The Line Outside the Supreme Court: PHOTO, VIDEO

(via afer, enhanced by me)

Here's the line as of moments ago (6:30 am) outside the Supreme Court.

One of our Twitter followers in line, Jason Wonacott, also shot a (very dark) video at around 4 am and reported that there were around 250 people in line with 7 hours to go until the arguments began (at 11 am).

Watch his video (warning, it's quite dark), AFTER THE JUMP...

We'll have reports as the day unfolds. Make sure not to miss a Towleroad headline by following @TLRD on Twitter.

Supreme Court Preview: Roberts, Kennedy, and their Court - Some Final Thoughts on Impacts and Outcomes

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court will hear more than 3 hours of arguments in the challenges to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the Defense of Marriage Act (Windsor v. United States). In a series of short posts, I will preview and summarize the legal issues that will be raised. In this post, some general questions to consider.

The expectations are high and the anticipation is palpable. Eager citizens have been camping out at the Supreme Court for days. Rallies are planned, the lawyers are ready, and Chief Justice Roberts is hours away from leaning forward in his center chair and say

"We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 12-144, Hollingsworth v. Perry. Mr. Olson..."

at which point Ted Olson, President George W. Bush's solicitor-general, will begin his argument that California's Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. It a law nerd's March Madness, just with shorter men and longer sleeves.

Having covered questions of standing (in Prop 8 and DOMA), scrutiny, and equal protection, we are now well prepared to understand what will happen at the Court tomorrow and in June, when decisions will be handed down. For now, I'd like to take a step back from the legal details and offer some perspective and highlight a few questions to keep in mind. From these questions, one thing seems clear: this show has many stars -- Olson, David Boies, Ted Boutrous, Edie Windsor, Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami, Jeff Zarrillo, to name just a few -- but the show will end with three stars shining above the rest: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, and the American people.

Some final thoughts about what to expect tomorrow and Wednesday, AFTER THE JUMP...

Supreme Court Preview: Equal Protection in the DOMA and Prop 8 Cases

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court will hear more than 3 hours of arguments in the challenges to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the Defense of Marriage Act (Windsor v. United States). In a series of short posts, I will preview and summarize the legal issues that will be raised. Today, the constitutionality of Prop 8 and DOMA.

We've discussed the preliminary jurisdictional question of standing, without which, the Supreme Court cannot hear the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. We've also discussed the first substantive question of scrutiny, which the Court may not even fully answer. Now, we can discuss the underlying question: Assuming standing and given a particular level of scrutiny, are Prop 8 and DOMA unconstitutional?

The Court could answer these questions any way it wants. DOMA is especially subject to a federalism critique -- namely, marriage law is the exclusive realm of the States and a federal definition of marriage is a gross expansion of federal power. Notably, Massachusetts District Court Judge Joseph Tauro and the First Circuit Court of Appeals referenced federalism concerns in both of their decisions striking down DOMA in Gill v. OPM. The Court could also follow Judge Vaughn Walker and use the operative Due Process Clauses to find that a broad fundamental right to marry applies to gay persons just like it applies to everyone else.

Let's keep it simple, though, and focus on equal protection. The standard rule is that the Constitution does not countenance treating similar citizens differently without a good reason. Disparate treatment is especially odious when the discriminated citizens are part of a traditionally disadvantaged group and it is most likely to fail the higher the level of scrutiny.

I think Prop 8 and DOMA fail under any level of scrutiny, even the low rational basis, because the proponents' justifications for both laws are completely divorced from the effects of those laws. A law that simply takes away the word "marriage" from gay couples who have every other right to raise children and create a family and a law that simply denies federal benefits to already married gay couples can have no rational connection to the government's interest in encouraging heterosexuals to marry. The very irrationality of these laws may hearten us as we look forward to favorable pro-equality decisions in June, but may also put a heightened scrutiny determination out of reach.

Let's discuss AFTER THE JUMP...

A Huge Round-Up of Supreme Court Marriage Equality Updates, Links, Quotes, and Profiles

Make sure not to miss a Towleroad headline by following @TLRD on Twitter.

The L.A. Times profiles Ted Olson: "The marriage case, the 60th case that he will have argued before the nation's highest court, has been a transformative experience, he says. He speaks with passion, and sometimes a tear, about the gay men and women, including Republicans, who reach out to thank him."

Chris Johnson talks to folks in line at the Supreme Court. This photo is from the Washington Post's front page.

