faith debate over this point, but also to share some of the deeper knowledge behind why the insiders, including notorious homophobe Maggie Gallagher, think it is coming in less than three years.

Final note, we were all wrong when we thought we would lose some of the referenda last year. Just one person, Just_believe, predicted that we would win all four. Had we been more optimistic, we would have been correct. I think a dose of optimism here is not only warranted, but likely a more accurate outlook than the gloomy 10 year prediction most everyone seems to be convinced of.

[rareboy]

^ You know that as a friend and neighbour to the north, I am desperately hoping for the US to turn this corner and become a bulwark for equal rights for all....but when we watch the progress of this...when we see how courts often rule very, very narrowly on many of the homo rights issues...and the protection of states rights in this case...I think I'm probably not wrong in guessing that at least several states will be hold-outs to the bitter end.

[Alnitak]

...courts often rule very, very narrowly on many of the homo rights issues...and the protection of states rights in this case...

The Supreme Court actually did not rule at all on the merits in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and used the 5th Amendment in a broad way to overturn DOMA Section 3 in Windsor. If what Ginsburg said during a summer interview is correct, Justice Kennedy is itching for a Loving like ruling. That is confirmed, at least in part reading his dissent in Hollingsworth, by his expressed disappointment that the court did not get to rule rule on the merits therein. Kennedy has written three major LGBT rights rulings, and he is not finished yet...

I think I'm probably not wrong in guessing that at least several states will be hold-outs to the bitter end.

The magic of the Supreme Court of the United States is universal jurisdiction over every inch of US territory. Those states you refer to, were forced by Congress or the Supreme Court to accept every change of the Civil Rights Era.

In short, recalcitrant states don't get to say "no" to federal court. Now that may be different in Canada.

[scream4ever]

As long as it remains a viable wedge issue, there will not be universal homo marriage across the US for at least a decade. And some Courts will continue to chip away at it...and it will only take one conservative bench to put everything back by another decade.

It's only a wedge issue for Republicans now. In 10 years it will likely be a non issue. Some of the secondary issues will still be prevalent for some more years obviously (mainly wedding services refusal), but a blanked court ruling will essentially put the issue to rest. The other side hasn't had sufficient support for the Federal Marriage amendment for at least 10 years and never will again.

By saying courts can "chip away at it", I assume you're drawing a comparison to what has been happening to abortion rights. There are many reasons why the two issues can't be compared. The only way I see courts "chipping away at it" is if they say that county clerks can refuse to issue licenses to couples if they please.

[bankside]

^ You know that as a friend and neighbour to the north, I am desperately hoping for the US to turn this corner and become a bulwark for equal rights for all....but when we watch the progress of this...when we see how courts often rule very, very narrowly on many of the homo rights issues...and the protection of states rights in this case...I think I'm probably not wrong in guessing that at least several states will be hold-outs to the bitter end.

It happened step by step here too. They ruled one case at a time. The US is about 15 years behind us but proceeding along the same lines. Since we had full equality in 2003, by my math it is no more than 5 years before this is all a distant memory. States will be compelled to recognise equal marriages performed in other states, and then they will be compelled to grant their own residents the same treatment.

The Supreme Court actually did not rule at all on the merits in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and used the 5th Amendment in a broad way to overturn DOMA Section 3 in Windsor. If what Ginsburg said during a summer interview is correct, Justice Kennedy is itching for a Loving like ruling. That is confirmed, at least in part reading his dissent in Hollingsworth, by his expressed disappointment that the court did not get to rule rule on the merits therein. Kennedy has written three major LGBT rights rulings, and he is not finished yet...



The magic of the Supreme Court of the United States is universal jurisdiction over every inch of US territory. Those states you refer to, were forced by Congress or the Supreme Court to accept every change of the Civil Rights Era.

In short, recalcitrant states don't get to say "no" to federal court. Now that may be different in Canada.

Same in Canada. When the Supreme Court rules, there is no where else to appeal.

[JayHawk]

I sincerely hope that is the case. You can see the snowball effect when places are forced to accept federal standards. I love to be optimistic and I am a glass half full guy but this issue has let me down so many times in the past I suppose I am jaded. I will hold out hope for two years and be pleasantly surprised.

[Alnitak]

I sincerely hope that is the case. You can see the snowball effect when places are forced to accept federal standards. I love to be optimistic and I am a glass half full guy but this issue has let me down so many times in the past I suppose I am jaded. I will hold out hope for two years and be pleasantly surprised.

It has let everyone down in the past, but in the last year, positive events have occurred beyond our wildest dreams. We shut out the opposition in 2012 in four states, winning a ballot initiative was something that we have never even done once before, and we won another eight this year. We have never won everything we reached for in one year's agenda, nevermind eight states. These are all signs that the tipping point has occurred, and all efforts are now being made downhill. Pessimistic predictions made before 2012 were usually correct, but these times are different.

