Religious right petitions Supreme Court to stop CA gay marriages

In a move as desperate as it is pathetic, the religious right asked the Supreme Court to stop California’s gay marriages that began anew last night when the appellate court lifted it stay on an earlier decision finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled this past Wednesday that the religious right plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal the case, and thus the initial ruling, finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, stands.  The court also struck down the section of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act that forbade the federal government from providing federal marriage benefits to legally-wed gay couples. Those benefits have now begun.

But, the religious right is now arguing that the Supreme Courts permits losers in a dispute before the court 25 days to petition the court to reconsider its decision.  The religious right is arguing that it still has 22 days left, so marriages in California cannot begin, they say, until the religious right gets a chance to file its petition.  They want the Supreme Court to, in essence, stop the 9th circuit from lifting its stay until 25 days have passed, or the religious right files its petition for reconsideration fo the decision.

So far, legal experts don’t think the religious right has a chance, but there still is the possibility that the court would delay such marriages on the technicality that the religious right still has 22 days to file it petition.

Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier get married in California following historic Supreme Court ruling.

Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier get married on Friday, June 28, 2013 in San Francisco following historic Supreme Court ruling.

According to Bryan H. Wildenthal, professor of law at Thomas jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California. Wildenthal takes the approach that we should, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, trust but verify that the religious right doesn’t have a chance:

I’m still laughing (I’m the “trying not to bust a gut” correspondent), but you are correct, that the notorious “gay exception” in all things legal (which has bitten us all in the ass before) must be watched-out-for.

This is the same U.S. Supreme Court that bizarrely intervened in a district-court-level trial management issue of how/whether to broadcast trial proceedings in this very same Prop 8 litigation (a relatively trivial trial management issue totally unworthy of Supreme Court attention, and which the Supreme Court would never normally have concerned itself with).

So, I would say, celebrate as the marriages continue, but we cannot rest entirely easily until the Supreme Court has denied (or time for motion has expired) on a motion to reconsider the Prop 8 decision.

Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights pretty much concurred with Windenthal:

This will go nowhere. We are done fighting over marriage in California. The Supreme Court is done dealing with marriage in California. But even I am finding this new reality somewhat disorienting, while also delightful and exhilarating. Our opponents are disoriented and seething. They have been in charge and now their entire reason for existing has collapsed. Ding, dong…

Prop 8 plaintiffs Jeff Katami and Paul Zarrillo get married in Los Angeles, two days after the Supreme Court refused to overturn a decision striking down Prop 8.

Prop 8 plaintiffs Jeff Katami and Paul Zarrillo get married in Los Angeles, two days after the Supreme Court refused to overturn a decision striking down Prop 8.

Scotusblog, a legal blog looked to by many people as an authority on the Supreme Court, also agrees:

The principal point of that delay is to permit the losing party to prepare and submit a petition for rehearing to the Justices, though such petitions are as a practical matter never granted….

Whether the emergency request to Justice Kennedy can succeed is unclear. But it is unlikely. As a formal matter, the Ninth Circuit did not put the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Proposition 8 case into effect prematurely. The Supreme Court held that the proponents of Proposition 8 could not file appeals in federal court. That ruling says nothing about imposing or lifting a stay on same-sex marriage. The court of appeals likely has the authority to act with respect to its own previously entered stay, which is a form of controlling its own docket. Although the court of appeals had previously stated that they stay would remain in effect until the Supreme Court’s ruling was final, it presumably can change its mind….

A further complication is that the Supreme Court has just ruled that the parties making emergency application — the proponents of Proposition 8 — have no legal “standing” to participate in the case in the first place. So the case should not have been in the court of appeals to be stayed.

I had considered that last point too, though it’s a bit of a Catch-22. The religious right is appealing the ruling that they didn’t have standing.  I guess the question is whether the court can now say, again, “you don’t have standing to even ask us to reconsider.”

What this boils down to is pettiness on the part of the religious right.  They lost this past week in a big way.  And now they want to do whatever they can to harm gay couples, even if only for a few weeks.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

182 Responses to “Religious right petitions Supreme Court to stop CA gay marriages”

  1. yepi says:

    I have already started reading some of your solar related article. i found great post here.I will get back here. I just added your blog to my bookmark sites. thanks.

  2. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I’m really at the point where I don’t care, but I think you may not be honest with yourself. You have only posted on this blog. You registered with DISQUS just before posting here. You chose your user name so you could post here. We all have our beliefs about good and evil. What connection did you make in your head between choosing that name and posting on a blog that discusses many gay related issues? Do you feel that being gay is evil?

    Again, I don’t care, but you should care about your motivation.

  3. resistallevil says:

    I believe that evil is a real force in the world and we must be wary of it and fight it.

  4. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Are you going to answer my question?

  5. resistallevil says:

    My original post was because I reject the intellectual dishonesty that says two gay men or two lesbians can have children. I reject it on biological grounds which is why I keep mentioning biology. There is ALWAYS a biological mother and a biological father. Due to natural human curiosity, a child is eventually going to want to know who their biological parents are, so they might know who they are related to by blood.

    Obviously, many children are much better off being raised by two loving, responsible gay men or two lesbians, than by two irresponsible or abusive natural parents. I personally have nieces and nephews that would have been better off raised by my gay friends (who I know to be responsible people) than by my useless siblings.

    But the ideal (and yes — superior) arrangement is to be raised by a loving and caring father and mother, so that a child has daily, constant, positive male and female role models.

  6. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    My remark was not only about biology, although you don’t seem able to get beyond that. A hetero-supremist is someone who feels that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, period. Last night, you had the nerve to tell me I was bi instead of gay. Apparently, you know more about what is in my head than I do. That’s a pretty good definition of someone who feels they are superior to someone else.

    Your choice of a user name shows that you think you are morally superior to all of us horrible gays on this blog. I see no moral superiority of straight over gay. I know I mentioned love, but you made no reference to it. I feel gays and straights are on equal ground when it comes to love.

