Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Day five of LGBT legal updates in marriage cases stemming from the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s actions this week

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

We will update this throughout the day again, as we expect more action tomorrow

BREAKING UPDATE: The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the Hawaii case is moot and the district court decision against same-sex couples is vacated. This was the expected ruling, so no big surprises.

– Equality Case Files has a long post with several new updates.

– People are getting married in Carson City, NV. And in case you missed it, last night, a district court judge issued the final order in the Nevada case.

– People are getting married In Cabell County, WV. (More here on West Virginia’s decision to comply with the Fourth Circuit ruling.)

– In North Carolina, the GOP legislators who intervened to defend the ban want a delay until October 17 to address the complaint filed by the plaintiffs. That request was denied. The filings are due today. UPDATE: the answers have been filed (here and here.)

– More North Carolina updates: in two of the challenges, the judge has ordered more briefs, due by Monday. In another case, we are still awaiting a ruling on lifting the stay and entering an injunction.

Buzzfeed discusses Supreme Court action in the Idaho marriage case, Latta v. Otter. UPDATE: Idaho has filed its reply in its request for a stay in the Supreme Court.

– SCOTUSBlog notes that Wyoming’s ban will be challenged in federal court next Thursday, October 16. Wyoming is in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, so it’s bound by their decisions in the Utah and Oklahoma cases.

– The Kansas AG is asking the Kansas Supreme Court to halt same-sex marriages in the state.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

178 Comments

  • 1. DoctorHeimlich  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:19 am

    It's been a hell of a week, to say the least!

  • 2. DrPatrick1  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:23 am

    I know people wanted the BIG WIN at SCOTUS, but I must say, this momentum really does feel like we will get there much faster than SCOTUS could have taken us. Each day, more and more people are waking up without their rights being denied. Each couple, each person, that is no longer denied rights, helps reinforce how this only helps make our country stronger.

    I fully expect Kennedy to deny the stay in ID today. There is no need for it at this point.

    I do wonder if they will grant cert in the case though. It will STOP most new rulings (esp in 5th, 8th, and 11th) but if the stay is not granted, then perhaps where the circuits have already ruled, we will be able to finish off those circuits before June 2015.

    CHEERS my friends, we shall have another day of wearing out the refresh functions on our devices!

  • 3. flyerguy77  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Wowza!!!!!!!!!!!! It has been a great week for ME, not so good for NOM.. :-) They are having a freaking cow.. :-) I'm expecting more good news today and next week :)

  • 4. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:31 am

    I had to buy and install a new refresh key yesterday just to get to Friday.

  • 5. daveinasheville  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:34 am

    The two-story-tall rainbow flag looked pretty good on the Asheville (NC) City building yesterday – Council had it flown as a sign of support: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/8803ba82e8b2a3465

  • 6. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:38 am

    The Judge's Order denying an extension of time in The North Carolina Fisher-Borne v. Smith case, referenced above, appears to foreshadow a decision denying the Motion to Intervene as untimely, the Judge noting that, "these cases have been pending for a lengthy period of time." Those who were following the motion to intervene controversy on the Oregon Geiger litigation will remember that timeliness is a threshold issue for intervention: that requirement has to be met before any other issues bearing on intervention are considered.

  • 7. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:40 am

    I find it impossible to post a comment predicting what SCOTUS is doing now or what they will do. We have been in unprecedented territory in terms of judicial history.

    The only history we have is SCOTUS took both the AC stays to the entire court for review and then denied cert last Monday. Yes, there were two other SCOTUS appeals, but those were about the intervenors.

    I am hoping, not predicting, Kennedy is merely asking for review by the court and it is denied today.

  • 8. RLsfba  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:44 am

    If Kennedy looks at their briefs and then lifts the stay and denies cert. can they still shop around for another diva? But, would Kennedy deny cert. on his own in light of the mass denial from Monday? More likely refer to the full court and expect that same as Monday?

  • 9. Steve27516  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Hello, EoT friends –
    I'm sitting here in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, anxiously wondering whether today is the day when my home state becomes a marriage-equality state. At the age of 53, I don't readily find words to convey what a transformative experience it will be when I get the news that something wonderful has happened which I couldn't even have imagined just a few years ago. Sincere thanks to all of you for accompanying me and teaching me so much during this process.
    Steve in Chapel Hill

  • 10. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:00 am

    In the two previous AC stays, the entire court reviewed and voted to issue the stays. We don't know what the vote was.

  • 11. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:02 am

    First Kansas marriage!

    “I can’t begin to express how big this is for humankind,” said longtime friend Jessica McLaughlin, who witnessed the ceremony.

    Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article26508

  • 12. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:05 am

    more good news this time in South America: Chilie senate vot to legalize civil unions

    ChileAfter hours of heated debate the Chilean Senate voted in favor of legalizing same sex unions throughout the entire country. Though the approved bill does not, technically, make same-sex marriage possible, provisions within the law seek to put gay unions at parity with their heterosexual counterparts. Two previous versions of the bill were blocked by AVP, a conservative organization working to limit cohabitation benefits like inheritance and power of attorney, for both gay and straight couples.

    “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Sen. José Ossandón, who opposed the bill “I recognize that homosexuals have rights…I recognize that is not the AVP.”

