Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit declines to issue stay in South Carolina same-sex marriage case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Fourth Circuit map
Fourth Circuit map
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has just denied South Carolina’s request for a stay of same-sex marriages pending their appeal of the district court decision striking down the ban.

The request was made days ago, along with a request for a more temporary stay so that state officials could ask the Supreme Court for relief. The order notes that both the stay pending appeal and the temporary stay are denied.

Presumably, the officials will ask the Supreme Court to issue a stay. That request would go first to Chief Justice John Roberts in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit.

In related news, a federal judge has just ruled in Bradacs v. Haley, a South Carolina marriage recognition case, that the state’s ban on recognizing legal same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

UPDATE: Here’s the stay request addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts in the Supreme Court. He can decide the motion on his own or refer it to the full Court.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

82 Comments

  • 1. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    This should come as NO surprise…..especially to the AG of South Carolina!!!

  • 2. jdw_karasu  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    It will be fun to see how Judge Roberts deals with it…

  • 3. nicolas1446  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    I was actually worried in the case that we might get a bad panel.

  • 4. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    The Fourth has already ruled on this issue, there ISN'T going to be another panel to hear any other cases………and the AG knows that his appeals are a waste of time and taxpayer money!!!

  • 5. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    SCOTUS is going to more than likely deny a Stay request as well as deny the appeal as the Fourth has already ruled on this and SCOTUS has already denied cert for this Circuit!!!

  • 6. franklinsewell  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    I think they will submit to the Supreme Court. The Court will grant a temporary stay while Roberts refers it to the whole; then they will deny.

  • 7. nicolas1446  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    The panel that denies or grants stays is not the same involved in the case though right? If it's not, then the stay would have been granted if the 3 judges were republican appointees since the AG was planning to ask for an en banc hearing.

  • 8. brandall  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Breaking: 2nd SC judge affiirms ME in Bradacs v Haley, SC district, Columbia Division. Judge Childs issues a ruling GRANTING for Plantiff's for out-of-state recognition:

    The court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims that South Carolina’s denial of legal recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in other states or jurisdictions violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claim asserting that South Carolina’s denial of legal recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in other states or jurisdictions violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/247035992/3-13-cv-02351

  • 9. Zack12  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    It took her long enough.
    I won't praise her for dragging her feet on this.

  • 10. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    There will NOT be another panel from the 4th for ANYTHING involving the Marriage Equality issue……when SCOTUS denied cert, they left the Appellate Rulings in place and those rulings from the 4th, 7th and 10 are NOW binding precedent…….South Carolina is in the 4th and that Court has already ruled regarding this issue!

  • 11. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    That's correct Nicolas, but for that panel not to follow the binding precedent of the 4CA with the identical case law resolved, would really put them in very bad position with the circuit. They really had no choice on the request for a stay pending appeal, although I could have seen them do the temporary stay to go to SCOTUS.

    Now we have to see once the AG of SC requests a stay to CJ Roberts if there is a temporary extended stay, briefs, and then a ruling referred to the full court, and hopefully DENIED.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    I totally agree with ya……the ONLY way I see SCOTUS granting a stay is if they entire court has lost it's mind……..they have already dealt with the appeals from the 4th and I seriously doubt if they are going to uphold the ruling from the 6th!!!

    I'm sorry if folks didn't get my sarcastic humor, but that's what I meant regarding SCOTUS….no need to mark me down, but if folks are upset, then I will simply delete the comment.

  • 13. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    No one is touching Marriage Equality and Section 2 of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We do seem to have this won on Equal Protection and Due Process.

  • 14. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    Not sure why one part was ruled in the Plaintiffs favor, but another part wasn't….can someone help me out…….and I am reading the ruling now!

  • 15. nicolas1446  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    The Plaintiffs had asserted that not recognizing out of state same sex marriage violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S constitution but the summary judgment was not granted on those grounds. The court, however, did grant them the summary judgment on due process and equal protection grounds. That's all that means

  • 16. Leo  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    One part was, "non-recognition of marriage violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause." The other part was, "non-recognition of marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment."
    In DOMA Section 2, Congress essentially exempted states from the Full Faith and Credit Clause with regard to same-sex marriage recognition. The judge said that was a proper exercise of congressional power and therefore denied the first claim. But then she wrote, it doesn't make a difference because the plaintiffs still win on the second claim: Congress may exempt states from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but not from the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • 17. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Got it………I still think that Section 2 of DOMA needs to be tossed…there does seem to be a conflict between the Full Faith and credit Clause, the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of DOMA

  • 18. Raga  |  November 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    To her credit, Childs concludes as meaningless her own decision to deny the Full Faith and Credit Clause claim:

    "[T]he court must deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to the restrictions placed on Full Faith and Credit by Section 2 of DOMA. However, this decision is ultimately rendered meaningless when considered in the context of the court’s findings below regarding the applicability of Bostic and Condon to Plaintiffs’ claims that South Carolina’s marriage recognition ban denies them equal protection and due process. In this regard, Section 2 of DOMA is not a complete barrier to Plaintiff’s remaining claims because whatever powers Congress may have under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, “Congress does not have the power to authorize the individual States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.” Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 382 (1971).