[scream4ever]

It has let everyone down in the past, but in the last year, positive events have occurred beyond our wildest dreams. We shut out the opposition in 2012 in four states, winning a ballot initiative was something that we have never even done once before, and we won another eight this year. We have never won everything we reached for in one year's agenda, nevermind eight states. These are all signs that the tipping point has occurred, and all efforts are now being made downhill. Pessimistic predictions made before 2012 were usually correct, but these times are different.

^^^This right here!

[melancholy]

I think in about 2 years, and then it wouldn't surprise me if it was made illegal again in the next decade.

[Rolyo85]

I think in about 2 years, and then it wouldn't surprise me if it was made illegal again in the next decade.

You'd be the only one that wouldn't be surprised.

[cm98059]

I am saying five years, because the federal courts have a lengthy process. Prop 8 in California is an example, From 2008 to now, prop 8 was in the courts system. Five years for Prop 8 to make it through the court system. I suspect that each of the cases going forward will meet the same challenges and resistance. So I am standing with five years, and I will have absolutely no problem with the courts moving faster and things coming about faster, So my vote of Five years is an outside vote, I fully expect that full marriage equality will be five years or less. But it will take up to five full years.

[cm98059]

I think in about 2 years, and then it wouldn't surprise me if it was made illegal again in the next decade.

I don't think it will be reversed. I don't recall any battles after the civil rights act of the 1960's from states trying to reverse the laws. I don't recall there being too much fight over the Americans with Disabilities Act. Or the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, So it would surprise me if there was backlash once the law is finalized, but until equal marriage become law of the land, we will be in for a long hard fight.

[Alnitak]

I don't think it will be reversed. I don't recall any battles after the civil rights act of the 1960's from states trying to reverse the laws. I don't recall there being too much fight over the Americans with Disabilities Act. Or the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, So it would surprise me if there was backlash once the law is finalized, but until equal marriage become law of the land, we will be in for a long hard fight.

There was a hitch in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, as it was then captioned, requiring a considerable delay at the court of appeals. Assuming similar delays do not occur in all 24 cases, the process should be much faster.

One case discussed above is most of the way to the Supreme Court, with another one not far behind.

In addition, one of the likely cases to make cert, Whitewood v. Wolf, already has a trial date on June 9th, and if it is disposed by the 4th Circuit in about a year or so after a decision, there will be plenty of time for the Supreme Court to take it on in 2015.

[cm98059]

I am perfectly happy to have it take less than 5 years, but as we have seen, even after the courts have ruled, the haters have to try every end run they can think of and that will take time, I will use the example of prop 8 again, it was five years going through the court system.

[scream4ever]

I am perfectly happy to have it take less than 5 years, but as we have seen, even after the courts have ruled, the haters have to try every end run they can think of and that will take time, I will use the example of prop 8 again, it was five years going through the court system.

It was actually 4 years in federal court (2009-2013). It would've only been three years had it not been for the 9th Circuit delaying it over the standing issue.

[Alnitak]

I am perfectly happy to have it take less than 5 years, but as we have seen, even after the courts have ruled, the haters have to try every end run they can think of and that will take time, I will use the example of prop 8 again, it was five years going through the court system.

It's quite possible that the defendants in any of the cases will try to introduce delaying motions, such as forcing the respective federal courts to certify questions to state courts, as happened in Perry half way through. That roadblock took over a year to get over.

[Adrock-JD]

I think it will take an eventual ruling by the U.S. Supreme court to strike down the bans in the die-hard confederate states.
Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton...old times are not forgotten...look away...look away...look away...Fuck You Die!

At least one old conservative ass fart in the U.S. Supreme court has to die or retire, which I think they only do on their death beds, and get replaced with a moderate to liberal.
That largely depends upon which party wins the White House next.

[Ninja108]

Indeed,JD which is why the next election will be so important.

[scream4ever]

It's quite possible that the defendants in any of the cases will try to introduce delaying motions, such as forcing the respective federal courts to certify questions to state courts, as happened in Perry half way through. That roadblock took over a year to get over.

Wasn't it the 9th Circuit that asked the question though ? I doubt it will happen again though since the Supreme Court ruled such groups do not have standing in federal court, and that state officials will be less likely to delay things and waste resources.

[T-Rexx]

I think it will take an eventual ruling by the U.S. Supreme court to strike down the bans in the die-hard confederate states.

Yes, exactly.

It will be several decades before the USA achieves universal gay marriage.

SCOTUS could change that, but I doubt that it will. The current court (a result of 30 years of Republican domination) is too conservative to acknowledge rights for gay people.

[Alnitak]

Yes, exactly.

It will be several decades before the USA achieves universal gay marriage.

SCOTUS could change that, but I doubt that it will. The current court (a result of 30 years of Republican domination) is too conservative to acknowledge rights for gay people.

Except Kennedy, one of those Republican nominees, has written the opinion in three of the most recent gay rights victories: Romer (1996), Lawrence (2003), and Windsor (2013).

I think it's kind of obvious what he wants to do now...

In fact, I think it all depends on when Ginsburg is ready.