    Michelle_BacheletMoving forward the bill will be presented to the Chilean House of Deputies where it will be further reviewed, put up for approval, and passed along to Chile’s recently elected President Michelle Bachelet. In the past Bachelet has been vocal about her support of marriage equality and an expansion of rights for Chile’s trans community. Many Chileans, however, feel that she is not doing enough to improve upon her predecessor’s relationship to Chile’s queer population

    In 2012 Chile’s former president Sebastián Piñera introduced an updated version of Chile’s anti-hate crimes law in response to the murder of Daniel Samudio, a 24-year old gay man. He was also responsible for introducing a much earlier version of the LGBT civil union law in 2011. Though Piñera was partially supporting of LGBT citizens, his government also made headlines for arguing against a re-definition of marriage that would have allowed for same sex couples to wed.
    http://www.towleroad.com/2014/10/chilean-senate-v

  • 13. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:12 am

    According to a tweet by Chris Johnson, with Nevada now providing ME, there are no remaining states that provide domestic partnerships and you can't get married. So, the obvious opposite of this says the remaining states have marriage bans and do not offer any 2nd class citizen alternatives.

    Another piece of history has been made, there are no more "back of the bus" states. We are left with the states where we can't get on the bus…yet.

  • 14. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:14 am

    This would cap off a great week very well.

  • 15. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:15 am

    I hope that you will soon be receiving many congratulations!

  • 16. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

    It was just CO, WI, and NV previously, right?

  • 17. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Really ? Really? Tom Tillis and the gop is trying to say baker v nelson applies to NC, this will go no where, baker is not no longer usable

  • 18. ragefirewolf  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:19 am

    Bahahahaha!

  • 19. ragefirewolf  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:20 am

    The appeals court already ruled and SCOTUS already denied cert…where the hell do they think they're going to get with this nonsense?!

  • 20. daveinasheville  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Reelected.

  • 21. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Scottie: People got married in Las Vegas last night on the county's office steps and in Reno, I believe.

  • 22. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Of course. I just hope someone goads him into pissing off the moderate voters in NC.

  • 23. RemC_Chicago  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Apologies if this is already commonly known, but here's an update for Arizona, which hints at good news:
    JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER re: 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment AND 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The court has read the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Latta, et al. v. Otter, el al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 14-35420 filed October 7, 2014. It appears that the Latta decision controls the outcome of the cross-motions for summary judgment at dockets 47 and 58 in this case. Latta appears to require that the motion at docket 47 be granted, and the motion at docket 58 be denied. The court invites the parties each to submit a supplemental brief discussing how the Latta decision applies to the motions at dockets 47 and 58. The supplemental briefs should be filed not more than 7 days from the date of this order. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

  • 24. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:35 am

    They cannot Justice-shop if they are denied.

  • 25. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:36 am

    "Intervenors further deny that Bostic v. Schaefer, addresses and resolves the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ requested relief because Bostic did not follow binding Supreme Court precedent, Baker v. Nelson."

    Referenced 11 times in the brief. It is factually correct that SCOTUS has not directly and succinctly addressed Baker as being dead as a doornail and won't until they grant cert on a case citing Baker and kill it in CAPITAL LETTERS. Those of us on the pro-rights side will continue to say it was dead after DOMA, the anti-rights side will (incorrectly) continue to wave this as their only thread to hang onto.

    Baker has to be directly addressed by every Appeals Court in order to stop the opinions on its status as precedent. And predicting every AC has and will continue to do this, anti-rights cases can still reference it in SCOTUS appeals concerning ME. Of course, they can also reference God and the Pope which will have the same result. Denied.

  • 26. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:36 am

    yea thats good, that means marriage is coming to Arizona very , very soon, maybie even today

  • 27. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:46 am

    Seth, my friend, Arizona will not get marriage for at least a week (the judge is allowing supplemental briefs due 7 days from today).

  • 28. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:49 am

    YES! Hopefully, their opponents are quickly out there saying, "this case has been in the courts all year and NOW, just before an election, you want to have a say in it? Have you been asleep all year?"

  • 29. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:50 am

    I assume what he was saying if they are submitted before the seven day deadline…

  • 30. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:51 am

    The Idaho response brief is more of the same nonsense, dancing around the issue, even forgetting things they said in their first brief themselves. Quite desperate to be honest. They have Schuette in it, Baker and even say that there is a "reasonable" chance the en banc 9th will reverse the decision (O'Scannlain – their favourite – is once again mentioned). Then they are ranting about the "deep and mature split" in scrutiny application in the circuits etc etc.

    I want to be cautious but they can't have a stay issued based on such arguments. It's unreal.

  • 31. Jaesun100  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:51 am

    Hoping for a ruling in NC any minute !!!!!

  • 32. Jaesun100  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:55 am

    More good news for VA http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/virginia-gover

  • 33. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:55 am

    ahh i see that now, i just glanced over it, yea ur right

  • 34. Zack12  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Good, because despite what the bigots claimed, domestic partnerships and civil unions WERE seperate and unequal.

  • 35. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:57 am

    Hmm.. Right; good catch, MG. Arizona's governor is a nutjob and has often tried to pass legislation to deny rights to GLBT folks. I wouldn't expect the state defendants to give up the fight.

  • 36. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:58 am

    Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Jay Bybee were likely the ones that called for briefing of the SmithKline case en banc. They are Idaho's only hope. The full court rejected an en banc review in that case. I think the same will happen here.

  • 37. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:58 am

    Please notice that the contention that the Bostic decision did not follow binding Supreme Court precedent in effect says that the Fourth Circuit got it wrong–not within the power of a district court to change, and very much within the power of the Supreme Court–which just passed up that opportunity by denying cert. Arguing Baker v. Nelson now is beyond far-fetched; it is deep into the twilight zone.

  • 38. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:00 am

    Even Arizona's governor has softened lately. She even suggested that legislation protecting LGBT people from discrimination might be a good idea. All that after vetoeing the "license to discriminate" bill, let's not forget.