    There is a theory that homosexuality exists in nature to help control populations. I have some doubt about that, but I have to admit that it could be. Personally, I feel it’s a natural variation such as left handedness. People use to feel that being right handed was superior to being left handed. That seems funny now.

    I would love to hear your explanation of your choice of a user name. Why did you choose it?

  7. resistallevil says:

    While heterosexuality may not be socially superior to homosexuality, it certainly is superior biologically. It is the only available method of species continuance among mammals, birds, most reptiles, most fish, and most insects. Even among humans, our species would quickly die out if there were no heterosexuality. A heterosexual fertile male and fertile female, in most cases, can meet and reproduce, without any needs for artificial scientific assistance.

    Two gay men or two lesbians cannot do the same. It is absolutely impossible. Even if a lesbian is artificially inseminated with sperm from a gay donor, that is still absolutely a heterosexual act.

    So, when it comes to reproduction, heterosexuality is clearly superior because it produces offspring. No gay sex act can produce offspring. To pretend that heterosexuality is not biologically superior is simply being delusional in the service of political correctness.

  8. Mark C says:

    These peoples reason for existing hasn’t collapsed, it’s evolving… the Supreme Court has proved once again that they can not have thier way in a secular state. This will reinvigorate and reenergize the movement to establish a state religion and to then use that religion as a basis for our laws.

  9. karmanot says:


  10. karmanot says:

    It was the mustache dude.

  11. karmanot says:

    Honey, go to Google and look up turkey baster and BFFL.

  12. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Of course, you’re correct Becca. His posts smack of being a hetero-supremist. The part that disturbs me, I really think he sees himself as an ally.

  13. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Let’s hope that time wounds all heels.

  14. dcinsider says:

    To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: Fundamentalist Christianity: The uncontrollable fear that somewhere, someone might be happy.

  15. samizdat says:

    ROFLMAO! Man, where did you get this bullflop?

  16. nicho says:

    Bull. The 9th didn’t have to impose the stay to begin with. They could have allowed marriages to proceed during the whole appeal process. Doesn’t look shabby to me at all. What was shabby was people who had no standing trying to deny people their rights.

  17. Badgerite says:

    When you read the Windsor decision it is clear that, contrary to what the dissenters say, the case was decided on sound legal principles of equal protection of the laws. It really is not the Court telling any individual state that it must recognize the principle of marriage equality. What it does say is that where the state has recognized marriage equality, the federal government cannot disparage that principle by treating a same-sex marriage as somehow inferior. It leaves the door open for future the legal and societal evolution of this issue. Good stuff!

  18. BeccaM says:

    I’m 50 years old and my wife is 70. I think we’ve waited long enough.

  19. James Lorenzato says:

    It didn’t work to keep segregation no matter how much religion believed in it so why should it work here?

  20. James Lorenzato says:

    Isn’t a bridesmaid’s dress supposed to make her look like a beached whale?
    I thought is was some unwritten rule to make the bride look good.

  21. James Lorenzato says:

    Monoceros No. They have a theoretical chance of filing a petition for rehearing and having it granted so they aren’t officially dead. They actually have an icecube’s chance in Hell of
    getting anything much even if they got a rehearing but it isn’t RIP yet.

  22. James Lorenzato says:

    Such requests are usually turned down without comment and without discussion with the other side. Normally you need irreparable harm or an extremely burdensome situation to prevail. The fact that this looks shabby or brings the court system into disrepute wouldn’t normally be enough. I’m a bit sorry Justice Kennedy didn’t comment on the 9th’s move though.

  23. James Lorenzato says:

    Guys. Kennedy wrote the dissent arguing to give the proponents standing to appeal.

  24. James Lorenzato says:

    Even though I am glad people get to marry the decision to proceed was in fact bad form .

    You, the 9th, and just about everybody seems to have decided a rehearing request would be a stall tactic without ever seeing any request or its contents. Justice Kennedy wrote a pretty solid dissent arguing the SCOTUS didn’t adequately appreciate initiatives. But everybody has cut to the chase without letting the procedure take place with its normal balance and that looks shabby. A party should not be bulldozed before that party’s final chance in court. Put the shoe on your foot instead of theirs and it would pinch too.

  25. Thom Allen says:


  26. BillFromDover says:

    In other words, just get over it and remember that time heals all; especially for bigots… well hopefully.

    And if that doesn’t work, then just suck it up as you lost this time around/again!

    And all the worse ta ya in the future!

  27. BeccaM says:

    Give it up, Mike. He has nothing to offer but heterosexist superiority drivel and the dog-whistle implication that homosexual sex — because it is not “normal” intercourse — is therefore deviant and abnormal.

    He also confuses the terms “egg donor” and “sperm donor” with “biological mother and father” — which is another way of assigning a connotative superiority to heterosexual relationships and their direct offspring.

    Most of all, for him to assert that it is not “meant by nature” for gays and lesbians to have children is sheer arrogance — even if he happens to be gay himself, which I personally doubt given how little he knows about gays and lesbians and how our lives unfold over years and decades.

  28. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    And a hogwash to you fellow. I self identify as gay, because that’s the way I feel. I like women as friends, I get along well with them, I even see beauty in women’s forms. I just don’t want to have sex with women now that my curiosity has been satisfied. I spent twenty eight years in a monogamous relationship with one men. I thought he was the most desirable person in the world. I didn’t lust after my neighbors’ wives. I didn’t look at straight porn when my husband wasn’t looking. I would say that all that puts me around a 5.78.

    If a straight men admires an athlete’s physique, does that make him bi. How about guys having sex in prison? Does that make them bi? It’s common to see football players pat each other’s fannies, does that make them bi. You’re trying to live a black and white life in a world that’s many shades of gray. Things and people don’t fit in tidy little categories.

  29. BeccaM says:

    And if you bothered to read my first paragraph, you would see that I am disputing your biological deterministic approach to sexual relations between social, sentient beings.

  30. resistallevil says:

    I think the notion of “self-identify” is hogwash. There may be a spectrum, but you’re born to a place in the spectrum. You can’t be a 5, for example, but choose to live as a 6 — that just gives ammunition to the crazy fundies who claim gayness is a choice.