  • 19. StraightDave  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Does this mean that the 4th has dissolved the district court's temporary stay that was set to expire at noon Thurs? "…denies the alternate request for a temporary stay"

    If so, SC needs to shift into panic mode right away, i.e., emergency appeal to SCOTUS. Help!!

  • 20. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    As I noted before, a challenge based on FF&C is a stretch because the courts treat laws differently from judgments. So for example, where there is an issue, the federal courts are more likely to require one state to recognize another state's divorce decrees and child support judgments than they are to require recognition of another state's marriages since the former are judgments while the latter are "acts." No judgement is required in the issuance of a marriage license. One meets the requirements and therefore the state must issue a license or one doesn't meet the requirements therefore the state doesn't issue a license.

    If pressed Section 2 of DOMA could be challenged on the basis that while it grants states an exemption from having to recognize out-of-state marriages, Section 2 still has to have some plausible reason for existing, as would a state's "public policy" of not recognizing certain out-of-state marriages. It cannot be done by fiat.

    And I do think Section 2 would fall on that basis. However because Section 2 of DOMA doesn't actually require a state to do anything, but merely permits a state to do something, a direct challenge might be tougher to bring because there are other reasons (due process and equal protection, as above) why a state would be compelled to recognize another state's marriages and those reasons are more compelling than would be the fact that Section 2 of DOMA is unconstitutional in and of itself.

  • 21. brandall  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    BREAKING: Entire Sumpreme Court looses their minds. Scalia lectures the 8 other members of SCOUTS for 4 solid hours and then reads the U.S. Constitution 12 times and demands his peers limit their decisions to this document. Medical community is stumped on what to do:

    SCOTUS on the bench this morning

  • 22. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    I agree with her. Section 2 of DOMA is clearly unconstitutional. But the courts can rule on a more sound basis by applying equal protection and due process to a marriage ban than they'd be able to do by directly attacking Section 2 of DOMA.

  • 23. Raga  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    No. South Carolina had requested that if the Fourth Circuit should deny their request for stay pending appeal, it should grant a temporary stay to allow them to ask SCOTUS. The Fourth Circuit denied this second request as well. The district court's stay remains in force until Thursday.

  • 24. guitaristbl  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    Good news from SC on two fronts !
    The 4th denying the state was to be expected, as will be the appeal to SCOTUS.
    Weirdly enough yet again we face a slightly different legal landscape than when the Kansas stay request was denied. This time around actual petitions for cert have been files at SCOTUS from the plaintiffs in the 6th circuit.
    Will SCOTUS see any difference ? Will the frustration Thomas expressed in the denial of stay to the prop 100 case from Arizona, make an even more bold comeback here if stay is denied ?

    As for Childs ruling, well it was about time. I expect her ruling to be appealed as well. Wilson will ask for a stay etc etc, but I doubt he will have much success..

  • 25. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    Were Roberts to issue a stay without getting the entire court to weigh in, the plaintiffs could appeal to the full court and the full court would most certainly overrule him. So there's no point in him issuing a stay on his own.

  • 26. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    I thought that was their "NORMAL" appearance……..lol:-)

  • 27. josejoram  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    WOooooooooW!

  • 28. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    I know it's only Wikipedia but you may want to read this article to see why FF&C isn't really a good way to go:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credi

  • 29. Raga  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    The most likely scenario is for him to refer to the full court that'll deny the stay, but I wouldn't be surprised if he denies the stay directly, since this is virtually identical to the Kansas situation – why waste the court's resources unnecessarily?

  • 30. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Though I get your explanation, it still seems that the ONLY reason this whole Act was put together was because of how folks felt about Gays and Lesbians, even though they can claim it wasn't about ANIMUS, if the truth be known it was EXACTLY done for that very reason!

  • 31. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    If he denies the stay on his own wouldn't the state be able to go to a different judge, say Alito or Scalia? Either of whom would happily grant a stay. And the plaintiffs would appeal to the full court and get it overturned. If Roberts is smart he will refer to the full court immediately, even though he clearly won't like the outcome.