  • 39. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:01 am

    Guitarist – I have NO faith in Jan Brewer. She vetoed the "license to discriminate" only after immense public pressure was placed upon her.

    I.e.: GOP Business Leaders jumped up and down on her, and it still took her 3 days to "consider" her veto.

  • 40. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Yes, the minority bigoted republicans in the 9th. Actually it was these two and Bea I think was the 3rd ? The only ones that dissented when the 9th declined to hear SmithKleine en banc. And I ask : On what grounds does Idaho support its position that the same court that DENIED to take en banc the scrutiny issue in SmithKleine (with O'Scannlain getting crazy..) will suddenly not only GRANT them en banc hearing BUT reverse the scrutiny application it previously DENIED to review ? If SCOTUS issues them a stay I wll go to Washington DC outside the court and start shouting really !

  • 41. RobW303  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:06 am

    Just to clarify: Idaho is seeking an en banc review first, so it may be many months before it would be properly filed before the Supreme Court for them to grant or deny cert. Bad news for LGBT Idahoans, good news for the rest of the country.

  • 42. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:08 am

    For defendants in other circuits that have not yet taken the case, bringing Baker up may have some slight validity (although terribly undermined by monday's denial of cert) but for 4th Circ. states to say so, it shows not even basic knowledge of judicial law and precedent really…

  • 43. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:11 am

    She is not running for governor again anyway so it doesn't matter I think. Arizona was always a state of mostly moderate republicans (as the plurarity (and possibly majority) support for marriage equality shows) and I hope they elect some of those next time around.

  • 44. DaveM_OH  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:14 am

    Welll…. Yes and no.
    No, they cannot win at district court – this is foreclosed by Bostic. No, they will not win at appellate court. And no, they will not win at SCOTUS.

    But they have to argue Baker because any issue not raised at the district level cannot be argued at appellate or SCOTUS. This is the principle known as "preserving an issue for appeal".

  • 45. Zack12  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:17 am

    It was indeed O'Scannlain, Bybee and Bea who wanted the En Banc hearing in SmithKline.
    O'Scannlain is a vile piece of work in his own right and is one of the few jurists on the bench more homophobic then Scalia.

  • 46. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:18 am

    That makes sense I guess but they don't stand a chance in SCOTUS after Bostic was denied cert thought right ?

  • 47. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:20 am

    More homophobic than Scalia ? Is that possible ? And even if it is, IT is sitting on the 9th ?!

    EDIT : Someone really pro gay rights has edited O'Scannlain's page on wikipedia lol ! It ends like that :

    "O'Scannlain is in favor of permitting states to enact bigoted anti-gay laws. On June 24, 2014, he criticized a ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that prohibited the exclusion of an openly gay man from jury service, saying that it was a "regrettable" "danger" to many laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."

  • 48. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:22 am

    Oh, oh – this action will tend to tick off the Catholic Church, whether it is in the adoption business in the state or not (Catholic adoption agencies left DC after it got ME, and are almost finished closing their businesses in MD). And the Southern Baptists and Mormons and various others will be ticked off.

    As the old saying goes, I'd rather be ticked off than ticked on (or something like that).

  • 49. RobW303  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:23 am

    There are limited domestic partnerships in certain cities in Ohio and Arizona as well, but no existing state-wide unions I'm aware of (it's noted on some same-sex marriage maps). Colorado once had domestic partnerships, but replaced them with civil unions. These are the only states in the past week that superceded other forms of unions with marriage. I assume couples still have the option of entering these lesser unions, since there has been no legislative action to alter that.

  • 50. Zack12  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:27 am

    SCOTUS will not hear anything from the 4th anymore.
    Bostic is the law of the land in the 4th circuit as far as SCOTUS is concerned.

  • 51. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:28 am

    Kansas AG asks Kansas SC to stop judges from two counties from ordering the issuance of marriage licenses..

  • 52. tornado163  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:29 am

    It's only bad news for Idahoans if the decision is stayed during the en banc and/or cert petitions. But since the cat's out of the bag that SCOTUS will (almost certainly) deny cert, is there a reason for either the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS to grant a stay for Idaho pending appeals?

  • 53. RobW303  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:32 am

    All the stays issued so far have been unreal and unreasonable, as a reading of plaintiffs' briefs clearly shows. For so many courts to have said "The ban is clearly unconstitutional, with little chance of holding, and the harm is greater to the couples than to the state, but we're issuing a stay anyway" shows that LGBT people can't expect the same administration of justice as other people.

  • 54. pasketanki  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:38 am

    They also allege that "Bostic inappropriately applied heighted [sic] or strict scrutiny to the challenged laws after unnecessary concessions made by the defendants; and […] a subsequent order by Justice Kennedy stay[ed] a Ninth Circuit decision invalidating Idaho’s marriage law after subjecting it to strict scrutiny[.]"

    That's simply not true… the 4th Circuit didn't apply heightened scrutiny! Add to that the spelling errors, the masterbatory references to Baker, and the dozen+ times they copy/pasted "we don't know anything about this case" … well… that brief cost the people of North Carolina $10,000 plus $400/hour attorney fees.

  • 55. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:45 am

    Reference/URL please?

  • 56. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:45 am

    Off topic (and my apologies if it has already been reported):

    NBC News Business is reporting:
    "High Court Decision Rings Wedding Bells for States' Coffers"
    ( http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/high-cour… )

    In short, the decision by SCOTUS will bring in up to 1/2 Billion dollars to the affected states with the ME marriages, receptions, floral displays, wedding cakes, etc. The only downside I see is that Kansas will still be bad off (state budget-wise), but not quite as bad off if ME would not soon be available in the entire state. (I really don't want Kansas to be economically successful until the current governor is long gone and forgotten).

