Between now and the end of October, advocates for marriage equality hope to make significant advances — involving lawsuits or lawmakers in at least seven states. Here’s what you need to know.
Bloomberg / Getty Images
WASHINGTON — It's been less than four months since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and put an end to California's marriage amendment, but advocates have been busy over the summer — setting the stage for a very busy two weeks that could rock the marriage equality landscape and change the country.
The calendar for the rest of the month is packed with a dizzying array of potential developments: decisions and movement in lawsuits that are multiplying by the week, possible votes from lawmakers being prodded to action by governors in their states, and — for the state of New Mexico — a hearing at the state Supreme Court to resolve once and for all whether same-sex couples can marry in a state that doesn't specifically ban or allow such marriages.
The coming weeks also will feature the first action in the federal appellate courts since the Supreme Court rulings, with a filing in the 9th Circuit in a challenge to Nevada's marriage law. The quick reemergence of a marriage case at the appellate level is notable because that's the path back to the Supreme Court, where marriage equality advocates are still seeking a ruling that would bring marriage equality to all 50 states.
From a Wednesday hearing in Michigan to a hearing regarding a challenge to Virginia's marriage law on Oct. 29, here's what you need to know:
Michigan
Paul Sancya / AP
Same-sex couples could be able to marry in some counties in Michigan on Wednesday, advocates hope, if a federal judge there rules Wednesday on a challenge to the state's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
Judge Bernard Friedman has pressed the case — which has traversed a winding path — forward, ruling against the state of Michigan earlier this year in refusing to dismiss the challenge.
Discussing the Supreme Court opinion striking down DOMA, United States v. Windsor, Friedman wrote, "[P]laintiffs are prepared to claim Windsor as their own; their briefs sure to be replete with references to the newly enthroned triumvirate of [pro-gay rights cases of] Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and now Windsor. And why shouldn't they?"
Although clerks in at least 10 of the state's counties have said they will issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples if Friedman's ruling allows them to do so, it is not yet clear whether and when they will be allowed to do so.
It is not certain that Friedman will even rule on the case following Wednesday's hearing or, if he does, that he will rule that marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed. What's more, even if he does rule for marriage equality, there remains the question of whether he will issue a stay, which would put the case on hold pending an inevitable appeal by state officials.
If he rules in favor of marriage equality and does not issue a stay, however, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could put a halt to any marriages within hours or days, a stay it likely would leave in place if it does so while it considers an appeal.
