Along with who will be receiving his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. come January, one of the most compelling political questions about 2013 is what, if anything, the U.S. Supreme Court will “do” about the volatile and divisive issue of same-sex marriage.

High Court watchers say that the justices were expected to privately discuss marriage equality on Monday past, and at press time for the Florida Agenda there was speculation they could decide as early as yesterday, September 25, as to whether they would take up the constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law that denies financial benefits to gay couples, and possibly a second case relating to California’s Proposition 8.

Although oral arguments and a legal decision by the Supremes wouldn’t be handed down until next year (if at all), the justices are well aware of the political consequences—to both major parties—of even ruminating on the topic six weeks from a presidential election.

The legal “balls” in the air for the court to consider, should they so choose, concern whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection nullify the California statute, as well as DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

In New York State, a woman challenged the federal law, saying it selectively and unfairly treats same-gender couples who have been lawfully married in their own states. In a separate but related item, the justices could also decide the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

In the case of the DOMA appeal, Edith Windsor had lived with her partner, Thea Spyer, as a couple in New York since 1967. They married out of state in 2007, at a time when New York State didn’t recognize same-sex marriage. When Spyer died three years ago, she left her estate to Windsor, who was required to pay around $360,000 in federal taxes on the inheritance, because the feds don’t acknowledge her “legal” status—even though New York now permits gay marriage.

Although a federal judge ruled in Windsor’s favor, her attorneys have asked the justices to hear the case now, leapfrogging the standard appeals process. “Edie Windsor, who recently celebrated her 83rd birthday, suffers from a serious heart condition,” said her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. “Edie cannot yet receive a refund of the unconstitutional estate tax that she was forced to pay simply for being gay. The constitutional injury inflicted on Edie should be remedied within her lifetime.”

Last spring, a Boston-based federal appeals court struck down a key part of DOMA. The court ruled that the federal government cannot deny benefits to same-sex couples who were married in states where gay marriage is legal.

Enacted in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, DOMA prohibits federal recognition of marriage equality, and says that states cannot be compelled to recognize such marriages contracted in other jurisdictions.

In the District of Columbia and six states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York— marriage between two persons of the same gender is legal. In Washington state and Maryland, similar laws have been enacted, but voters have a chance to affirm or reject these measures in ballot initiatives this November (see the related story in this issue’s POLITICAL DESK, Page 11).

Five states—Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—have legalized civil unions. Four—California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state—have established domestic partnerships, which provide many of the same rights as marriage, although in the last instance, lawmakers passed a full marriage law which is the subject of a November voter referendum (see above).

Wisconsin provides limited benefits under domestic partnership laws, and Maine voters will decide in November whether to maintain similar benefits, or go for the Full Monty for such couples (see POLITICAL DESK story, Page 11).

The remaining 33 states, including Florida, offer no such provisions. There are three other appeals that challenge the 1996 federal law, including 17 married or widowed men and women who are suing for their federal benefits and recognition. The high court could decide to wait until the appeals process has been exhausted before allowing a full review by the justices.

The two eggs in the Supremes’ basket concern separate, bi-coastal cases. In August, a federal appeals court ruled against the California prohibition of same-sex marriage, arguing that it unfairly—and unconstitutionally—singles-out gays. The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8 “works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians” and violates their 14th Amendment protections.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriages were legal, opening the floodgates for 18,000 gay couples to obtain marriage licenses. A subsequent ballot initiative that passed by 52 percent of voters put the kibosh on further same-sex weddings. It also put California in the position of being the only state to first permit, and then prohibit, marriage equality. The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit didn’t decide whether or not gays have the right to marry, they ruled on the voters’ right to make such calls.

Which brings us to the larger question: What will the U.S. Supreme Court do? The justices may decide that a fundamental constitutional right is threatened, and strike down the laws of states that only permit one-man one- woman matrimony. Or they might determine that states must recognize same-gender nuptials performed in other jurisdictions, while letting them keep their own laws intact. They may also wait out the full process of judicial appellate review (which lessens the likelihood of a final ruling in the Windsor decision during Edith Windsor’s natural lifespan).