  • 57. RemC_Chicago  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:46 am

    I'm 56, so I share with you this sense of awe regarding our circumstances. After 18 years together, I didn't think getting married would make all that much of a difference emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, but it did. I felt lighter, less burdened, and yet more grounded. Many, many good wishes for a happy and quick resolution!

  • 58. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:48 am

    It isn't clear that we will get there faster. I live in what is likely to be one of the very last holdout states. Had the Supreme Court granted cert, we would almost certainly had a definitive ruling by June 29, 2015. Our opponents will now use every stalling tactic that they can to slow the momentum. I suspect it will be well into 2016 before the last state is granted marriage equality even if the courts of appeal do the right thing. If they don't, it will likely be June 2016 before we have a national ruling.

  • 59. RobW303  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:50 am

    You're right, bad news only if there's a stay. But I can see lines of reasoning that would cause them to grant a stay. SCOTUS has been capricious and opaque in its actions thus far; I see no reason to expect them to suddenly act in a predictable and reasoned manner. Harm to same-sex couples has never seemed to factor much in their stay decisions—not as much as them being able to keep their own options open and intentions hidden.

  • 60. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:51 am

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/kansas-county-

  • 61. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:54 am

    To clarify your post, some states now have both equal marriage rights and also civil unions or domestic partnerships. For example, Illinois still has civil unions that are available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples and, if I recall correctly, domestic partnerships are still available in California. Some of the states that adopted civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples also permitted opposite-sex couples over 62 to enter into them, obviously a way to scam social security–which, when you think about it, is doubly insulting to gay couples, who in some states can't get social security benefits as a couple even when they are married. I am not sure what the status of civil unions and domestic benefits will be in the future.

  • 62. daulphin  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:55 am

    I'm 57, and you words speak for my wife and I as well. Lighter and less burdened for sure, and we too have reached a deeper spiritual, and emotional bond. Something to be said for knowing your marriage is protected and honored like everyone else, and that no one can step in and make decisions for you and/or your spouse.

    Edie was right when she said being married makes a difference!

  • 63. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Oh Jackson has been issued ? Moot as expected, no big deal here..

  • 64. daveinasheville  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Pretty sure the first $10,000 of "services" were to be donated – although that may just prove that you get what you pay for!

  • 65. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:10 am

    Again, Idaho is in the 9th Circuit, no circuit split, therefore there is NO reason for SCOTUS to grant cert….at least from all that's happened this week!!!

  • 66. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:11 am

    JoeMyGod is reporting that the Alaska hearing is at 1 PM Alaska Time (5 PM Eastern).

  • 67. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:15 am

    I believe we only have DP's for opposite-sex couples where one is over the age of 61, I believe……but will look and get back to ya!!!

  • 68. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:26 am

    How long will these anti-gay folks beat the dead horse Baker vs Nelson???

  • 69. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Perhaps Idaho will now appeal to SCOTUS that their case be moved from the 9th to the 12th circuit? Desperate states have tried other crazy moves, but no one has tried that one…yet.

  • 70. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:32 am

    I am so happy that McAullife knows that he should dance with those of us who brought him.

  • 71. Rik_SD  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:33 am

    So I have to admit I don't really understand the Hawaii case. Since they already have ME, it was moot, but does vacating the district court decision do anything positive for us, negative for us, or is it completely neutral? And does this foreclose on that one state senator idiots lawsuit now?

  • 72. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:34 am

    There have been lots of attempts to split the 9th Circuit and pretty much *all* the proposed splits would have put Idaho in a different Circuit than SFO: But no-one has yet tried it in a case…

    From Wikipedia…
    Congressional officials, legislative commissions, and interest groups have all submitted proposals to divide the Ninth Circuit. These include the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1993, H.R. 3654,[13] the Final Report of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals[14] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of Reorganization Act of 2003, S. 562, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003, H.R. 2723, the Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004, S. 878 (reintroduced as the Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2005, H.R. 211, and co-sponsored by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay), the Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, S. 1845,[15] and the Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2007, S. 525.[16]

  • 73. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Remember that the Hawaii case ruled against us. But for the 9th to reverse the ruling would constitute a decision on the merits, and they can't reach the merits of a case that is moot (that violates Article III).

    However, they are able to vacate it, which means it's like that decision never existed in the first place. This is good, because if Hawaii were ever to repeal their marriage equality law, then the ruling of the lower court won't be in force (and thus people could sue and under the 9th's Otter decision easily get an injunction).

  • 74. Corey_from_MD  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Idaho Gov. Butch Otter To SCOTUS: Our Marriage Ban Doesn't Discriminate Because Gays Can Marry Opposite Sex
    http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/10/idaho-go

  • 75. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Can that be done?

  • 76. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:37 am

    I agree that the 9th Circuit should be split (Alaska, Hawaii, California, and the territories in the 9th, everyone else in a new 12th Circuit).

    Keep in mind that when the 5th Circuit was split into the new 5th and 11th Circuits, the 11th Circuit ruled that all precedent set by the 5th Circuit before the split would continue to be binding precedent on the 11th. I imagine the same would hold true for a 9th/12th split.

  • 77. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Just once in these 80+ cases, I would love to see a judge rule directly from the bench at the end of a hearing. He could just hand them a copy of the 9th's Tuesday decision and say, "have a great weekend."

  • 78. Rik_SD  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:40 am

    Thank you! I love how much I learn from everyone on here :)

  • 79. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Yup! How predictable and just as I thought. He's up for reelection. And thanks for posting the link.

  • 80. sfbob  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Someone has to ask this clown if he would want to marry a woman he had no sexual attraction towards. Or if he would be willing to marry a man.