  31. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    You do know what happens when you assume, don’t you?

    I would imagine that you are aware of the Kinsey continuum? I may not be a Kinsey six, but I’m close enough for government work. I self identify as gay. Actually, Kinsey zeroes and sixes are probably pretty rare. Most people find themselves somewhere in the one to five categories.

  32. resistallevil says:

    If you bothered to read my post, third paragraph, you’ll notice I mentioned “fertility solutions.”

    For what it’s worth, I support gay marriage on the grounds that government should not be telling Americans how to live their lives. And I support gay adoption on the grounds that there are many abandoned children that need responsible adults to look after them.

    My only point is that a gay couple can not have children without:

    * adoption
    * involvement of a third person as donor or surrogate
    * or (in the future) genetic engineering.

    It’s otherwise impossible for a homosexual couple to have children — and even with future scientific advances, it will *always* be impossible for a gay couple to have offspring in the same manner as a fertile heterosexual couple.

  33. resistallevil says:

    I assume then, that in order to be motivated to have sex with a woman, you must have been sexually attracted to her? So, you’re bi?

  34. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    You sure know a lot about gay men. It’s really too bad that it’s inaccurate. Many gay men came out after being married and fathering children.

    Please don’t let your head blow up by this next piece of information. Many gay men (I’m talking from experience) have had sex with women. It seems to occur quite often during our college days. We’re curious and a woman hits on us big time. We try it, because it’s doubtful that any of our friends will call us names. Do all gay men have sex with women? No. My late husband wouldn’t have dreamed of it.

    As my father-in-law would say, “You’re talking through your hat, Mr. Evil.

  35. BeccaM says:

    “And the sole biological motivation for sexual attraction to the opposite sex is reproduction.”

    There’s an entire brimming bucket of Fail-Juice in that unfounded and unscientific assertion.

    By the way, I imagine your head is going to explode when IVF techniques perfect the ability to combine the genetic material of any two people — regardless of gender — and have viable offspring result.

    And if you think that day isn’t coming, here it is:

    In any case, I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of IVF, artificial insemination, or surrogacy, eh? I get that you’re trying to come across as all reasonable and educated, but your false assumptions and complete denial of human psychology and sociology create blind spots big enough to hide a 747 jetliner.

  36. resistallevil says:

    Homosexuality is a natural and normal state in nature, where an individual human being is not attracted to the opposite sex. And the sole biological motivation for sexual attraction to the opposite sex is reproduction. Therefore, in my humble opinion, homosexuals are not meant by nature to have children — and yet so many yearn for children.

    Additionally, there is no such biological reality (yet) as two fathers or two mothers. Every human being, every child has a biological mother, and a biological father. Some gay couples adopt, in which case neither parent is the biological parent. Others use a donor or surrogate, in which case one member of the gay couple is the biological parent, and the other member adopts the child. But, at minimum, there is always a third person involved.

    Note that this is not at all the same as fertility solutions for infertile couples. In that situation, a heterosexual couple desires to have biological children but can not.

    Homosexual men and women, assuming they are fertile, could choose to attempt to have “normal” sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex and have biological offspring. Obviously it’s easier for a homosexual woman to accomplish this, than a homosexual man, since many gay men, due to their biological lack of attraction to the opposite sex, would not be capable of performing “normal” sexual intercourse.

  37. silas1898 says:

    A new twist on the old Orel Roberts “Give me $$$ or god will kill me” scam.

  38. Miresslemes1989 says:

    мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт…­ ­ViewMore——————————————&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

    Seriously, after four years of argument, does the SCOTUS really want to listen to it all over again? Deja don’t.

  39. tomtallis says:

    Don’t you know? All those ruffles have a “thinning” effect. Jusk ask them. Every bride wants to look like rolling snow cone.

  40. tomtallis says:

    The thing is that you can’t get an emergency stay unless there’s, you know, an actual emergency. They seem to have missed that in first semester law school.

  41. tomtallis says:

    Give them time. There’s no question in my mind that we will see more than an uptick in anti-gay violence. The hysterical hate speech has gotten too strident, using extremely inflamatory terms. They WANT the violence to escalate.

  42. Monoceros Forth says:

    Oh, nice :-/ Because it’s like these hate groups have no other way to get their message out. They must turn to NPR to make their still, small voice heard. Or something.

    I know that “news” reporting has degraded to the point that mere transcription of uninformed opinion is considered to be journalism, but seriously, is there anything newsworthy in this even by the current low standard? Just repeat the same few hackneyed talking points about “tradition”, “sanctity”, “redefining marriage” and “activist judges” and move on.

  43. pappyvet says:

    They are not thinking of the children. They are thinking of excuses and acting like children.

  44. pappyvet says:

    Agreed ! But at least he found work after “Psycho”

  45. mike31c says:

    You RWNJ’s needs to get this through your ignorant and puny minds: You have no legal standing. So sit down and shut up.

  46. Ummmm, Justice Kennedy? Hi, it’s Kenneth, from down at the office. Some asshole from Arizona was wondering if you would stop marriages if California? What? Let me get pen…

    Let’s see: that’s “he can go fuck hisself”, “you will bitch slap him if he evar bugs you on the weekend again”, and lastly, “he should eat shit,” correct, sir?

    Thanks, sir.

    “The petition is denied without comment.”

  47. karmanot says:

    Aryanzonia is full of fascists.Give me a two year old any day. :-)

  48. karmanot says:

    She was just waiting for the opportunity to bitch slap Anne Romney.

  49. karmanot says:

    Well, they are hung up on the empty tomb and the empty womb.

  50. karmanot says:


  51. karmanot says:

    And bridal dresses—all the non gay ones look like a football field of fat ruffles and Ms. Scarlet’s curtains.

  52. karmanot says:

    “Caterers refusing to cater a same-sex marriage” I first read that as catheters.

  53. karmanot says:

    Tony Perkins is a religious grifter, who has made millions off religious scams.

  54. karmanot says:

    And listening to Gwen Ifill is like watching varnish dry.