The Supremes may also decide to wait out the demographic clock, under the assumption that the law will eventually “right” itself, with theoretical passage of the Respect for Marriage Act overturning DOMA, and obviating the necessity of a high court ruling.

What is certain is that both sides will have the first Monday in October—when the court returns from its summer recess—clearly marked on their own calendars.

On Friday, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminates against same-sex couples, and unfairly denies the, federal benefits.

“These married couples— our friends and neighbors in Vermont—have every right to fair and equal treatment by the federal government,” said Sorrell. “Instead, they are denied Social Security benefits, tax exemptions, and health and retirement benefits.”

The three states filed their briefs in the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case brought by a New York woman who was required to pay $350,000 in estate taxes when her partner died. Last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA in court, and several federal judges—including a number appointed by Republican presidents—have ruled the law to be unconstitutional. In June, a federal judge in New York ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional because it intrudes upon the states’ business of regulating domestic relations.

Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.H.

The Platform Committee for the Democratic National Convention, which gathers next month in North Carolina, met last week in Detroit, and approved the work of a separate group that drafted the platform two weeks ago, which included support for a “plank” that endorses same-sex marriage. That move echoes President Obama’s May announcement in support of marriage equality for all Americans.

The platform, a broad statement of the Democrats’ priorities on defense, the economy, and social issues, affirms the party’s “movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples.” Foretelling opposition from religious conservatives, the platform adds, “We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.”

In addition, the language calls for the repeal of DOMA, the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Five federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey and co-chairman of the platform committee, acknowledged the “profound indignities” of DOMA’s provisions, as well as the divisiveness of the issue. “At the end of the day, it’ll maybe repel some and attract others to be more engaged,” Booker said.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-California) told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast last week, “The rule of law keeps America strong. When you break down the rule of law, you break down society,” adding, “There can’t be a system where somebody decides, ‘Well, that’s law, but I just don’t like it.’ It doesn’t matter what the issue is. We have a court system. We have a rule of law we go through. And I think you have to go through the system.”

House Republicans have been defending DOMA since March 2011, when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called it unconstitutional, and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending it.

As a former official voting delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, I’m proud to see the Party of the People continue to stand for the equality of ALL the people of our nation, and move towards adopting marriage equality in the official party platform. Democrats recognize that our national community is truly a family and has many members, including LGBT Americans. President Obama’s leadership on—and the Democratic support of—LGBT equality are unparalleled in history.

The passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, legal efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the advocacy that we LGBT Americans have the right to civil marriage and an equal and full seat at the table of American society, are all a direct result of persistent and successful efforts of grassroots and equality advocates, President Obama’s leadership, and Democratic congressional support.

Democratic support of LGBT equality, economic relief for the middle class, protection of our environment and national resources, development of clean and renewable energy, social justice, civil rights, and women’s rights are just a few of the important reasons to support the Democratic Party.

In 2012, we voting Americans owe a duty to ourselves and our posterity to re-elect President Obama, and to re-elect and elect Democrats to the Senate and House of Representatives.

Justin Flippen is a native South Floridian and the former Vice Mayor of Wilton Manors. He currently works for the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Visitors Bureau promoting tourism-based economic development and marketing.

The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who says the Obama Administration has circumvented the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], by permitting gay couples to wed on-base. “[DOMA] means this: Marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” said King.

“And the word ‘spouse’ only refers to a member of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” LGBT rights activists say the measure has more bark than bite, since the amendment prohibits the use of military funds for same-sex unions, and there have been no instances of such an occurrence.

The proposed rule would fill the gap until a legislative solution is enacted. The rule change was proposed three months after a federal employee, Karen Golinski, sued in federal court to have the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) declared unconstitutional. Golinski, a California resident, was seeking health benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis. The court ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional, and Cunninghis was allowed to get coverage under Golinski’s benefits.

(Republicans are appealing the ruling.) Under the decision, only Cunninghis was allowed to obtain health coverage. The ruling did not affect the status of other gay federal employees and their partners.

