Well-intentioned nonprofits are raising more funds to help repeal both “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act. But both DADT and DOMA are subject to review right now in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate circuit dominated by Democrats and progressive Republicans, so we’ll soon be celebrating their demise. There’s no need to risk losing House seats and political capital over them.

Yes, it’s true that two weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a challenge to DADT. But while media suggested that the court had upheld DADT, it had not. The Supreme Court processes more than 8,000 appeals a year; a denial of review simply means it doesn’t want to hear the case. If we should draw anything from this, it’s that the Supreme Court is aware that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held that DADT (and other military regulations affecting the sex lives of military personnel) cannot be applied broadly. Instead, it held that in each case, the military must be able to show that separation of the individual from military service is “vital” to accomplish a military objective.

That conclusion arose from Witt v. Air Force, which involved a woman with a 20-year record of military service. Her only “crime” was that she admitted she was a lesbian and lived with another woman off base. The Air Force was unable to show that dismissing Witt in any way furthered an important military objective. Instead, the court found dismissing her actually had the opposite effect – it kept outstanding military personnel from doing their jobs.

Since President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates decided not to appeal Witt to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will return to a lower court, which will ultimately dismiss it. The military won’t appeal the dismissal and, consequently, will no longer be able to enforce DADT. True, it would be ideal simply to wipe DADT off the books. But, given the crises we face as a nation – economic collapse and the implementation of health care – DADT and DOMA pale by comparison. Obama cannot afford the political capital to wage either battle in Congress and possibly lose House and Senate seats to right-wing ideologues.

DOMA is also on its deathbed in the Ninth Circuit because, in the next three weeks, a federal judge in San Francisco will decide whether to grant a court order temporarily halting Proposition 8 because it violates the federal Constitution, which would also signal that DOMA violates the federal Constitution.

Of course, this was entirely predictable. Most of us didn’t think the challenges to Proposition 8 had much chance for success; we knew our best chance to halt it and restore same-sex marriage was in federal court. Yet, even if the federal judge does not do this, the matter could be appealed quickly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which would rule in our favor.

We know it would because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals consists of about 30 judges, and, while the court assigns a three-judge panel to hear an appeal, regardless of how the panel rules, the entire Ninth Circuit (or what is called an “en banc” panel – a majority of the judges) will vote to strike down both Proposition 8 and DOMA because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After all, even one of the most conservative of Ninth Circuit Court judges, Judge Alex Kozinski, wrote an opinion earlier this year supporting extending marital benefits to same-sex federal court clerks.

The trick, however, will be either to keep Proposition 8 and DOMA from reaching the U.S. Supreme Court or to make sure the issues are framed so narrowly that we have five Supreme Court votes to uphold the Ninth Circuit ruling. This isn’t a stretch: Although we wouldn’t get a unanimous ruling in the Supreme Court, since Justice Antonin Scalia would certainly throw a hissy fit, with more and more states signing pro same-sex marriage or civil union legislation, a national consensus to join the international community in recognizing the rights of same-sex couples is growing. And this would be meaningful to the five members of the Court we need to convince.