<h1>Of course the legal issues in these cases can be very technical, but I recall discussion on Vision2020 in August 2010 that California's Proposition 8 ban on same sex couples would probably not reach the SCOTUS, or at least the California federal judge ruling overturning Proposition 8, as can be read from the Vision2020 archives at website below. <br>
</h1><h1>It appears the current SCOTUS is going to review gay rights issues to some degree, with a potentially historic outcome, as the 11-25-12 article from the SF bay area pasted in below indicates:<br>
</h1><h1><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-August/071207.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-August/071207.html</a></h1><p>-------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p><a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/samesexmarriage/ci_22064789/u-s-supreme-court-poised-take-up-gay?source=inthenews" target="_blank">http://www.insidebayarea.com/samesexmarriage/ci_22064789/u-s-supreme-court-poised-take-up-gay?source=inthenews</a><br>
</p><p><br></p><h1>U.S. Supreme Court poised to take up gay marriage</h1>
<div>
<a href="mailto:hmintz@mercurynews.com?subject=Inside%20Bay%20Area:" target="_blank"><span><span><p>By Howard Mintz<br></p></span></span></a><p>
<a href="mailto:hmintz@mercurynews.com" target="_blank">hmintz@mercurynews.com</a><span></span></p></div><div>Posted:
11/25/2012 06:28:46 PM PST</div><div>Updated:
11/26/2012 07:51:44 AM PST</div><br><span></span><span></span><div><div style="border:0px"><span></span><span></span><span></span></div>
<span></span><p>When
the U.S. Supreme Court convenes behind closed doors Friday, the
justices will weigh whether to jump headlong into the historic same-sex
marriage debate -- or merely dip their toes in the roiling legal waters.</p><p>The
high court could decide whether to rule once and for all on
California's Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex
marriage. And it could choose to hear up to eight other cases that
challenge the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal
benefits to same-sex couples. </p><p>Depending on how far the court
goes, it could end up legalizing gay marriage nationwide, banning it
nationwide, or continuing the current state-by-state experiment in
whether gays and lesbians can marry <span>and whether they are entitled to equal benefits under federal law.</span></p><p> All the cases on the court's docket involve lower court decisions declaring gay marriage restrictions unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Both
sides in the gay marriage battle and legal experts have little doubt
the Supreme Court will take up at least some of the cases to put its
stamp on one of the country's most pressing social issues. The mystery
is in how far it will go.</p><p>If the Supreme Court chooses not to
review the challenge to Proposition 8, gay and lesbian couples will have
the right to legally marry in California.</p><p>The justices are
expected to release orders revealing their decisions the first week in
December, which means they would hear arguments in the spring <span>and rule on same-sex marriage by the end of the term in June.</span></p><p>"They're
going to take one or more of the'' cases on the Defense of Marriage
Act, or DOMA, said David Boies, a lead attorney for two California
couples challenging Proposition 8. "The more complicated question is
what they do with our case."</p><p>Jane Schachter, a Stanford University law professor, agreed.</p><p>"There
is sort of a circle at the core of all of this, which is DOMA, and from
there it comes down to how broad to make the circle," she said. "One
thing to think about is how much of the overarching issues do they want
to get into."</p><p>For a variety of reasons, most experts say the
Supreme Court has a more straightforward path to tackling the federal
law than the California law. Foremost is the fact that numerous courts,
including two federal appeals courts and a San Francisco judge, have
invalidated DOMA, leaving the justices little choice but to evaluate a
sweeping law enacted by Congress that has been deemed unconstitutional.</p><p>The
Supreme Court is well aware that the Obama administration, which argues
DOMA is unconstitutional, is on one side, while House Republicans are
defending the law on the other.</p><p>In addition, experts say, the
Supreme Court can rule on DOMA without expressly deciding the broad
question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to
marry. Two federal appeals court have struck down DOMA on the grounds
that it is unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples
in states such as New York and Massachusetts that permit gay marriage.
Nine states now fall into that category.</p><p>But the Proposition 8
case is stickier and allows the Supreme Court to save for another day
the question of whether a state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.</p><p>The
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Proposition 8 in a narrow
ruling steering clear of broader legal issues, finding the law
unconstitutional because it stripped away a previous right of same-sex
couples to marry in California. There is a school of thought that the
high court can let that ruling stand, permitting same-sex marriages in
California but avoiding a decision that would extend to other states.</p><p>"I
don't think they can wait on DOMA," said Vikram Amar, a UC Davis law
professor. "But they can wait on the Proposition 8 stuff."</p><p>Karen
Golinski, a San Francisco woman whose DOMA challenge is one of the cases
on the court's docket, is eager for the Supreme Court to enter the
legal fray.</p><p>"It's going to resolve it for all of us," said
Golinski, who sued because her same-sex spouse was denied health
benefits. "I feel confident the court is going to take at least one of
the cases."</p><p>Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at <a href="tel:408-286-0236" value="+14082860236" target="_blank">408-286-0236</a> or follow him at <a href="http://twitter.com/hmintz" target="_blank">Twitter.com/hmintz</a></p>
<p>-------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></p><p></p><p><br></p><p></p></div>