  55. Jim Olson says:

    But then Darryl Issa will wet himself about yet another IRS non-scandal.

  56. nicho says:

    National Petroleum Radio

  57. BeccaM says:

    I stopped listening to NPR when they became apologists for torture.

  58. Drew2u says:

    By the way, did anyone catch PNR’s “On the Media” hour talking with anti-gay groups and what their opinion on the overturning of DOMA is?
    I love TED Talks, but fuck NPR, sometimes.

  59. BeccaM says:

    I have a very simple and utterly foolproof hypocrisy detector: When someone who claims to be ‘pro-life’ is also in favor of capital punishment.

  60. BeccaM says:

    It’s too quiet.


  61. Houndentenor says:

    Thank you. I always wondered what took so long. Folks in that part of the country are a little slow but that was ridiculous!

  62. Houndentenor says:

    As anyone who has ever dealt with polls knows, even slight changes in the wording of a question can yield significantly different results. They like to use polls that show a growing number of Americans consider themselves “pro-life”. Well depending on the options, lots of people might check that box even if they want abortion to remain legal, at least under certain circumstances. If it were a binary choice I certainly wouldn’t want to refer to myself as ANTI-life, so you can see how such a poll can get distorted numbers that don’t reflect people’s actual views on reproductive rights.

  63. karmanot says:

    Notice how quiet are the trolls?

  64. 2patricius2 says:

    That’s good news. Thanks. He responded quickly. I was at Pride events all day so I didn’t hear this till I got your comment from discus. He denied it “without comment”…..Sounds like he just symbolically snubbed them. Now we will see what their next step is, besides whining and making pleas for more money. At any rate, Pride was joyous, coming as it did in the wake of the Court decisions. Hope you have a great weekend.

  65. nicho says:

    And if he does, what’s he going to think about all these people running around with crosses around their neck, and on their shirts, and on top of buildings. He’d be like, “WTF? Are you mocking me? That was the worst fucking day of my life! That’s the last goddam thing I want to see.”

  66. Thom Allen says:

    I actually thought that the right’s backlash might include more physical violence against LGBTQs. With the extreme anti-gay hate from some quarters, having the gun nuts and neo-Nazis irate, Republicons pushing for a Constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, the Catholics and Baptists raging against it, Call2Fall happening today, I’m wary that there won’t be some violence somewhere. There’s a lot of anger mixed with the hate. And, sometimes bullies want vengeance when they don’t get their way.

    Here’s an example of someone, in a small community about an hour N of NYC, having 100 guns (some automatics), explosives and a TANK. While none of the stories about this say that he was anti-gay, it’s disturbing that there are people out there with these kinds of arsenals. The fact that this man probably committed suicide, makes me think that there was some underlying psychopathology that seems to be present in many of those who have gone on to murder gays and others.

  67. Thom Allen says:

    She had a hair transplant. Donor locks from the Donald.

  68. Thom Allen says:

    Off topic, but here’s an example of a preacher asking for $50,000 from his congregation to get his HELICOPTER new blades. He says that God will give anyone who contributes a band new vehicle of his dreams. Of course, the Rev lives in a compound in a mansion, with several smaller houses, tennis court and pool on the property. His flock will probably pony up, just as these “marriage defenders” will.

  69. BeccaM says:

    Amen to that.

  70. nicho says:

    All of us WERE children and we were hurt by homophobia. Many of us were hurt by not having good gay role models.

  71. BeccaM says:

    I wouldn’t either. Nor would I stay in any B&B where I wasn’t welcome.

    But hey, sometimes you make your plans and set up schedules and pay your money — only later to discover that your wedding or vacation has been ruined by one anti-gay bigot. Thus the cases will be filed — and the bigots will lose.

  72. nicho says:

    I don’t know about anyone else. I wouldn’t want an anti-gay caterer. You know the food is going to suck. Same with florists.

  73. BeccaM says:

    Rachel Maddow did a magnificent job this morning of demolishing the regressive-right’s “think of the children!” BS argument.

    In response to the yawp from Jim DeMint (R-Bigotistan), she had this to say:

    Maddow: “Justice Kennedy addressed that issue specifically in his ruling. He says that by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples who have kids, you’re humiliating and demeaning those kids. By denying their families equal protection under the law by the parents who are raising them and who love them and who make their family. So we can put it in the interests of children, but I think that cuts both ways. And the ruling cuts against that argument. I mean, gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy can do to make more of us exist or less of us exist. And you guys for a generation have argued that public policy ought to demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist. But you don’t make any less of us exist, you are just arguing for more discrimination. And more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.”

    The only thing I would add to that is not only do gay people exist, we have families and many of us have children. Having two mothers or two fathers doesn’t harm those kids. But denying them civil rights does.

  74. Monoceros Forth says:

    Ah, yeah, you’re probably right there. The religious-freedom line will be pushed as hard as possible.

  75. BeccaM says:

    Good. They deserve it.

  76. BeccaM says:

    Personally? If the past is any indication, with respect to what’s happened in other states shortly after marriage equality became law, probably court cases related to public accommodations denials. Caterers refusing to cater a same-sex marriage, that sort of thing.

    In states with strong anti-discrimination laws — which California does have — they always lose.

  77. nicho says:

    I’d love to see the IRS do an audit of these “defending marriage” groups to see how much they hoovered out of the pockets of the rubes and what percentage of that went directly into the pockets of the people running the groups. I’m guessing that they siphoned off a lot.

  78. Ninong says:

    “Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy turned down at midday Sunday a request to stop same-sex marriages from occurring in California. Without comment, and without seeking views from the other side, Kennedy rejected a challenge to action by the Ninth Circuit Court on Friday implementing a federal judge’s ruling allowing such marriages.” — SCOTUS Blog

  79. BeccaM says:

    Yep. For more detailed analysis:

    SCOTUSBlog. :-)

  80. BeccaM says:

    Actually, we’ve been getting married for decades, if not longer.

    It’s just that we’ve been denied social and civil recognition. Eventually, in the 1980s when it became safer (not safe, just a relative term), a number of progressive religions began performing same-sex marriages. These marriages became more common through the 90s and up through 2003, when for the first time in America, civil marriage became possible.