  • 81. RQO  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:44 am

    I really would like to see statistics on just who is adopting whom. My 50 cents is on gay and lesbian couples having been the most unprejudiced, non-judgemental, and welcoming subset of adoptive parents ever.

  • 82. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:45 am

    There is no such thing as the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals, so no.

  • 83. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:47 am

    I'd actually pull Alaska into the new 12th. And if the reaction is that each Circuit should contain at least 3 states, pull Arizona into the new 9th instead.

    In any event, one comment is that *just* the load in the 9th from California is larger than some of the other Circuits…

  • 84. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:47 am

    Good catch! I read that doc and missed it. After all this reading in this amazing week, I believe I am now "brief stricken."

  • 85. RQO  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:47 am

    Till they find a new horse – not likely at this point. It's like "remember the (pro-slavery) Alamo"!

  • 86. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:51 am

    wes has covered the basics. Also the state senator's lawsuit is in state court. It was dismissed from a district state court I think and the Hawaii Supreme Court took it. It's in the middle of briefing this one if I am correct. But he stands no real chance to suceed. Even if he did in someway, Hawaii is in the 9th so it is covered by the Latta decision thus it would be easy to re enact it again.
    Jackson was such a stupid case. After ME was enacted, the couples who sued dropped it and an organization opposed (!) to ME took it and asked the 9th to hold it till the Hawaii Supreme Court decided. What they had to gain from a lawsuit challenging the marriage ban staying in federal appeals court, I don't know. The 9th could not overturn Hawaii's marriage equality if the Hawaii SC upheld it.
    Silly silly consuming of valuable judicial time.

  • 87. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Yeah they made this claim in their inital brief actually, only to be mocked by the answering brief from the plaintiffs.

  • 88. wkrick  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:53 am

    A comment on joemygod…

    "We realized that if we pretended like the word 'gay' had no meaning then there would be no discrimination. Problem solved!"

    LOL

  • 89. montezuma58  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:54 am

    He probably has some way to claim that as a loss or deduction on his taxes. He's just trying to scrape up the pennies on this issue while he can.

  • 90. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:54 am

    If they split them, I do hope they keep the liberal/conservative balances. Idaho and Montana in the one, Alaska and Arizona to the other for example.

  • 91. RemC_Chicago  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Yes, that would be lovely, wouldn't it? Heck, the judge could hand over an entire stack of beautifully written reading materials from a host of federal, state and circuit courts. With a ribbon.

  • 92. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:58 am

    All I've got to say is these idiots have more balls than brains to intervene at this late stage of the game and then all they have done is continue to beat the dead horse known formally as Baker vs Nelson…….I mean REALLY?

  • 93. RemC_Chicago  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:58 am

    Ok, I'm game. I'll ask.

    @ButchOtter Would YOU marry a woman w/ whom you felt no emotional/sexual connection? Man up, marriage equality impacts your life not at all.

  • 94. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:58 am

    a state rep in mississippi says ppl should be prepairing soon for the marriage ban to be overturned,the writing is on the wall http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/republican-mississi

  • 95. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:59 am

    IIRC California on its own would be the largest Circuit by population in the US with 38 million people.

    Edit: Yes, California on its own would beat out the 11th and 5th Circuits. Wikipedia has a nice table of population by circuit and California in 2010 was 37.2 million people.

  • 96. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Again, why would ANYONE want to marry someone they are NOT attracted to? Since before Prop 8……folks use this excuse as meaning something more than it is…….I decide who I want to marry, and it's NOT based solely on the gender……I swear STUPID should hurt!!!

  • 97. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    My standard copy and paste for the day: Yup! How predictable and just as I thought. He's up for reelection.

  • 98. Waxr  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Interesting. The Kansas attorney general asked the state Supreme Court to block same-sex marriage licenses. How can the Court do that without discriminating against gays and lesbians? If they are going to block the issuance of marriages licenses, they have to be non-discriminatory and block the issuance of all marriage licenses.

  • 99. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    After 5 years of reading this website, I have inexplicably and subconsciously lost all interest in cookies, cakes, cupcakes and bread or anything else that involves flour and goes in an oven.

  • 100. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Marriage made a big difference to my husband and me too, in ways I hadn't considered. We were overwhelmed when the federal government extended recognition as a result of Windsor. But we are very frustrated that our state doesn't recognize our marriage.

  • 101. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Also in Carson City before the injunction was issued.

  • 102. RnL2008  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    I do understand……just before our wedding, I stumbled across this site called topix's……and felt it was a way I could be a part of the fight and explain things to those who were truly against Gays and Lesbians….over the last 6 years, I've found many articles regarding this issue and have seen us go from 1 State, now up to 27…with more on the way…….funny, looking back, I really wasn't interested in this fight after my partner of 12 1/2 years passed in 2002……….by close to the end of the fifth year of grieving, I wanted a friend or companion, but wasn't looking for a relationship……I met my wife on match.com, we met and were married a year and 4 months later……..now we've been married just a little over 6 years and we've been together just a little over 7 years and here I am, still learning about all of the things, I just never knew about…….and I've got to say that this particular fight is ALMOST, but not quite done….and something else will come and takes it's place.

    Hopefully, knowing that one has the right to marry, will allow folks to seriously take the time and reflect when they are truly ready to get married!!!

  • 103. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Yup. I was doing the same math (with the same wikipedia pages :) ). The scary thing is that if California seceded, the remaining 9th wouldn't be particularly small (it would be exactly in the middle of the 11)

  • 104. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    KS had only one state case in process, Nelson v. Kansas Department of Revenue. There is no decision in this case.