A proposed federal Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), and by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) in the Senate, would extend federal healthcare, retirement, and other benefits to the domestic partners of federal workers. The House version is stalled in subcommittee. A Senate committee approved that version in a voice vote on May 16.

Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, immigrated to Miami from Cuba in 1969. She told the assembly of about 100 that “The right of individuals to lead their lives without government intrusion is a bedrock Republican, conservative value.” She added that this “is more than just about sexual orientation,” it is “about the fundamental rights that we all share as Americans.”

She added: “No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.” In 2010, Ros-Lehtinen—who turned 60 on Sunday—was one of 15 House Republicans to vote for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In 2011, Ros- Lehtinen became the first House Republican to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

At Friday’s event, when asked by a reporter if she is a supporter of marriage equality, Ros-Lehtinen said, “I am.” She added—as if depriving an errant thought of its liberty—“No, I am.”

The gay, bisexual, and transgendered parents and their children—members of the Family Equality Council—held meetings with about 50 Members of Congress, discussing a range of issues from same sex marriage to adoption and hospital visitation. Zach Wahls, an Iowa man who spoke emotionally last year to lawmakers in his state about the rights, was among those in attendance. He told CNN, “The fact is that not all people who are opposed to same-sex marriage are bigots or hateful or ignorant.”

Wahls, 20, is the author of “My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength and What Makes a Family.” “I think if we can move past some of these stereotypes on both sides, we’re able to have this real conversation and understand that at the end of the day, my family isn’t looking for some radical change to the law, we’re looking for due process and equal protection,” Wahls added. Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray proclaimed May 17 as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Family Equality Day,” and called upon citizens to support justice and equality for all families.

President Barack Obama’s endorsement last week for marriage equality is only the most recent sign of a major shift in attitudes towards same-sex marriage more than 15 years ago, when the first indications appeared that American attitudes were changing towards gay marriage.

In 1996, the year President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), barely a quarter of Americans—27 percent— said that same-sex matrimony should be legalized, a far cry from last year, when 53 percent voiced support for marriage equality. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won 17 states which have passed laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman— including Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, with a combined 82 electoral votes, nearly a third of the 270 needed to win the presidency; the Sunshine State alone bring over 10 percent of that total, with 29 electoral votes). Another 21 states have similar laws—including North Carolina, which Obama won in 2008 and which last week enshrined that law in the state constitution.

Unlike the presidential election years 2004 and 2008, when several states created laws or amendments to their state constitutions that banned all but male-female marriages, the issue is not likely to define statewide races or to motivate voters to cast their ballots for one party or another because of personal bias about marriage equality. Meanwhile, the fight over DOMA continues to work its way through the federal courts.

Under the law— passed by a Republican-majority Congress and signed reluctantly into law by Clinton, who faced reelection that year—no state or other U.S. political subdivision (overseas territory, possession, etc.) is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. DOMA also codifies nonrecognition of gay marriages for federal purposes, which includes survivor benefits under Social Security, the filing of joint tax returns, as well as insurance and other benefits for federal employees.

In two Massachusetts court decisions and a California bankruptcy court ruling, Section 3 of DOMA, which deals with such matter, has been ruled unconstitutional. All three cases are currently under appeal. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney raised the ire of LGBT advocates in February when he told attendants at the conservative CPAC convention, “When I am president,” Romney continued, “I will preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.”

Romney is toeing a difficult line, trying hard to energize the GOP’s conservative base to support him in November while still attempting the political legerdemain necessary to hold onto centrist and independent voters, who are more concerned with bread and butter issues than denying a right of citizenship to their fellow countrymen and –women.

With the nod from Obama, the Democrat mandarins are rushing to voice their support for marriage equality. Although some of the party’s most eminent names—including former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, as well as Al Gore, John Kerry, Andrew Cuomo, and Howard Dean—have previously endorsed marriage equality, some earlier holdouts have begun to sing a different tune. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader and the highestranking Latter Day Saint (Mormon) in U.S. government, said last week, “My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.” And Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and, under the Constitution, third in line for the presidency, announced his own support last week for same-sex marriage .