Gay marriage Ban Struck Down in Utah.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm laughing so much.

And gay couples are getting married NOW.

Are they?  I haven't heard whether or not the ruling has been stayed pending an appeal.  Even if it hasn't been stayed yet, given the time it takes for marriage licenses and the usual waiting period after the granting of a license in places other than Nevada, certainly there were no SSM done in Utah today nor do I expect any over the weekend.  Plenty of time for a stay to be issued before any marriages happen  if the judge or an appellate court wishes to issue a stay.

Simply because of the difficulty involved in putting that genie back into the bottle, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a stay is issued.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, first gay couple legally married in Utah:



The DA tried his best to stop it. Failed.

I see a marriage license in that photo, but unless Utah has laws like Nevada's there should be a waiting period before the marriage itself can be conducted.

EDIT: Just checked.  Utah has no waiting period after the license is issued, so yeah with facts being established on the ground, it'll be difficult to undo, not that I was thinking the ultimate resolution would not be in their favor.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Mary Landrieu better start praying frantically that this same thing doesn't happen in Louisiana.

She be better served in praying that it's a Republican appointed judge that does the striking.  That is far likelier to happen IMO now that we've gotten our first district court ruling.  Also, when it does happen in Louisiana, things may get weird for a bit as Louisiana is split between three different district courts.  For those states that have multiple Federal district courts in them, it's quite possible that they'll end up with their laws banning the recognition of SSM be invalidated in only part of a state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At this point, the only hope of SSM opponents is that one of the five justices in the majority on Windsor leaves the Court and either Obama messes up and appoints a SSM opponent or that the GOP retakes the Senate next November and blocks all Obama nominations in hopes of having a Republican win the White House in 2016.  I just see no way that anyone who signed onto Kennedy's opinion in Windsor could uphold the existing SSM bans.  The only reason the court moved slowly was to give the country more time to change its views on its own before the inevitable decision is handed down.  The court does not want SSM to become another issue like abortion where it moved way ahead of public opinion and prevented it from forming on its own.

Don't you think some case is going to reach the Supreme Court before 2017 though?  I think the only real hope is either that Kennedy has a come to Jesus moment and decides to draw some arbitrary line in the sand or that one of the 4 Democratic appointed justices or Kennedy leaves the court suddenly and Republicans can delay a new appointment by an unprecedented amount of time.

Or maybe the Republican congress could take away the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower courts over same-sex marriage cases.  That's impossible too though because it would require a veto override or a Republican President. 

You neglected the first part of my scenario.  As to your question, I had been expecting that arguments would be held in November 2016 with the decision handed out sometime in 2017.  It'll need to get finished with all district and circuit court appeals no later than the end of 2015 to be heard sooner.  It's clear the court wishes to move with all deliberate speed on this issue or it would have used the Prop 8 case to settle it.  It would not be too difficult for the Court to assert that if the case doesn't reach it until early 2016 that there simply is not enough time for it to properly consider the case in the then current term and hold off until the 2016-7 term and schedule the arguments to be held after the election.

But now, unless a justice departs leaving the court with a 4-4 tie, I expect it to hear an SSM case in the 2015-6 term.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A question for those comparing this to Roe.

What Percentage of Americans would have to back gay marriage for you to say:     

"Okay, the Country is ready for this now."  ?

It's not so much the percentages as wanting to have some more states do this by non-judicial means.  A good deal of the backlash against Roe was due to the fact that it was perceived as a usurpation of legislative authority by the court.  That was used effectively by abortion opponents to the point that by 1985 there was just barely a majority in support of legal abortion in the first trimester, and Roe not only legalized first trimester abortions, but also second trimester ones as well.

However, if one wants to compare Roe to SSM, a comparable timing for Roe would have an SSM decision handed down at a time when only four states had gay marriage, another thirteen had civil unions, and three more states giving LGBT couples some partial recognition.  So we're definitely farther along than was the case with Roe.  Still, if it is at all possible, I'd like for SCOTUS to hold off with a final ruling until after the 2016 elections so as to give SSM more time to establish its little-d democratic credibility.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Okay, I just spent over a hour cleaning up a rather nasty flamewar which ended up injuring both sides and I easily could have handed out more points if I hadn't used what was was left of my Christmas spirit to be generous.  I might have even sent some points towards a certain Floridian for egging them on somewhat if was in Scroogy mood.  Now I'm going to unlock this, but if I end up get distracted from making Christmas cookies this evening, it won't be just my cookies that get singed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm surprised I haven't heard of rioting in the streets yet.

Mormons are far too well-behaved for such things.

But when they announced the decision on the news, I heard that one Mormon man in Provo excused himself from the dinner table, went into the bathroom, shut the door, stuffed a towel under the door to soundproof it, and said "Gosh darn it all to heck!" It was quite the scandal. Everyone in his ward is talking about it.

Quite understandable.  Having the radio on during dinner? Dinner is a time to connect with your family, not be distracted by electronics.  He should be ashamed of letting such a thing happen in his home.