    In light of the 4th's decision and the SCOTUS writ denial, the ACLU filed a Federal case last Monday anticipating KS would delay at all costs (it's election time).

    While the AG/et al could certainly could (and should) capitulate, they do have the right to process the 4th's decision in an orderly manner.

    Assuming the current administration is reelected (they are in trouble after bankrupting the state), it will be interesting to see what they do the day after the election.

  • 105. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    The only proposed splits that have really gotten any following (ignoring the non-states) are:
    1) Split at the 42nd parallel. HI/CA/AZ/NV vs. AK/WA/OR/ID/MT
    2) Split Coastal/Inland: CA/OR/WA/HI vs. ID/MT/NV/AZ (with Alaska either way)
    3) California alone (makes the most sense from a load standpoint, but current minimum for states by circuit is 3.)

    No other state is split by circuit so anything that puts LA and SF into different circuits is a no go.

  • 106. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    Interesting column in the New Orleans Times Picayune about Judge Martin Feldman, asking if he will have the odious distinction of being the last judge to write an anti-gay marriage decision, and linking that to another notorious Louisiana case, Plessy v. Ferguson.
    http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/10/di

  • 107. robbyinflorida  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    This is the work of John Eastman (NOM). They failed to intervene in Oregon and they will fail here. Baker v. Nelson? Really, is that all they've got?

  • 108. robbyinflorida  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Don't forget McCain.

  • 109. marvelmvs  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Well it's not like they would have come up with anything better if the Court had granted them an extension of time.

  • 110. ebohlman  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    The mandate for ID won't issue until the en banc question is resolved, so ID's ban will stand during that time, just as the DC Circuit's ruling against ACA tax subsidies for people who buy insurance on the Federal exchange doesn't go into effect until its en banc review is complete (difference is that the 9th is unlikely to actually grant such review). It's a necessary price to pay.

  • 111. andrewofca  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Unlikely here… District Judge Tim Burgess is a W appointee.

  • 112. Swifty819  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    That doesn't make him any less bound though…..

  • 113. andrewofca  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    True, true. Just doubtful he'll be the one to make brandall's wish for a summary ruling from the bench come true 😉

  • 114. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Until October 1, 1981, there was no 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, therefore in 1980 (and prior) and most of 1981 anyone could correctly say "there is no such thing as the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals" and be correct. Anyone who stated after October 1, 1981 "there is no such thing as the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals" would be incorrect. So the answer is NOT no.

    In existence today? No.

    Won't be in existence in the future? Who knows, but it could come onto existence (and has been discussed for decades).

  • 115. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    As soon as a rehearing en banc is granted, the panel decision is automatically vacated. So it's not just that the DC Circuit's ruling against the ACA tax subsidies doesn't go into effect: that decision, legally speaking, does not even exist in the first place.

    That's why the rule is you're supposed to wait for the possibility of an en banc hearing to expire before issuing the mandate.

  • 116. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    I assumed that RnL2008's question "Can that be done?" was in response to brandall's facetious statement "Perhaps Idaho will now appeal to SCOTUS that their case be moved from the 9th to the 12th circuit?"

    Unless Congress creates a 12th Circuit sometime between now and three weeks from now, then no, Idaho cannot petition that their case be moved to the 12th Circuit.

  • 117. BenG1980  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    Rose was asking about a transfer between circuits, not the creation of a new circuit.

  • 118. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    With the 9th Circuit states all growing at decent clips too, it's not like that circuit is getting any smaller. California alone is adding 350,000 people a year.

  • 119. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Wow. Thank you everyone for the historical information about attempts to create a 12th circuit. I learn something new on this site just about every day.

  • 120. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    it seems the equality NC director and other officals, including the mayor of Greensboro are now waiting outside at the at Guilford County Courthouse. it could be coming soon because they probally have a heads up of what's going on

  • 121. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Fingers crossed, this was such an uneventful day…Where is SCOTUS decision on Idaho's stay ?

  • 122. ebohlman  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    Well Otter seems to have entered into his first marriage to gain money and political connections, which really is traditional in many senses; historically the nobility married for status alone and took care of their romantic and erotic needs with mistresses (or boyfriends) on the side. Love-based marriage is a relatively new phenomenon.

  • 123. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    maybie a big no is coming tonight?

  • 124. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was appointed by shrub also, but he ruled AGAINST Pennsylvania's ban on ME. He also ruled against the teaching of intelligent design (creationism in a different coat) in PA schools. (And he was fully supported for nomination by former Senator ricky santorum. ricky didn't support him so much after he was on the bench and had made various rulings.)

    The writer of one of the most powerful arguments to allowing ME in the states was written by an appointee of Ronny Ray-Gun, and is considered CONservative to extremely CONservative on most issues.

    One of the best friends the GLBT community has on SCOTUS right now mostly votes with the other CONservative on most issues, except for GLBT issues. Are you dismissing Justice Kennedy?

    Political leanings and/or who made an appointment are just one of many points that should be considered when figuring out if a judge is friend or foe and/or total or partial friend or foe.

    For instance, Senator Zell Miller was registered as a Democrat, yet he gave a speech at the GOTP convention in 2004, in support of shrub's reelection. Because he was a Democrat, that automatically made him liberal? In fact, he was considered one of the most CONservative members of the US Senate.

  • 125. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    True, but relatively to national population growth *percentage* it is falling behind. Arizona and Nevada are growing faster than the national average, but I don't think it makes a difference. The 5th is getting hit by the slow growth in Louisiana, so my *guess* is that the fastest growing percentagewise is the 11th.

  • 126. sfbob  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Or even better: would he want his daughter to marry a gay man? Or his son to marry a lesbian?