    This fight for us has never been for the right to religious recognition. We’ve known this, and even the bigots know this, even though they keep couching most of their public arguments from a religious perspective.

    My point is that if, as you say, the rug is pulled out from under us, if civil marriage rights are denied us again, it won’t matter if we have a piece of paper saying we were once considered married in civil law. Hell, my wife and I have an official certificate from the City of San Francisco that says we were married in March, 2004 — and it’s nothing but a piece of paper, because it was declared invalid.

    This is where we must be vigilant: To prevent that rug from being pulled. State by state, and court by court, we have to keep the fight going and never to become complacent.

  81. nicho says:

    As long as the suckers keep sending them money, they’ll keep it up. They’re just a bunch of con artists “defending marriage” against imaginary threats. There are a lot of people stuffing their pockets and they’re not going to kill the goose that’s laying the golden eggs.

  82. Monoceros Forth says:

    So, I guess the bigots’ last forlorn hope in California is officially dead:
    Now what? Is the doctrine of “nullification” going to make a reappearance?

  83. Ohhh, that’s gotta hurt! Kennedy bitchslaps that petition down without so much as even a comment.

  84. woodroad34 says:

    *Lifts belly* “I know there’s a pony here somewhere”

  85. woodroad34 says:

    No, like Justice Kennedy, he will probably roll his eyes and say “what part of Christianity do you ‘christians’ not understand; I died for this? Buh-bye, going to another party.”

  86. woodroad34 says:

    Which would really be funny, because Jesus took in the disenfranchised and rebelled against the moneylenders (religious right allies), Philistines and Temple Overseers (religious right). The religious right call themselves Christian and evoke Jesus at every turn, yet their beliefs fall totally into the Old Testament, which Jesus disavowed. So, actually the religious right are Jewish–which will REALLY make their heads explode. The sooner, the better.

  87. woodroad34 says:

    Seriously, after four years of argument, does the SCOTUS really want to listen to it all over again? Deja don’t.

  88. woodroad34 says:

    There used to be a comic strip called “angry dog” or something like that and it was always a picture of dog straining his chain so tight and his body was so rigid with anger, that he became and angry statue. That’s how I view someone with the misnomer of “Alliance for Freedom” a religious group that lies about what it’s for. They only know anger and apparently religion can’t help them find peace. Lie number two.

  89. woodroad34 says:

    I think he did when he denied their petition today (albeit without comment). I think he rolled his eyes and shook his head, implying “what part of ‘no standing’ do you not understand?”

    My sister and I used to play with matches, even after repeated scoldings; so my mom took a match and placed it close enough to our fingers until we yelled and pulled back…she said “what part of no playing with matches don’t you understand?”.

  90. karmanot says:

    Or Listerine!

  91. karmanot says:

    It’s a platinum version of the one DiFi patented years ago.

  92. karmanot says:

    She’s already stashed the Tiff guilt jewels just in case.

  93. karmanot says:

    If they can find it.

  94. karmanot says:

    And face glue

  95. karmanot says:

    Yep, tell them to climb off the cross, CA needs the nails to bury Prop 8.

  96. This is and always was about money. These organizations could care less if gays and can or can’t get married. What they care about are the fools that send in money for them to “fight” for them.

  97. BloggerDave says:

    Well… I’m willing to suspend disbelief and allow that a man as cool as Jesus could have existed but, of course, when a person dies, they just don’t come back..

  98. ArthurH says:

    W.C. Fields once said, “If at first you don’t succeed, try try again. Then quit. No use making a damn fool of yourself.” But being a damn fool seems to be the major characteristic of the religious right.

  99. Bill says:

    Someone should tell them they have some bits of animus in their teeth.

    And the whole country can see it.

    I feel embarrassed for these people.

    Someone’s got to. They’re certainly a shameless lot.

  100. TheOriginalLiz says:

    Well, I certainly can’t imagine anyone marrying Newt for love, or sex.

  101. TheOriginalLiz says:

    But not even a society based on actual Christian principles – they want a society based on their own warped, hate-filled fantasy of what they think Christianity should be.

  102. JayRandal says:

    Anti-abortion and bashing Gays are main two planks of far-right bigots. They want abortion outlawed across entire nation. They want abortion doctors executed. They want sodomy laws reinstated. They want Gays imprisoned. They want our country to be fascist police state. They want perpetual warfare.

    If Mitt Romney had become President the far-right would be getting their agenda fulfilled. As it is Obama is doing very little to stop it. GOPers as I call them expect to win presidency in 2016 to roll
    back Gay equal rights and abolishment of abortion. Supreme Court could rule again on Gay marriage to overturn it completely. In turn declaring sodomy illegal and punishable by imprisonment.

    If it happens I will move to Canada or somewhere else to never return to US in my lifetime.

  103. rmthunter says:

    I think it’s more a matter of the right wing and its nuisance power. Ginsburg’s comment in a recent interview about Roe v. Wade was illuminating — she was worried about backlash, even though the two cases are not really similar. The ant-gay right, however, has a large overlap with the anti-choice right, they don’t quit, and they’re vicious. Watch for ant-marriage action at the state level, especially those states with civil unions or where moves are underway to repeal constitutional amendments.

  104. Stev84 says:

    In theory yes. In practice courts have made exemptions for laws in the Full Faith and Credit Clause for many decades. This is unfortunately well established legal doctrine signed off on by the Supreme Court. It’s a an anachronistic, impractical mess of course, but it’s not so simple as changing with a lawsuit given the large amount of precedent supporting it.

  105. Stev84 says:

    They don’t strictly *have* to. They just do because it’s usually a good idea.

    Legal doctrine on this is completely fucked up. In the early to mid 20th century there was a similar issue with divorce where states refused to honor divorced from other states. This led to the current situation where courts made a distinction between court judgments and laws. Court judgments (such as divorces and adoption decrees) are fully portable. Laws aren’t.