Several of those waiting in line are just paid placeholders: "The second and third people in line on Saturday seemed indifferent about the cases and declined to give their names or say whether they were being paid to be there. One of them said it was his third time in line for a Supreme Court hearing, but he could not remember the other cases. He said he had been in line since Thursday; seat assignments are to be given out on Tuesday morning."

Roe v. Wade looms over gay marriage cases: "Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states."

Chris Geidner profiles Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson and blogger Andrew Sullivan.

A NYT profile on National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown: "Mr. Brown grew up in Whittier, Calif., a town with a Quaker background on the border of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the son of an accountant and a homemaker who split when he was 13. Maggie Gallagher, his predecessor as the marriage organization’s president and the author of a book about the dangers of divorce, said that Mr. Brown 'shares a lot of characteristics of children of divorce” who as adults make “a really firm commitment to do something different for their children.'"

How marriage equality could win in the worst possible way.

Focus on the Family President Jim Daly talks to NPR, claiming gay marriage is "outside of God's design".

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone spouts out on same-sex marriage: "Our bodies have meaning. The conjugal union of a man and a woman is not a factory to produce babies; marriage seeks to create a total community of love, a "one flesh" union of mind, heart and body that includes a willingness to care for any children their bodily union makes together...Treating same-sex relationships as marriage is the final severing by government of the natural link between marriage and the great task of bringing together male and female to make and raise the next generation together in love."

NOM is pushing an incredibly hostile document to its supporters.

Reuters: Gay marriage cases to define Supreme Court legacy. "It has been a decade since the court last took up a gay-rights case. Four new justices have joined the bench since then, including Chief Justice John Roberts, 58, who last year cast the deciding vote to uphold the Obama administration's healthcare law."

How did Vermont's "civil" war fuel the gay marriage movement? "It seemed radical at the time, and tore the state apart so wretchedly and publicly that historians were hard-pressed to come up with a parallel. Imagine the recent Wisconsin union wars, only injected with sex and religion. But the Legislature in Montpelier approved An Act Relating to Civil Unions, and Dean quietly signed it later that spring, making it the first law in the nation to extend marriage-like rights of any kind to gay and lesbian couples."

The AP interviews Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case: "They will get married quickly, in a small, private ceremony. 'We did the big celebration a long time ago,' Perry said. 'I hope this will be something a lot bigger than the two of us.'"

What the Supreme Court's ruling might mean for Colorado's new civil union law: "...the high court judges could not only declare California's Prop 8 unconstitutional, they could rule that states, like Colorado and eight others, that give gay people some relationship distinction without calling it 'marriage' is unfair."

And here's what we covered over the weekend:

Our legal expert ARI EZRA WALDMAN penned a few more SUPREME COURT PREVIEW columns for you including one on STANDING in the DOMA case and SCRUTINY in DOMA and Prop 8.. 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said "50,000 children in California are asking, 'why can't my parents be married too?' ...

Karl Rove says he can imagine a 2016 presidential candidate supporting GAY MARRIAGE ...

Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson schooled Tony Perkins on FACE THE NATION ....

PROP 8 Attorney David Boies laid out the Supreme Court Case on 'Meet the Press' ...

Rand Paul said he wouldn't mind a 'neutral' government on same-sex marriage.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS protested same-sex marriage in PARIS, some rioted, using children as human shields.

NEW YORK held a rally and a VIGIL.

Chief Justice John Roberts' Lesbian Cousin Will Attend The Supreme Court's Prop 8 Hearing

Chief Justice John Roberts will have a gay relative in the audience as he hears arguments over Proposition 8 on Tuesday. Jean Podrasky, Roberts' 48-year-old liberal lesbian cousin who wants to marry her partner will be watching, the L.A. Times reports:

Roberts is a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Podrasky, who is more liberal, said she rooted for his nomination to be approved by the U.S. Senate. “He is family,”  she said.

Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores. She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday.

“He is a smart man,” she said. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”

New York City's SCOTUS Rally for Marriage Equality: PHOTOS, VIDEO

(photo by erik bottcher via david mixner)

Images and reports are starting to trickle in from this afternoon's march and rally in New York City urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of marriage equality. Here are a few shots. Participants marched from the Stonewall Inn (above) to Washington Square Park where a rally was held.

Also, there is a vigil in Times Square tonight.

Love those "I'm with Edie" signs below.

Watch a video , AFTER THE JUMP...

(I'll update with more reports if they come in)

(via reddit)