  • 127. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    UPDATE: 4:25pm: Judge Osteen has denied Tillis/Berger's motion for oral arguments!
    not too much longer now

  • 128. RemC_Chicago  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    YAY!! Progress! Movement!

  • 129. Steve27516  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    But there will be no final decision today.

  • 130. RemC_Chicago  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    OK. Tweeted that too.

  • 131. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    looks like your right he gave plaintiffs until Monday to respond to the motion to intervene.

  • 132. flyerguy77  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    It looks like NC Federal Judge will hand down his decision next week after asking more briefs by Monday.. NC Equality is reporting that the judge also denied motion for more oral arguments

  • 133. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    The law allowing for RDPs in Nevada is still on the books, so we have both. And a lot of str8 couples took advantage, too, so I doubt those will go away.

  • 134. robbyinflorida  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    That happened in Oregon with McShane.

  • 135. weaverbear  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The web is reporting the marriage of one couple in Lenexa Kansas who got their license in Johnson County.

  • 136. sfbob  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Eastman just got benchslapped. (stolen, without apology, from a JoeMyGod commenter).

  • 137. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Since he denied the motion of the legislature bigots what's more needed ??? At least let's get some action from SCOTUS.

  • 138. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    The audacity they have to say that to Kennedy's face, who authored Lawrence. This assertion flies in the face of that landmark ruling! I'm sure someone from Texas argued, gays are free to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, so there is no problem.

  • 139. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    And there still are some people who say off-Presidential elections don't count near as much as Presidential elections.

    Can you imagine the situation in Virginia if the Kook had won, instead of McAullife?

  • 140. RobW303  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    But a circuit can revise its own precedents. They aren't binding at the circuit level, only on the district courts.

  • 141. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    That really is an interesting column. Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the readers here.

  • 142. pasketanki  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    He wants to know whether the AG intends to appeal (he doesn't), and whether the AG's failure to appeal vindicates the legislature's interests (the AG will say yes…but…you know)

    Judge flat out said that the legislature is going to lose… he wants to know whether it will assert every right available–up to and including its right to appeal to the 4th Circuit en banc–before it gives up the ghost. IANAL, of course, but that seems to be the most obvious read of his order.

    Osteen said that he will review responses whenever they come in… so he might very well rule over the weekend. He just set the date for Monday because it was so late in the day.

  • 143. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    A panel decision by a Circuit Court is binding on all future panels of that Circuit Court and can only be overturned by the Circuit Court sitting en banc.

  • 144. flyerguy77  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    A proper response from the plaintiffs is legal and needed to be done..

  • 145. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    When shall we expect orders from today's conference? I'm waiting for:

    "The application for stay directed to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the court is DENIED."

  • 146. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    And add to that "IT IS ORDERED that the order issued on October 8, 2014 entering a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case Nos. 14-35420 & 14-35421 is hereby vacated."

  • 147. Pat_V  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Oh? Marriages licenses are not getting issued statewide in Nevada? How come?

  • 148. jpmassar  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    The Associated Press ‏@AP 4m4 minutes ago
    BREAKING: Supreme Court lifts hold on same-sex weddings in Idaho.

  • 149. jpmassar  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm


    WASHINGTON — After clearing the way for same-sex marriage in huge swaths of the East, Midwest and Mountain West earlier this month, the Supreme Court swept in the Far West by turning down Idaho's request for a last-minute reprieve.

    The order allows a federal appeals court decision issued Tuesday to take effect in Idaho, just as it did in Nevada. Three other states without gay marriage — Arizona, Montana and Alaska — are affected by the ruling, but state officials have not given up hope of blocking gay marriages there.

    USA Today

  • 150. jpmassar  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm


    WASHINGTON — After clearing the way for same-sex marriage in huge swaths of the East, Midwest and Mountain West earlier this month, the Supreme Court swept in the Far West by turning down Idaho's request for a last-minute reprieve.

    The order allows a federal appeals court decision issued Tuesday to take effect in Idaho, just as it did in Nevada. Three other states without gay marriage — Arizona, Montana and Alaska — are affected by the ruling, but state officials have not given up hope of blocking gay marriages there.

    USA Today

  • 151. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    If so, it could be a simple population issue. Some of the rural counties in Nevada have populations in the hundreds or low thousands, and might not have had any same-sex couples apply yet.

  • 152. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    YES!! #28!

  • 153. flyerguy77  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    omg this is a HUGE hint to other states you will be denied!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 154. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    YES ! Otter got pawned !

  • 155. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Oh hey, North Carolina's ban just got thrown out:
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/242564901/3-14-cv-0021

  • 156. JamesInCA  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    This says NC is done: http://goqnotes.com/31895/breaking-in-related-cas

  • 157. LK2013  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    IDAHO STAY DENIED BY SCOTUS! Referred to whole court – DENIED. Kennedy's previous order vacated.
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/242561650/14A374-SCOTU

    (ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.)

    FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2014 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 14A374 OTTER, GOV. OF ID, ET AL. V. LATTA, SUSAN, ET AL.

    The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied. The orders heretofore entered by Justice Kennedy are vacated.

  • 158. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Another huge corner is turned!

    Gay ≠ Stay

    Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gents.

  • 159. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Ok can we just pause for a 2nd ? Too much to take again !

  • 160. cpnlsn88  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    This is truly massive and what this week has been all about. This brings us back in my mind to the point where both the District court and 10th Circuit ruled in sensible, lucid terms that there were no grounds for a stay. Of course after SCOTUS declined to take cases covering 5 states and 3 Circuits of Appeals, one may ask 'Stay for what purpose?' – we have reached the end of the line after denial of cert. I take away the following:

    1. There is a pro marriage equality majority within SCOTUS (though to be fair this has been clear since Windsor)
    2. Stay requests will be heard on proper legal grounds henceforth
    3. Baker v Nelson has been given a send off, is no more, has gone to meet its maker…..
    4. This will reverberate far beyond Idaho.