  106. 2patricius2 says:

    I would love to see a response from Justice Kennedy to the Prop 8 people saying: What part of “no standing” do you not understand?

  107. fritzrth says:

    The Court seems to be a little gun-shy about possible backlash.

    Unless they’re overturning decades of precedent or overturning laws they simply want to get rid of, like they did with the voting rights act. They never seem to be too shy about limiting the rights of the people or even taking them away; but expanding those rights or even simply affirming them is something the Roberts’ court just doesn’t want to do. Unless, of course, you’re a corporation. B-)

  108. olandp says:

    How can you “come back” if you were never really here?

  109. olandp says:

    He will have a hard time getting rid of her, she told him that she doesn’t care who he screws, so he is free to mess around. If he does try to dump her she will take him to the cleaners, you can tell by looking at her. She is not going to give up her meal ticket!

  110. caphillprof says:

    Would you really request reconsideration of any court which you have publicly labeled as “activist”, the spawn of Satan?

  111. lynchie says:

    I think it is because of fundraising. The religious right and churches in the main raise boat loads of cash from anti-abortion and gay marriage issues. If they don’t have these to harp about they have nothing else.

  112. lynchie says:

    The newtster prefers the traditional the bj.

  113. lynchie says:

    and hairspray.

  114. rmthunter says:

    I’m sure their intellectual ancestors did.

  115. rmthunter says:

    My understanding of the “standing” issue is that that CA Supreme Court found that the appellants had standing under state law, which is all they can rule on, which the 9th for some reason accepted; SCOTUS determined that they did not have standing under federal law, which has different parameters, and dismissed the case on that ground. (Well, that and the probable fact that SCOTUS did not want to get into legalizing SSM nationally, which it could have done on the basis of Romer v. Evans. The Court seems to be a little gun-shy about possible backlash.)

  116. Precisely my point. I lived around lily-white Wilkes-Barre in northeastern Pennsylvania during the time, and I never met any African-Americans until my late teens. I went to the local Catholics schools, which didn’t help. I did live next door to Jamaicans, who said they were superior because they didn’t come here as slaves!

  117. novadust says:

    seems unlikely that begging for standing will change SCOTUS justices’ minds. but maybe voting rights advocates ought to file similar request for reconsideration in light of so many states suddenly rushing ahead with voter ID laws n gerrymandering right after #VRA decision.

  118. JayRandal says:

    Far-right bigots never give up so someday they might succeed. Gays will be under attack in our country till Republican Party disbanded. Unfortunately might never happen. Gays should marry
    while they can before rug pulled out from under them again.

  119. BeccaM says:

    Well, essentially, their plea is, “Please change your minds and stop those icky gay people from getting married. They look happy, which clearly must be stopped.”

    But that’s what it boils down to — they want a chance to re-argue that they should be allowed to have standing. Which, after a decision has been rendered, won’t happen. And if the bigots can’t have that, they’d settle for more injunctions and stays to stop the marriages for as long as possible.

    In the state of California at least, they’ve lost. Five years after PropH8 was passed, it wouldn’t pass today

    On the other hand, several folks have pointed out this isn’t entirely about anti-gay bigotry. It’s also these anti-gay organizations using the ongoing litigation and legislation fights as vehicles for fundraising. How much money would SPLC-identified hate groups like FRC and NOM make if they said they were campaigning against same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or New York? None. Once we have marriage equality locked in for California, they won’t be able to make money opposing it.

  120. BloggerDave says:

    In all fairness, Jesus ain’t coming back…

  121. Number Six says:

    Let me get this straight — the religious right lost because the Supreme Court stated that the religious right had no standing to bring any suit in this matter, so the religious right is appealing to the Supreme Court to intercede in their behalf in this matter……..Huh?

  122. BeccaM says:

    I have. See comment above.

  123. BeccaM says:

    You can tell? The only expression I’ve been able to discern on her resculpted face is a kind of maniacal grimace-grin.

  124. Dave of the Jungle says:

    I thought that was some kind of plastic helmet on her head.

  125. Mark_in_MN says:

    I agree, Becca.

  126. BeccaM says:

    I concur. We can’t afford to relax or stop being vigilant.

  127. BeccaM says:

    Being in a state with a surprisingly open marriage reciprocity law — New Mexico — I’ve explored this issue in some detail.

    Just as each state has their own set of laws determining who can and cannot legally marry, each state also has its own reciprocity law or state constitutional definitions. For example, a state might say they don’t allow first cousins to marry, but they’ll recognize for legal purposes a marriage performed in another jurisdiction that did allow it. Age of consent is another one.

    In nearly all of the regressive-red states, their mini-DOMAs specifically say they will not recognize a same-sex marriage, no matter where it is performed. The Supreme Court ruling overturning Section 3 of DOMA did not specifically overturn Section 2, which is what allows states to do this. However, as several learned sorts have pointed out, the majority ruling mentions Section 3 at the beginning — but then talks as if it is overturning the whole shebang in the rest of it. Plus, as Scalia helpfully pointed out, the language of the overturn is perfect for reapplication at the state level with minimal wording changes.

    My state’s marriage laws are weird. The law saying who can and cannot marry is gender neutral. Our reciprocity law says that all legally enacted marriages will be recognized, except for a short banned list — which includes things like polygamy, child marriages, and so on. It doesn’t mention same-sex marriages, which would imply that our state government should be compelled to recognize them. Male and female are mentioned in one law only: the one governing who can apply for and receive a New Mexico state marriage license. That’s it.

    And so we have a bunch of cases working their way through the courts challenging the status quo.

    In 1967, SCOTUS heard and ruled on Loving v Virginia, overturning all state-level bans on interracial marriage. In all likelihood, we’re going to need a similar case to make same-sex marriage the law of the land throughout America. But hey, with most of DOMA gone, I’d say we’re heading in the right direction.

  128. AttilatheBlond says:

    True dat. And all the while, they accuse the left of hating America and the Constitution. There is a level of insanity on the far right that I just can’t grasp.

