Understanding what tomorrow (Monday's) SCOTUS' decision could mean for GLB people.

[Behind the Aegis]

Homophobia could get a decisive blow tomorrow or Monday, but even if the SCOTUS rules "in our favor", it doesn't mean punch and cookies needs to be served and the battle is over. It isn't. The case would only first affect the four states involved in the suit: Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan. All other states where marriage equality is non-existent would then have to have court battles as well. It will take time.

This article at NPR, with maps which I couldn't figure out how to embed, sum up what the next day or so could bring:

As soon as Thursday, the Supreme Court could decide the fate of millions of same-sex couples nationwide. In a ruling covering four cases, the court will determine whether states can prohibit same-sex marriage, as 13 states currently do.

It's always tough to predict how the court will rule but, broadly speaking, there are three main possibilities: the simplest is that the court declares state marriage bans unconstitutional, meaning states will all perform and recognize same-sex marriage. That's a pretty simple outcome, but things get much trickier in the other two cases.

One other possibility is that the court decides to uphold bans. That means states that currently have bans could continue having theirs. But it also leaves 20 states up in the air legally. That group includes states where federal action struck down state bans. If the Supreme Court says bans are constitutional, those states could go back to having bans in place.

And there's also the possibility of the court saying bans are constitutional, but that all states must all recognize marriages performed in other states. This option retains the messiness of the above possibility, but it does mean that couples would be recognized equally nationwide.

more....

Hope for the best, expect the worse, and you won't be surprised either way! Scenario one is the best, and scenario two is the worst.

[Agschmid]

1. Kick.

[Purveyor]

2. Today's ruling on aca makes me hopeful but I still won't rest peacefully this morning. Godspeed.

[RandySF]

3. My gut tells me they will split the differnce.

Hopefully I'm wrong, but I think the court will let the states decide whether to conduct SSM, but require recognition of legal marriages of other states.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. That's what I am thinking too.

More so, if the decision doesn't come tomorrow.

[Ms. Toad]

7. That's what I've been predicting.

Which is fine - that's the Loving decision and then it's all over but the nail in the coffin.

[MADem]

8. If I were putting down a bet, that's where I'd put my money, too...but one never knows.

Scalia and Thomas are such asses, and you have to wonder if they all just divide up the "wins" amongst themselves. "I gave you Obamacare, you gotta give me this one..."

Maybe they'll use some of the justifications from Loving? There's lots to consider, and it's not like this is "new" after all these years. The sky has not fallen. The only people who care don't even seem to be as virulent as they were back in the day--it's as if they are going through the motions.

Since 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals have considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they have interpreted or used the Loving ruling in a few different ways.
The Fourth and Tenth Circuits used Loving along with other cases like Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a "fundamental right to marry" that a state can not restrict unless it meets the court's "heightened scrutiny" standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.[29][30]
Two other courts of appeals, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, struck down state bans on the basis of a different line of argument. Instead of "fundamental rights" analysis, they reviewed bans on same-sex marriage as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The former cited Loving to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did not accept tradition as a justification for limiting access to marriage.[31] The latter cited Loving as quoted in United States v. Windsor on the question of federalism: "state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons".[32]
The only Court of Appeals to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, the Sixth Circuit, said that when the Loving decision discussed marriage it was referring only to marriage between persons of the opposite sex.[33]

They've got enough "precedent" meat to make a juicy burger, here--let's hope they do the right thing.

[treestar]

15. What would be odd there would mean

those states not recognizing it would have to give jurisdiction over divorce if the couple resided in the state long enough. Thus these states would still have to deal with gay marriage whether they want to or not. May as well make them accept it.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Gah.

Fingers crossed anyway. I know in my lifetime we will see marriage equality in all 50 states, but this process is made so needlessly complicated by the haters. I'm a little jealous of Mexico this month.

[sheshe2]

6. You

[William769]

9. Call me an eternal optimist but we are going to make a clean sweep with SCOTUS.

We are going to win on #1, and we are going to win on #2.

Public opinion has swayed so much that yes I believe that will be a factor in their decisions.

I don't think both decisions will have the same outcome though. I'm thinking #1 will be 5-4, and #2 will be 6-3.

[Fearless]

10. Agreed.

[former9thward]

11. You are wrong.

What ever the decision is it will be controlling on all 50 states -- not 4 as you say in the OP.

[Princess Turandot]

12. I believe a majority will vote 'yes' on question one...

i.e. that the Fourteenth Amendment does indeed require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. (That would make the second question moot, I believe.)

When they refused to stay the various lower federal court rulings overturning the ssm bans in several states, pending appeal of those states to a higher court, I think that it was a signal that when it did arrive at SCOTUS, there were five votes to rule that ssm bans were inherently unconstitutional. Otherwise, why allow a small number of couples to marry in the intervening months, only to reinstate the bans in all of those states, making matters far more complicated? Then, once a federal circuit upheld some of the bans, they immediately took the case and put it on this term's docket.

FYI There are five decisions remaining to be issued at this point. Three of them were argued earlier than Obergefell was. One, the lethal injection case, was argued a day later. If they issue the earlier three decisions tomorrow, it would not be that surprising nor reflect on what the ssm decision is to be. Plus, if Kennedy is indeed the swing vote, he will write the decision. He may well want to polish it with all of the time available to him.

[Hekate]

13. KnR for a 6-3 decision in favor

[gollygee]

14. I've been hearing so much about it like this is the absolute deciding vote

but I'm in Michigan. People are very excited here.

Thanks for the explanation of what will be decided.

[brer cat]

16. Hoping and praying for #1.

This inequality crap needs to end NOW.

[NuclearDem]

17. SCOTUS' decision would take effect nationwide, not just in the 6th Circuit.

I'm comfortable in betting at least 5-4 (Kennedy), same as Windsor.