Skip to main content


This is huge!
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday denied review in all five pending same-sex marriage cases, clearing the way for such marriages to proceed in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The move was a major surprise and suggests that the justices are not going to intercede in the wave of decisions in favor of same-sex marriage at least until a federal appeals court upholds a state ban. The move will almost immediately increase the number of states allowing same-sex marriage from 19 to 24, along with the District of Columbia. The justices had earlier acted to stop same-sex marriages in Utah and Virginia, issuing stays to block appeals court rulings allowing them. Other appeals court decisions had been stayed by the appeals court themselves.

It should really be very clear to all involved which way this is going. I'm talking to you Pam Bondi and Rick Scott. Stop wasting our state's resources on a fight that you know you are going to lose.

Go Dan Savage!


  1. The Supremes probably didn't want to have to listen to the pro-ban arguments from some second-rate appellate lawyer. But in any event, good for them. This is an historic day.

  2. Any path that leads to equality is fine with me. I'm ok with the scenic route.

  3. Hate to bust your bubble, but this battle is far from over...what is going on are the two factions deciding that they are not going to leave this to Kennedy. Instead, they are banking on obtaining a majority after the next presidential go around. Given that ginsberg is clearly aging out whether she wants to or not, it is not looking good for the liberals, unless hillary can pull it out.

  4. @11:46

    I don't have a bubble. I have demographics. Young people, even evangelical young people, overwhelmingly support marriage equality. By their inaction, the court has set precedent. Gay men and women are not going back into the closet and this genie is not going back in the bottle.

    Oh, sure, the old guard will hang on with their last bloody fingernail. It will do them no good.

  5. I'm bullish on Hillary but her picks will be very centrist it's true.

  6. @11:46: "banking on a majority?" you're assuming that a circuit court is going to rule in favor of the ban, causing a conflict among the circuits. If all 13 circuits fall into line (and i think the supremes were transmitting a message that they should), the supremes just told us today that they're not weighing in on this one at all.

    as for "it is not looking good for liberals," I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you read polls?

  7. Sanders/Warren 2016!

  8. Why is God ALWAYS punishing the red states like this?

  9. 11:46 here.

    Guys - I am pulling for SCOTUS to step in and rule with the color brigade on this one.

    But you are silly if you think that it will be resolved unanimously by the courts of appeals - even if they all agreed, ultimately the Court is going to get involved.

    The fact that it is not doing it now, tells me there is some strategery at foot. Celebrate, but be cautions.

  10. @11:46: it would add more legitimacy to things if all 13 federal circuits end this, which is why I hope the Supremes never get involved.

    I don't think it's far fetched to think all 13 circuits rule against the bans.

  11. What you are missing is that you get however many rulings, then you have to look for en banc, etc.

    Eventually, the issue will get up there and it will be decided. Being on the side that wants to let the Gays marry be be treated equally, I can tell you that I am quite nervous about what happens with Ginsberg (81) and Bryer (76).

    These people won't live forever, and G-d forbid we get another conservative in their stead. It will take 50 years to unfuck the law.

  12. Will the GOP ever be able to elect another U.S. President? Inquiring minds want to know.

  13. I hear the fears, but I don't think they're particularly well founded. This morning we had marriage equality in 19 states. By the time all this dust settles we will have marriage equality in 30 states. By 1PM people were getting married in Virginia. The idea that a conservative president will nominate a conservative justice and undo all this seems pretty farfetched. If I was a Republican I would want this issue to go away ASAP. It's a loser for them.

  14. By 1:15, the first divorce was filed.

  15. That's funny 6:15. Thankfully I am happily gay married, because there is no gay divorce here in Florida, yet!

  16. how does this square with the Bivens decision and the factors in Boynton v. Wilson, et al. ?

  17. The Supreme Court should nonetheless be the final word on it. True, through its cert. denials of yesterday, it was. I mean via an actual opinion and judgment, finally recognizing that bans against SSM are unconstitutional. The court ought to have done that with one of the cases it turned away yesterday. Sometimes the court has to make tough decisions; not sure why the decision will be any less difficult in a few months if, say, the Sixth or the Fifth or the Eleventh rules differently.

  18. @P. Guyotat

    From a legal standpoint I completely agree with you. But as someone who is frequently on the reviving end of homophobic vitriol I can't help but feel the court may be doing us a favor in rolling out this massive change piecemeal. Rather than one big decision they are letting the pressure escape slowly. Even with yesterday's limited progress there was a massive freakout by opponents of marriage equality, many calling for civil disobedience.

    People in Utah and South Carolina are going to have gay marriages in their states and they are going to see that it really doesn't affect their lives in any way.

    That will make the next step easier.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.