Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Arizona, Colorado marriage equality news, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Colorado state seal– The Washington Blade looks at the marriage cases that are awaiting a conference at the Supreme Court.

– The plaintiffs in the Louisiana marriage case will appeal yesterday’s district court ruling upholding the ban.

– The plaintiffs in the federal challenge to Colorado’s marriage ban have been asked to respond to the state attorney general’s request to place the case on hold until the Supreme Court takes action on the Utah and Oklahoma marriage cases. They have until 9/17. (EOT does not have the filing.)

– One of the plaintiffs in Lambda Legal’s challenge to Arizona’s marriage ban has passed away, and his widower has filed a request for an order temporarily recognizing their marriage on his death certificate while the case unfolds in federal court.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. LK2013  |  September 4, 2014 at 10:02 am

    Okay, finally got around to reading Louisiana Judge Feldman's decision. Blech. I know many have already commented, but really … BLECH.

    He quotes Roberts, Holmes, Niemeyer, etc., to build an odious case for continuing discrimination. He misconstrues Windsor, Lawrence, Romer, and Loving. He willfully warps Justice Kennedy's ideas.

    He repeatedly dismisses the "new" concept of "same-sex marriage" and bats aside any notion of scrutiny above rational basis, which he is oh-so-pleased to say is adequately met by Louisiana.

    He cites – several times – Justice Powell in Furman v Georgia (this appears to be a capital punishment case, from 1972!) to laud "the democratic process" over judicial "activism."

    On page 28, he can't help showing his true colors, and trots out incest and polygamy, and really just sounds like a dope.

    While condescendingly acknowledging the "innate pathos" of those who are arguing for equality. He and Judge Sutton of the 6th would enjoy dinner, drinks, and spirited mocking of all of us who aspire to a simple fundamental right.

    Meanwhile, George Martinez dies in Arizona, and his husband Fred McGuire has to file legal action five days after becoming a widower.

    Take your "innate pathos" and stick it.

  • 2. davepCA  |  September 4, 2014 at 10:18 am

    MEET-UP THIS WEEKEND IN SAN FRANCISCO – For those in or near SF who plan to attend the 9th Circuit arguments on Monday, some of us are hoping to get together to meet in person a couple of days before the hearing. I'd like to suggest we use this space to discuss & make plans.

    I'll be with Ragavendran. I'd like to suggest that we all get together for dinner in the Castro on Saturday 9/6 or Sunday 9/7. I'm suggesting we meet at Firewood on 18th street at Diamond Street in the Castro (it's relatively cheap, and it's one of the few places that can handle a large-ish group). Maybe a bit early, like 6PM to avoid crowds?

    My preference would be Sunday evening, but Saturday could work too.

    Your thoughts?

  • 3. Margo Schulter  |  September 4, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Furman v. Georgia (1972) invalidated all existing state and federal death penalty statutes, and actually takes the prize for the most fragmented Court ever — or at least ties — with 9 Justices and 9 separate opinions!

    Justices Brennan and Marshall took the view — which they adhered to ever after, with dissents in every capital case (including cert denials) — that the death penalty itself violates the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. Their relentless dissents, which begin “Adhering to my view that the death penalty [constitutes cruel and unusual punishment…],” are a legend.

    Justices Douglas, Stewart, and White, took the view that prisoners were sentenced to death so rarely, and so unpredictably (with others routinely spending their lives in prison cells and yards), that it was “arbitrary,” “freakish,” and “capricious,” and thus unconstitutional as serving no rational penological purpose. In 1976, however, Stewart and White held that the death penalty itself was constitutional if the life and death decision were properly informed and guided: Gregg v. Georgia (1976), a 7-2 decision.

    Now for Chief Justice Burger and Justices Rehnquist, Powell, and Blackmun in Furman, the dissenters, who indeed talked about the will of the people and judicial restraint. It’s sort of curious this got quoted in Judge Feldman’s decision, but maybe not too surprising. By the way, Blackmun noted his own “excruciating agony of the spirit” as a lifelong opponent of the death penalty in deciding for judicial restraint; and in 1994, just before leaving the Court, he wrote his famous dissent hold the death penalty to be unconstitutional because it is impossible to administer fairly. After leaving the Court, Justice Powell said that if he had it to do over again, he would have ruled different on capital cases, because he had come to the view that the death penalty is wrong (the context suggests he had all come to regard it as unconstitutional, in good part because of the issue racial bias).

  • 4. RLsfba  |  September 4, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Thanks Davep,

    Sunday works for me.

  • 5. Zack12  |  September 4, 2014 at 11:32 am

    The scary part is there are likely three if not four Supreme Court justices that agree with him.
    Let's hope Kennedy won't be the fifth.

  • 6. JayJonson  |  September 4, 2014 at 11:41 am

    There are definitely 4 Supreme Court justices who will vote against extending the right to marry to same-sex couples.

  • 7. Fortguy  |  September 4, 2014 at 11:50 am

    A federal judge has ruled that Houston may continue to provide spousal benefits for municipal employees while the legal drama swirling around the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) and marriage equality continues.

  • 8. FredDorner  |  September 4, 2014 at 11:51 am

    I guess that depends on whether Roberts agrees with the argument that marriage should be denied his family because he and his wife can't procreate, eh?

  • 9. DaveM_OH  |  September 4, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    7CA opinion is out!

    3-0 by Posner, as expected.…

  • 10. davepCA  |  September 4, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    ….. I was thinking that today might be a 'light' news day and therefore this would be a good time & place to put comments about getting together this weekend, but the attention being given to the newer article may mean that fewer folks will notice this (not that I'm complaining about the great news!).

    This comment may not be getting seen by a lot of folks, so I'll try posting another one at the top of a new article tomorrow, FRIDAY, and maybe that will work out better. Anyone who does see this one, please check under the article on Friday.

  • 11. JayJonson  |  September 5, 2014 at 7:12 am

    I think it is delusional to believe that Roberts will change his mind. In his Windsor dissent that argued that neither BLAG or the Justice Department had standing to appeal the lower court's decision, he gratuitously said that he believes DOMA is constitutional. In addition, he went out of his way to limit Windsor, saying that it was based on federalism and simply meant that the federal government must recognize choices made by the state.

    It is hard to think that Roberts would find a state ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional if he thinks DOMA is constitutional. He certainly will not sign on to a decision declaring that marriage is a fundamental right that must be extended to same-sex couples.

    Roberts has never shown any sympathy for gay issues, lesbian cousin notwithstanding. I doubt that he would see that the argument that marriage is all about procreation as having any relevance to his family. After all, the force of that ex post facto justification by the states is that it does not apply to heterosexuals, only to homosexuals. Roberts is fine with that.

  • 12. Zack12  |  September 5, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Indeed, Scalia's temper tantrum in his dissent and judges picking up on that overshadowed Robert's attempts to limit DOMA.
    Feldman was simply the first judge to use that but I have no doubt Sutton and Cook will use Robert's option in being the first Circuit to rule against us.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!