  • 161. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    And wes commented "There is no such thing as the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals. . . ."

    I was responding to wes and his comment. I was not responding to Rose.

    Rose, as far as I understand, the established lines of jurisdiction must be followed, and unless/until Congress creates a new Court of Appeals, the cases remain in the Circuit in which they are filed. Congress would have to decide how to handle cases that are already filed and in progress, and I'm not going to speculate on how that discussion would come out.

    In any event, right now it looks like Congress won't be back in session until mid-Novermber (for a post-election special session) (unless a special session is called before the post-election special session, doubtful. In any event, a bill would have to be introduced in one or the other chamber, then go through hearings and vote in the Judiciary Committee, then debate on the floor, then submission to the other chamber. Rinse, then repeat. Based on previous history, it could take several weeks for the legislation to be approved by both chambers and submitted to the President for signature or veto.)

    The current Congress also needs to, among other things, provide funding for the Federal government beyond the current limit (mid-December), hopefully a permanent budget (through September 30, 2015). In other words, it is not very likely to happen that anyone in Congress will try to push for a split of the 9th Circuit until next year (and even then, it is unlikely, IMO), thus things will remain as they are now.

  • 162. jpmassar  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District has issued an order permanently prohibiting defendants in a United Church of Christ lawsuit against North Carolina’s anti-LGBT amendment from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case.

    U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., issued his two orders shortly after 5 p.m.

    “Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing such laws to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender, prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or seek to punish in any way clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples,” Cogburn wrote.

    It appears Cogburn’s order applies only to those defendants named in the case — including registers of deeds in Mecklenburg and Buncombe counties.

    http://goqnotes.com/31895/breaking-in-related-cas

  • 163. jpmassar  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District has issued an order permanently prohibiting defendants in a United Church of Christ lawsuit against North Carolina’s anti-LGBT amendment from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case.

    U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., issued his two orders shortly after 5 p.m.

    “Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing such laws to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender, prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or seek to punish in any way clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples,” Cogburn wrote.

    It appears Cogburn’s order applies only to those defendants named in the case — including registers of deeds in Mecklenburg and Buncombe counties.

    http://goqnotes.com/31895/breaking-in-related-cas

  • 164. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    From the NC ruling/order :

    "Finally, in the hours preceding this Order there have been a number of last minute motions filed by interested parties. The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue. It is a LEGAL issue and it is clear as a matter of what is now settled law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina laws prohibiting same sex marriage, refusing to recognize same sex marriages originating elsewhere, and/or threating to penalize those who would solemnize such marriages, are unconstitutional."

    That's how you properly answer to those senate and house leaders who try to play games with that !

  • 165. DACiowan  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Looks like it's the day!

  • 166. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Let 'em appeal all the way to God and back again. Good luck on getting a stay now.

  • 167. Pat_V  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    OK, good! So of all our 27 Marriage Equality states, all are issuing marriage licenses statewide except West Virginia (for which some counties will only start next week) ?

  • 168. LK2013  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    So now apparently the 9th Circuit needs to re-issue its mandate for Idaho to move forward with marriage equality …
    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/10/10/3420813_

  • 169. LK2013  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Fantastic!

  • 170. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    At the beginning of the week, 19 states and DC.

    At the end of the week, 28 states and DC.

    What is in store over the weekend and next week?

    One thing that is safe to predict is there will be 'backsliding'!

  • 171. JamesInCA  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Yes, this UCC suit names Cooper and the Registers of Deeds and District Attorneys of several, but not all, NC counties. So does this opinion strike Amendment One for the entire state, or just those counties?

  • 172. DrPatrick1  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    In 4th, baker is done, and baker does not bind SCOTUS, so for whom does bringing up Baker preserve Baker for appeal? In the 11th sure, even the 6th could bring up Baker. But in the 4th, baker is done!

  • 173. DrPatrick1  |  October 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    And there is that denial! I predicted, on this site no less, that SCOTUS would deny cert, and now this! Perhaps I should buy a powerball ticket!

  • 174. daulphin  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    I understand. If it weren't for Windsor, we would not have married, but simply continued our California Domestic Partnership. Without the federal benefits not much would have change for us legally. But I was surprised at the change we felt in our relationship. After 21 years together you wouldn't think it would make any difference, but it does.

  • 175. Steve27516  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    What a day.
    My thanks to all of you for your kind comments.
    I'll go to bed tonight with more hope for the future than ever before.
    Living in a society with marriage equality really, really matters –
    regardless of whether one is married or not.
    What a day indeed.

  • 176. CowboyPhD  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:55 pm

    My husband and I, together for nearly 40 years, shed tears of joy this evening. Standing on top of the mountain, we held each other and watched the sunset on a truly amazing day. We never believed we would live long enough to see the time our relationship was treated with respect and dignity by the state of Idaho. To this site and all who contribute, a heart felt thank you. You gave us courage to climb the mountain together.

  • 177. Ryan K.  |  October 11, 2014 at 8:10 am

    So very happy for the two of you and all the couples in Idaho. Here's to a reissuing of the mandate shortly, then freedom to marry for all in Idaho as the 29th state with marriage equality.

  • 178. tushargoyal357  |  October 15, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    One of the best blog to find details related to Happy Diwali 2014 , to find Diwali Rangoli , Happy Diwali 2014 Greetings and Happy Diwali Wallpapers and Images 2014

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