Actually, from my Queerdom perspective, watching and reading and listening to all the statements and petitions and articles related to marriage equality is more like sanity. The “madness” is simply in the quantity and speed at which the various marriage equality arguments and stories are coming. I decided that a round-up sort of post might be the best way to illustrate what I’m talking about.
Even if the Supreme Court should decide against marriage equality related to the Proposition 8 case from California, and/or the Defense of Marriage Act case, I don’t think the education and national “evolution” that’s occurred can be undone.
One of the best overviews I’ve seen comes from Joel Trambley, at LGBT Weekly:
The Supreme Court on DOMA and Prop.8: a primer
… Tuesday, 10 a.m. EDT. Hollingsworth v. Perry, “The Prop. 8 Case.”
There appear to be five possible resolutions to this case:
Proposition 8 is upheld … .
Proposition 8 is struck down on narrow grounds that apply only to California … .
Proposition 8 is struck down on grounds that would eventually end bans in all states … .
All same-sex marriage bans are struck down as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
The justices decide that no one had the right to appeal in the first place … .
Wednesday, 10 a.m. EDT. United States v. Windsor, ‘The DOMA Case.’
Or more specifically, “The DOMA Section 3 Case.” (Section 2, which relates to states recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, isn’t on the table. Unless the Supreme Court decides it is.) LGBT advocates are more optimistic on this case, and there seem to be fewer options.
DOMA is struck down … .
DOMA is upheld … .
The DOMA case could also be decided on standing, but is more complex, because neither the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group nor the Department of Justice may have a right to be there.
Trambley expands on each of these points, and includes sections on “the lawyers” and “the justices.”
Another helpful read is from Ari Ezra Waldman, at Towleroad, “What the Prop 8 and DOMA Cases Really Mean”:
Like Lawrence v. Texas, which changed all gay persons from presumptive criminals to members of a constitutionally protected class, Windsor and Hollingsworth could make gays fully equal under the law, with the remaining discrimination falling steadily like dominoes. The latter two cases … ask if there is any legitimate reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If no such reason exists … it’s hard to imagine how any anti-gay discrimination could ever be permitted again.
At The Advocate, Kerry Eleveld writes:
The Supreme Court’s Middle Option: A Nine-State Solution
Though there are three basic outcomes possible that would be considered a ‘win’ for marriage equality, constitutional law scholar Geoffrey Stone felt assured of this: ‘I think there’s zero chance of the court doing anything harmful to the cause of same-sex marriage.’
Lisa Keen has a series of articles, Marriage cases preview, Part 1: Standing in the way: Part 2: The presidential punch; Part 3: Weighing the friendly advice.
Below are just a few of the multiple stories and statements related to marriage equality which have been published or released just within the last week or so, many within the last few days.
Think Progress, Zack Ford, “What The Supreme Court Will Actually Decide: Do Gay People Exist?”
Politico, Alexander Burns, Maggie Haberman and John F. Harris, “Politicians and gay marriage calculus.”
The Advocate, Michelle Garcia, “42 Athletes, Sport Figures Support Marriage Equality in Court Brief.”
Slate, Mark Joseph Stern, “The Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opponents.”
Towleroad, Andy Towle, “FRC Orders Members to Pray That Ted Olson and David Boies’ SCOTUS Arguments are ‘Inept, Confusing and Unconvincing.’”
Queerty, “Marriage Equality Ad In Washington Post Recalls ‘Loving V. Virginia’ And Its Effect On Clarence Thomas.”
The Hill, Alexandra Jaffe, “Gay marriage fraught with danger for 2016 Republican presidential field.”
GLAAD: “Sunrise Service on Morning of Supreme Court Hearings To Demonstrate Support for LGBT Rights to Love and Marriage from Broad Based-Group of Faith Leaders.”
Think Progress, Igor Volsky, “GOP Chairman Suggests Mike Huckabee Should Be Party’s Ambassador On Gay Rights.”
Think Progress, Zack Ford, “San Francisco Archbishop: Sex Only Counts When There’s A Penis And A Vagina.”
Think Progress, Igor Volsky writes “GOP Chairman Tries To Appeal To Gay Voters By Bragging About His ‘Great Marriage.’”
Sierra Vista Herald “Bisbee (AZ) set to approve civil unions.”
Think Progress, Zack Ford, “Colorado Civil Unions Officially Take Effect in May.”
HRC, “New Mexico Marriage Case a Matter of Basic Justice.”
Get Equal, “United for Marriage: Lighting the Way to Justice” coalition has local events taking place in all 50 states and DC.
The Nation, John Nichols, “Not Just Hillary Clinton: Why So Many Republicans Are Embracing Marriage Equality.”
Reuters, Maurice Tamman and Joan Biskupic, “Majority supports benefits for same-sex couples: Reuters/Ipsos poll.”
CNN, John D. Sutter, “Gay people live in 50 Americas.”
Box Turtle Bulletin, Jim Burroway, “New Zealand Moves Close To Marriage Equality.”
Box Turtle Bulletin, Timothy Kincaid, “Michigan has its first same-sex marriage.”
Gay Politics, Denis Dison, “Colorado legislature OK’s civil unions bill, gov to sign.”
Gay Politics, Denis Dison, “Minnesota marriage bill moves to House, Senate floors.”
AmericaBlogGay, John Aravosis, “DOMA may have cost federal budget over $6 billion.”
Washington Blade, “Court grants DOJ speaking time in Prop 8 case.”
JoeMyGod, “Boehner: I’m Not Changing My Mind.”
The Advocate, “Scott Walker Doesn’t Want to Talk About Marriage Equality.”
Think Progress, Igor Volsky, “Top Republican Governor Admits Conservatives Have Lost The Battle Against Marriage Equality.”
ABC News, Gary Langer, “Poll Tracks Dramatic Rise In Support for Gay Marriage.”
Respect for Marriage Coalition, “Bipartisan Officials, Editorial Boards, & Majority of Voters Agree: It’s Time for Marriage.”
National Journal, Elahe Izadi, “Gay Marriage Is A 2016 Litmus Test for Democrats.”
The Hill, Sam Baker, “Supreme Court to release same-day audio of marriage arguments.”
The Supreme Court will release audio recordings on the same day it hears oral arguments over same-sex marriage – a rare step reserved for especially high-profile cases.
“High profile” sums it up.