  • 32. RobW303  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Apart from Roberts' personal bias, is there a reason for Roberts to grant even a temporary stay, given that loss with a 4CCA panel is virtually guaranteed and the possibility of an en banc review, much less a reversal, is remote? Other stay requests in cases with greater possibility of success have uniformly been denied by SCOTUS, most recently in Kansas (whose situation is similar but even more complex). South Carolina cannot distinguish its case in any meaningful way and is now facing strikedowns from TWO district courts.

  • 33. Raga  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Wilson has released a statement:

    "It is still likely the U.S. Supreme Court will address conflicting rulings between federal circuit courts of appeal. Therefore, today's ruling by the Fourth Circuit does not end the constitutional obligation of this Office to defend South Carolina law. We continue to believe the doctrine of federalism and the Tenth Amendment should allow South Carolina's unique laws to be considered at the highest appropriate court of appeal. We will be seeking an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay shortly.”

    http://www.wyff4.com/news/Appeals-court-denies-st

  • 34. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Thanks for the info:-)

  • 35. DACiowan  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    Kansas: Johnson County stay lifted; equality counties now at 60% of the population. Will this get the Gov/AG to accept reality?
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/247044630/112-590-Orde

  • 36. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    So, the FF&C is a better way to go for Family law issues like Custody and Financial Judgments, but not so good with regards to Marriage License……makes sense.

  • 37. Raga  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    You're right regarding the State's options, and I wouldn't put it past this madman of an Attorney General to exhaust all his options. I just got reminded of Santai-Gaffney conceding defeat after Alito denied her petition directly.

  • 38. RobW303  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    But why are none of the plaintiff teams seeking to have Section 2 struck as well? As long as it stands, we'll be in an invidious position (as with Baker not being explicitly ruled moot).

  • 39. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    Though you raise an interesting point about the stay request this time around, I still DON'T see SCOTUS entertaining ANY request from those Circuit Court rulings that have already been addressed……otherwise the Chaos that could occur would be an utter disaster and not one ANYONE will want to deal with…..just saying:-)

  • 40. Rick55845  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    And after the request for a stay is (most likely) denied, the state will submit a petition for writ of certiorari. But that won't stop them from having to comply with the federal district court decisions. YAY!

  • 41. brandall  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    FL's Bondi files with 11th AC to continue the stay beyond the District Court's Jan 5, 2015 deadline. While this is expected, it's always disappointing seeing Bondi stall, stall, stall.
    http://issuu.com/equalityflorida/docs/2014-11-18-

  • 42. brandall  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    FL's Bondi files with 11th AC to continue the stay beyond the District Court's Jan 5, 2015 deadline. While this is expected, it's always disappointing seeing Bondi stall, stall, stall.
    http://issuu.com/equalityflorida/docs/2014-11-18-

  • 43. franklinsewell  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    If Roberts does not refer it to the entire court, then SC can justice-shop. Most of the commenters on this site have suggested that's the reason why every single justice has taken this approach (stay until all justices can consider, then lift the stay).

  • 44. Zack12  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    I wonder where our buddy TKinSC is at right now?

  • 45. SteveThomas1  |  November 18, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    If the US Supreme Court finds that bans on marriage equality violate the 14th Amendment, it will be pretty much impossible to bring a case to argue for the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 2. This is because *no* state will then be allowed to ban same-sex marriages, and a fortiori *no* state will be allowed not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state, so that Section 2 of DOMA will not be applicable in any state. Accordingly, no one would have standing to bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA, because there would be no one in a same-sex marriage whose marriage was being either prohibited or unrecognized under state law. It will remain on the books as a bizarre law which has no application.

    (Judge Childs is correct that DOMA Section 2 doesn't prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. In my home state of New York, for example, DOMA Section 2 has no application at all.)

  • 46. SteveThomas1  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    One of the most interesting things about the 4th Circuit's denial of a stay was that it contained no explanation. In the earlier days, Courts of Appeal (like the first to consider the issue, the 10th Circuit) would grant or deny stay requests with an opinion laying out the four standards for the grant of a stay, going through each one to let everyone know how they'd reached their decision. That the 4th Circuit felt such explanations were no longer necessary is a bit of a cheering prospect.

  • 47. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    I think the only way a challenge to Section 2 of DOMA could ever be brought would be in a situation where a state denies recognition to a same-sex marriage from another state and bases its defense by arguing its right to do so asserting the public policy exception AND Section 2 of DOMA. I can't really see any state actually making that sort of argument. While we all know there are no rationally-based defenses of marriage equality bans, if you're on the opposing side you'd try to come up with a new version of the discredited arguments anyway, or else come up with some novel strategy, rather than trying to hide behind what's left of DOMA.