  129. AttilatheBlond says:

    Delusional people have very strong reactions when their delusions are challenged. The more powerful the challenge, the stronger the push back from the delusional. The world is coming down around many of the RW’s delusions. It’ll get ugly before they give in or just shut up and admit they are outnumbered. They really think loud is the same as majority.

  130. AttilatheBlond says:

    EXACTLY my point. And from what I read re Article IV, states are SUPPOSED to honor marriages from other states. To allow otherwise would be chaos, as was the case before interracial marriage bans in some states were removed.

    I remember my folks (musicians) talking about how Pearl Baily and Louie Bellson had to stay in different hotel than other band members when the band they were with traveled in some states. In some places, it would have been illegal for the long married couple to stay together in the same hotel room. The grace and loving spirit of Ms Bailey was always held up as an example of how one never had to give in to hate or haters and never give up one’s on dignity.

    The states will be forced to recognize gay marriages, eventually. People move around and married is married. There will be lots of court battles, but eventually it will be equality for all adults.

    If any state can deny anyone’s marriage, none of our marriages are secure. Simple as that, in the end.

  131. BeccaM says:

    I stand corrected. I think he’d still kick the request.

  132. BeccaM says:

    True. And let’s also not forget the recent habit among the regressive wingnuts to deny the validity (or existence) of any poll with results they don’t like.

    They truly do believe a majority of Americans feel that homosexuality is immoral. (And that abortion should be made illegal, that using contraceptives is wrong, and that women should be urged not to have careers, and so on.)

    And they are so very, very wrong.

  133. BeccaM says:

    There’s not enough scotch in the entire world…

  134. BeccaM says:

    That’s just the thing, isn’t it? They don’t want a secular society. They want a Christian dominionist theocracy.

  135. Naja pallida says:

    That’s because of the Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education case in 1969, where they essentially changed the wording of their earlier ruling in Brown. Brown gave states time to desegregate their schools, so it didn’t have to be an immediate thing. They could work it out as they needed to, and almost every state fought it until all their lower court appeals on every possible angle were exhausted. But by 1969 many places were still segregated, and it prompted yet another suit, and the Supreme Court finally said enough is enough, you’ve had plenty of time to work out the logistics of it, desegregate, now.

  136. Zorba says:

    Oh, now, that’s an excellent question, Houndentenor. I don’t know if anyone has explored this before.

  137. Houndentenor says:

    I have a question and it’s just a question: if Texas doesn’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in Iowa, then why does Iowa have to recognize any marriages performed in Texas? Just wondering what the actual law is governing this.

  138. Houndentenor says:

    if it weren’t for Wendy Davis and a few of her colleagues, abortion would be technical banned in Texas now. As it is they have to fight it all over again on Monday. I see signs that the religious right is moving the fight from gay marriage (mostly because the anti-gay money is drying up) back to abortion.

  139. Houndentenor says:

    My home town in East Texas did not desegregate the public schools until 1969. 15 years after Brown. That’s what it was like in the south back then.

  140. Mark_in_MN says:

    Actually, Kennedy wrote the dissent that said standing should have been granted.

  141. johndesalvio says:

    I’m surprised Newt doesn’t get his face cut from Calista’s hair when she kisses him.

  142. Houndentenor says:

    Because they’ve won so many of these things in the past that it really didn’t occur to them they could lose this one or the ballot initiatives in 2012. The reality that they are now on the losing side of this issue just hasn’t quite sunk in yet.

  143. Houndentenor says:

    it’s only matter of time before he’s screwing a younger woman in their bed like he did to his first two wives (and once with Callista). The man has no morals and it just shows what hypocrites the religious right really are that they love Gingrich so.

  144. AttilatheBlond says:

    And maybe she really believed the little newt could be POTUS. She must be a tad annoyed presently.

  145. AttilatheBlond says:

    Lot of very old two-year-old control freaks in Arizona. I feel for the sane people there.

  146. AttilatheBlond says:

    And eventually, some court cases challenging states that don’t recognize ALL legal marriages from other states, based on Article IV will really put a crimp in their hate-a-thon.

  147. Naja pallida says:

    Now I have. Gee, thanks. :)

  148. Naja pallida says:

    I always figured she was in it for the money anyway.

  149. AttilatheBlond says:

    And tell them to pay their taxes.

  150. AttilatheBlond says:

    What will it take for the ‘religious right’ to get it through their thick heads that their beliefs don’t get to be law in a secular society? And to a one, I am betting they decry radical Islam and Sharia Law, which is about what they are trying to impose on Americans here in America.

  151. Bj Lincoln says:

    The will do anything they can to keep us down. This argument is BS. It’s petty and reeks of desperation.
    When will they stop? Will we have to listen to the lies and hate no matter when we are equal in every way?

  152. Fab weekend, so poop on them says:

    It’s not worth spoiling the party.

    If anyone’s hungover tomorrow morning though, here’s a Sunday brunch treat that’s always good with a healthy bout of projectile vomiting:

  153. AnitaMann says:

    Jesus would kick the Christofascists’ asses.

  154. BeccaM says:

    As TAF says below, yes, it has to be Kennedy. And since Kennedy voted in the affirmative to deny standing on PropH8 -and- to overturn DOMA, the likelihood of him granting any kind of rehearing or delay or a stay is probably nil.

    More likely what’ll happen is he’ll tell one of his junior clerks, “Write me a standard rehearing denial, get my signature, then go file it.”

  155. BeccaM says:

    Because they really really really really really REALLY want to make gay people unhappy?

    But seriously — I think it’s because they’re so used to the courts and the law deferring consistently to anti-gay bigotry, it’s inconceivable to them that they can and did lose.

  156. BeccaM says:

    Aye… I wonder if Callista has the slightest clue that her worst enemy is time and the random chance of getting sick, either of which will eventually prompt Newt to drop her like hot potato.

  157. Max_1 says:

    Religious Right:
    But I don’t want to go to bed… waa-wa-waa-waaaaa!”

  158. Barbera LaPeters says:

    In all fairness, Jesus could arrive between now and the 25 day filing period. The ADF could at least tell the lord that they kept the filthy queers from being married until his return.

