Prop 8 And Other Marriage-Equality Cases Under Consideration By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court assembles on September 24 to conference in private on which cases it will hear in the coming year. As SCOTUS Blog reports, among the cases under consideration are a number that will impact marriage equality on the state and federal level.

According to the Court’s electronic docket, a Prop 8 test cast, Hollingsworth v. Perry, could potentially be argued before the Supremes, as could Windsor v. United States,  in which widow Edie Windsor is claiming she shouldn’t have to pay federal estate taxes on the property of her late spouse of 40 years, Thea Spyer. Also under consideration is Brewer v. Diaz, which addresses whether same-sex spouses of state employees can be denied benefits.

Writes Lyle Denniston:

It is predictable, but not a certainty, that the Court will step into the heated controversy over same-sex marriage in its new term. That’s because several federal courts have struck down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 in an attempt to head off what the lawmakers thought was likely to be a spreading movement in the states to create an equal right for same-sex couples to wed. DOMA’s Section 3 — affecting more than 1,000 federal laws — restricts marriage benefits or provisions in any federal statute to marriages of a man and a woman.


Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #brewerv.diaz #courts stories and more


  • LubbockGayMale

    Don’t get your hopes up folks, with this court membership we’re not looking at any friendly rulings. Especially when you consider two of the justices didn’t recuse themselves on the corporate political contributions case, even though they had received moneys from the Koch brothers!

  • John Doe


    No, it is “HERE COME THE JUDGES!”

    Just remove the “S”. :)

  • brent

    The courts should stay out of this. Gays should admit they lost prop. 8 and move on. The next few elctions should decide it. In 2000 around 61% of californians voted to ban gay marriage. In 2008 it was 52% a big drop. Anither elction or two and the issue should be settled. And settled in a way the courts would be unable to do.

  • Tanooki

    @brent I completely disagree. The judicial system was created specifically for this purpose: to determine the constitutionality of laws created by legislation, and if necessary, strike them down when they infringe on the rights of others.

    When the Supreme Court made the decision that interracial marriage had to be permitted in all states, only approximately 20% of the general population agreed with their decision in 1967. It wasn’t until the 90’s that the majority of America thought that interracial marriage was acceptable. If it had been left to a popular vote how many extra years would it have taken to become a federal law?

    The rights of people should never be submitted to a popular votes. Rights are something inalienable. It’s time for the Supreme Court to step in and say: “This is ludicrous. You can’t deny an entire group of people a fundamental right.”

  • ScaryRussianHeather


    What “money”? Are you talking about Scalia and Thomas speaking at seminars? They don’t get PAID for that – it’s a law. They only get expenses. It’s nothing different than other justices speaking at other seminars. Like every LIBERAL college and university in the country.

    And maybe you forgot Obamacare was NOT overturned by the Supreme Court even though Elena Kagan was involved in as it U.S. solicitor general. SHE should have recused herself but the court refused to hear the case about it. And the deciding Obamacare vote came from a so called “moderate” Kennedy a REAGAN appointee. Conversely, Kagan voted down the part of Obamacare on Medicaid expansion thereby making it unconstitutional.

    Furthermore, Roberts (a BUSH appointee) and Kennedy (again, a Reagan appointee) BOTH voted against the Arizona immigration law along with the Liberal justices. One of whom Sotomayor is famously called “the quota queen”. Did SHE recuse herself? No.

    So there is precedent for justices surprising everyone.

    Jeesh how about some reality here.

Comments are closed.