Yesterday, PFAW staff and members rallied at the Supreme Court for marriage equality. Today we returned to the Court for Day Two with United For Marriage.

It was indeed a big day for the PFAW family, as one of our own, Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, delivered remarks. Her “Stay in Hope” speech offered a powerful vision of not only of hope but also of unity.

As an African American woman, on behalf of the Equal Justice Task Force of African American Ministers In Action, Hope says the enemy is a liar when they say African Americans and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are two separate - even hostile – communities, for “no weapon shall be forged against us” and no wedge can be driven between those who know oppression, discrimination, denial of basic civil and human rights. Hope connects the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement, the yesterday to today, the hopeful to the hopeless.

We all have different stories to tell, but the struggle for equality remains, and we should fight together – we are fighting together.

Minister Malachi was among a stellar roster of speakers today, including an appearance from Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA34), not clad in business attire as a member of Congress, but “suited up” in jeans as a father whose young daughter, Natalia, knew that she wanted to be there to witness history and asked him to join her.

In 1996, I voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Today, I stood on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to witness history, and I say this as a proud father, Latino, and Catholic... the time for equality is now.

Natalia is further testament to the fact that young people have paved the way for the American majority that now supports marriage equality.

What has stood out most for me from this experience is seeing the real people behind these cases. Yesterday, I waited at the Court until attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson walked down those famous steps with the Proposition 8 plaintiffs, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo. Today, I watched as Edie Windsor, at 83 years old, made that same walk, to loud cheers and applause and chants of “Edie! Edie!” In return, we all got a wave and a kiss blown our way.

To Edie and the others I say, Sophia Petrillo has your back.

We all have your back.

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

PFAW President Michael Keegan:

As we saw with last month’s state ballot measures affirming marriage equality, more and more Americans are coming to understand that laws preventing same-sex couples from getting married do real harm to our families, friends, and neighbors . . . Laws like Proposition 8 and DOMA go against the central American ideal of equal justice under the law . . . The cases the court agreed to hear today are a landmark opportunity for our country to move towards making marriage equality the law of the land once and for all.

Now that opportunity is upon us.

In less than two weeks, oral arguments will be heard at the Court. PFAW will be there with the United for Marriage coalition.

There have been a few moments during my nearly nine years in DC that I’ve felt like I was part of history. January 31, 2006, shaking Senator Ted Kennedy’s hand just after he’d cast his “No” vote on the Alito nomination. August 29, 2009, gathering at the Capitol for Senator Kennedy’s funeral procession. June 28, 2012, standing outside the Court as the (at first false) news of the healthcare ruling spread.

Organizing with United for Marriage has already felt historic, so March 26 and 27, 2013 stand to join those moments. You can, too.

• If you live in or near DC, or plan to be here for this historic occasion, join the PFAW delegation at the Court for the United for Marriage rallies. RSVP here then email me to let me know you're attending.
• If you live elsewhere or know people in other parts of the country, check out a local event, or create one of your own.

Visit unitedformarriage.org for more information.

PS: We’ll be wearing PFAW shirts and carrying PFAW signs. The color of the day is red!

During the last presidential election year, Senate Democrats and Republicans cooperated to confirm 10 district court nominees in one day, all by unanimous consent, and all just one day after they were approved by the Judiciary Committee. This year, since the president is Barack Obama rather than George W. Bush, Senate Republicans are sabotaging efforts to confirm 17 district court nominees before leaving town until after the election.

Almost all of the 17 had overwhelming bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and are strongly supported by both home-state senators, Democratic and Republicans alike. And all have been waiting somewhat more than a single day to get a yes-or-no vote: None has been delayed for less than seven weeks; seven have been waiting since June or earlier; and three have even been waiting since April.  Earlier this afternoon, when Majority Leader Reid sought unanimous consent to confirm the 17 nominees, Minority Leader McConnell refused.

This morning, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts announced that the vacancy crisis in two of the nominees' districts has unexpectedly gotten even worse. In the Northern District of Illinois, a fourth vacancy has opened up, making the need to immediately confirm nominee Thomas Durkin even greater. The ABA has given Durkin its highest rating of “well qualified,” he is supported by both Sens. Durbin and Kirk, and the workload in that court has gotten so overwhelming that the vacancy has been formally designated a judicial emergency.

In California, one of the judges in the Southern District announced that she will be taking senior status early next year. This is the same district where Latino nominee Gonzalo Curiel would fill an emergency vacancy, if only Republicans would allow a vote. Like Durkin in Illinois, Curiel received overwhelming bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee, and his qualifications are not in doubt. Yet his nomination has been languishing on the Senate floor since April, simply because Republicans want to obstruct President Obama's nominees.

To fully exercise our rights as Americans, we deserve a fully functioning federal court system. Perhaps Senate Republicans consider that mooching off government, echoing the worldview of their presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and want to put a stop to it. They're certainly acting like it.

The ballot initiative that revoked marriage equality in California has taken a big step towards having its constitutionality determined by America’s highest court.  In a long-awaited move, proponents of Prop 8 have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hollingsworth .v Perry that the ballot initiative violated the federal Equal Protection Clause.  A nearly 500 page document, which can found here, lays out their rationale for urging the court to review the case.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker broke down the core of their argument:

The question presented in the case is: “Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” The proponents tell the Court that they should answer the “profoundly important question whether the ancient and vital institution of marriage should be fundamentally redefined to include same-sex couples.” They write that leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision intact would have “widespread and immediate negative consequences” and would leave the impression that any “experiment” with marriage would be “irrevocable”.

The Ninth Circuit issued a very narrow ruling, avoiding the question of whether gay and lesbian couples in general have a constitutional right to marry.  Instead, it based its ruling on narrow grounds unique to California, where same-sex couples were left with all the state rights of marriage but not the name. It found that taking their designation of “marriage” while leaving their rights unchanged did not serve any of the purposes put forth by its defenders. Instead, its only purpose and effect was to lessen a targeted group’s status and dignity by reclassifying their relationship and families as inferior. While the Supreme Court will be presented with the narrower question as framed by the Ninth Circuit, it is impossible to tell, if it agrees to hear the case at all, whether they will rule on this principle or more broadly on the ability of states to deny lesbians and gays the right to marry.

The Supreme Court will likely decide in early October whether or not to hear the case.  Back in February, PFAW applauded the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in upholding the decision of the district court striking down Prop 8.

Marriage equality is just one of the many critical issues that will come before the Supreme Court when they reconvene next session.  The elevation of Prop 8 to the highest level of the judicial system underscores the increasing importance of the Supreme Court and the Presidential election.

It is a difficult to imagine a more conservative Court than the one we have now, but Mitt Romney has pledged to appoint justices even further to the right then John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  Romney has also enlisted far-right judge Robert Bork to advise him on judicial matters.

Visit RomneyCourt.com  for more on Mitt Romney’s extreme vision for the Supreme Court.