  159. Barbera LaPeters says:

    Ewwww, could you imagine him on top of you?

  160. Naja pallida says:

    If anything is going to ruin Newt Gingrich’s marriage, it’s Newt Gingrich. No external forces required.

  161. Naja pallida says:

    Anti-segregation cases were still being fought in the courts well into the 1970s. Heck, Alabama only removed an interracial marriage ban from its state constitution in 2000, and 40% of the voters still wanted it to remain, despite having not been an enforceable law for over 30 years. Actual freedom can have a lot of big wins, but people still have to continue to fight to maintain it.

  162. TheAngryFag says:

    Kennedy is the Supreme Court Justice who oversees the 9th Circuit.

  163. karmanot says:

    This is bound to ruin Gingrich’s recent marriage, but Callista saw it coming and stocked up on Tiffany diamonds.

  164. Stev84 says:

    There is also the matter that stays are only granted when there is a good chance that the side asking for the stay will be successful at the next higher court. So even if they could get a re-hearing, what makes them think then outcome would be any different?

  165. bkmn says:

    Ever since the 9th released the stay I was waiting for the fundy heads to explode. Not so much that the marriages restarted, but more that it removed their options for filing nuisance lawsuits to prevent them from restarting.

    Nothing pisses a bully off more than getting pre-empted.

  166. Wasn’t “all deliberate delay” the cry of the segregationists after Brown and its progeny?

  167. AnitaMann says:

    Right. And they’ve found ways to fight it effectively without overturning Roe. There are more restrictions on abortion now than any time since 1973.

  168. AnitaMann says:

    Assuming this is denied, will there be a written opinion, or just a “no”? Must it come from Kennedy? Would be nice if he wrote his opinion with equal vitriol and snark as Scalia did – only against the Christofascists, not in solidarity with them. “We SAID go away and shuthefuckup” would be nice to hear, just once.

  169. Naja pallida says:

    These are the same people who are still fighting Roe v. Wade in every state legislature they have control of, and the House of Representatives, 40 years later. If you were assuming they were just going to shrug and start keeping their bigoted bloviation to themselves, you need to share some of what you are smoking. We can’t ever forget that rules and laws don’t apply to Republicans. They’re going to use absolutely anything the people allow them access to in order to continue to fight this well into the foreseeable future. Even when they have finally exhausted the courts, anywhere they get majorities in elected government, you can be sure they’ll continue to look for ways to enshrine discrimination.

  170. cole3244 says:

    the only four letter word the religious right hypocrites don’t dislike is hate, its in their dna.

  171. BeccaM says:

    There are happy gay people enjoying civil rights and equality and one of the most joyful things two adults can do: Getting married.

    So of course according to the bigots, this must be stopped at all costs. Gay people must be made to suffer.

    The other thing that terrifies them, in addition to the tens of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians getting married will be the thousands from all over the country — like my wife and I — who will be traveling there to get married in the next few months. The lack of residency requirements or waiting periods makes it really easy.

  172. BeccaM says:

    Well, everything from the 9th onward was full of “Yes, but it’s a gay case, so we have to defer to the bigots at every turn.” The California Supremes granting standing. The constant stays. The endless delays.

    I’m with you: Very glad the 9th decided to lift the stay now rather than the end of July. There is no doubt whatsoever the bigots were scrambling already to try to stop the ruling from taking effect somehow.

  173. Thom Watson says:

    Yes, this. And they shouldn’t have issued a stay in the first place, given that they admitted that a constitutional right was being denied; it’s very unusual for a court to issue a stay that they know will continue to inflict constitutionally prohibited harm, but this was one of those “gay exceptions” John notes.. In any case, as soon as they had an opinion from the Supreme Court confirming (by denying standing) that the lower court opinion as well that this is a constitutional violation, they should have acted to dissolve the stay right away; they did very nearly that, and I’m appreciative for that.

  174. They just want to see the Supremes laugh.

  175. Hue-Man says:

    This is bordering on frivolous. SCOTUS told them they don’t have standing but they’re ignoring that and filing an appeal. Who’s advising them? Orly Taitz?

  176. BeccaM says:

    Arizona — really? Wow.

    And yes, you’re right: The 9th, since it did rule in favor of overturning PropH8, could have ordered the marriages resume, even as the case was appealed again to the Supreme Court. That would’ve left it up to SCOTUS to order a stay if they felt like doing so.

  177. nicho says:

    Also, the 9th Circuit didn’t have to impose a stay to begin with. So there should be no problem lifting it, especially since the party appealing has already been ruled as not having any standing. And now the party filing isn’t even from CA. They are from Arizona.

    What this is really is an opportunity for the anti-gay scam artists to loot more money from the gullible. As long as the suckers keep sending them money, they’ll keep up their nonsesne. It’s just a con game.

  178. BeccaM says:

    Pettiness is exactly what it is. I’m no attorney, but I did wonder if the fact the PropH8 defendants were dismissed by SCOTUS for lack of standing was part of the justification for the 9th deciding to lift their stay sooner rather than later.

    That detail right there is nothing new or unprecedented for the Supreme Court — they routinely turn away cases when the determination is a lack of standing and there is nothing different with respect to the PropH8 defendants that would warrant an exception be made just for them. (The California Supreme Court obviously decided wrongly in allowing standing to be granted…which is the central core of the Federal SCOTUS decision.)

    I read through the linked NPR article and noted it said:

    While the ban’s backers can still ask the Supreme Court for a rehearing, the 25-day waiting period is not binding on lower federal courts, Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor with the University of California, Davis law school, said.

    “As a matter of practice, most lower federal courts wait to act,” Amar said. “But there is nothing that limits them from acting sooner. It was within the 9th Circuit’s power to do what it did.”

    Add to this that the Justice responsible for hearing motions of appeal from the 9th is Justice Kennedy — who voted with the majority to deny standing for the Prop H8 private defendants AND voted for overturning DOMA — and I truly don’t think they’ve a leg to stand on.

  179. TheAngryFag says:

    Those idiots never learn. Next thing you know they will start railing against dangerous innovations like the wheel and fire.