  • 48. Eric  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    What are the ways that one can get a judge to issue a ruling that one is in fact married to one's spouse? With the ruling, one could then go to another state and force it to recognize the judgement.

  • 49. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    I would like to see them try to submit a petition for writ of cert on a decision that the Supreme Court has basically already upheld by refusing to grant cert on the Fourth Circuit's ruling. It would be a waste of time, money and paper.

  • 50. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Crying in his beer somewhere?

  • 51. SteveThomas1  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    If SCOTUS *doesn't* rule that marriage equality is required for states under the 14th Amendment, then one could bring such a lawsuit, although such a case would be significantly weaker than a due process or equal protection claim.

    My point, rather, was that *if* non-recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states is declared by SCOTUS to violate the 14th Amendment, there would *then* be no one who was hurt by any application of DOMA Section 2, because there would be no states which could constitutionally fail to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. Therefore *after* a SCOTUS marriage equality ruling (which I expect to come at some point in the near future) DOMA Section 2 would not be applicable to any state in the union, and thus no one could be harmed by its (non-existent) application. Without particularized harm, no one could be a plaintiff in an action asking for a determination that DOMA Section 2 is unconstitutional. Thus, no federal court could ever issue an order so finding.

  • 52. Brad_1  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    I bet he's applying for his marriage license as we speak. He's probably asking the clerk: "What does this mean?"

  • 53. StraightDave  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Applying for an internship at NOM to write blog entries that nobody reads.

  • 54. brandall  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    He can't get a license. A jack ass is not allowed to marry since beastiality is still banned.

  • 55. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    At any point where all marriage equality bans are struck down, Section 2 of DOMA will be in the same position as the California constitutional amendment created by Prop 8 as well as those remaining state laws banning consensual sodomy: it will exist on paper but will be unenforceable. In fact Section 2 will be rendered meaningless because there will be no conceivable set of circumstances under which Section 2 of DOMA could apply.

  • 56. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    All you have to do is present a marriage certificate which I believe every state issues.

  • 57. Rick55845  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Agreed, but I don't see that stopping them.

  • 58. RobW303  |  November 18, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    We're talking about different stays. The formal stay request will be to impose a stay pending the doomed appeal to the 4th CCA. Everyone now knows this won't be granted, even if it must be referred to the whole court to avoid justice-shopping. There is no need for a temporary extension while this dog-and-pony show plays out (assuming it's not completed by the 20th).

  • 59. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 18, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Maybe his head exploded, and his family is preparing for his funeral/burial?

  • 60. JayJonson  |  November 18, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Yes. Childs reaches the right conclusion. But she took much too long to prepare this ruling and it lacks any real sense of justice.

  • 61. Zack12  |  November 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    IMO, I believe she would have ruled against us if the Bostic judge hadn't ruled in our favor first.

  • 62. guitaristbl  |  November 18, 2014 at 5:45 pm

    At least she does not go on in a rogue federalist manifesto like Skavdahl did. Her ruling is cold and formal, addressing the issues appropriately under a judicial lens as she should do. I am happy with it and its clarity and also I am glad that it includes a section directly clarifying that the ruling does not only prohibit the state from issuing marriage licenses but also denying any legal rights stemming from marriage, rights identical to those opposite sex married couples enjoy.
    It's a clarification not many rulings have made and it should be made in order not to give any space to state officials to make the lives of same sex couples as difficult as possible even after they were married.

  • 63. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  November 18, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    A-WIGGLE, A-WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE.
    A-WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE!!!!!!

  • 64. sglaser2  |  November 18, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Could you challenge section 2 of DOMA / FF&C from a territory? Is there some entity (Guam, Puerto Rico, …) where the 14th amendment doesn't apply but where DOMA does apply? If so, that could create standing.

  • 65. SteveThomas1  |  November 18, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Possibly. I don't know enough about the law relating to territories and possessions to know for sure. (I've been told that the 14th Amendment does apply to Puerto Rico, but I'm not even sure about that.)

  • 66. Eric  |  November 18, 2014 at 7:14 pm

    Some couple going through a divorce will cite Section 2 as reason why the divorce decree should not be honored in another state. That will open the door to a challenge. The recently Jesused have tried similar tactics in the past.

  • 67. RQO  |  November 18, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Probably in Area 51, Roswell, or one of those places where "sovereign" planetoids are not subject to federal income tax and keep 20,000 rounds of ammo and 2 years worth of food in the basement.

  • 68. sfbob  |  November 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    I would wish them luck. It won't work. Because of course the law surrounding Full Faith and Credit is stronger when it comes to court decisions like divorce decrees than it is to marriages. I suppose it would work in our favor in such a situation to challenge the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA.

  • 69. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  November 18, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    Actually surprised they are asking for a continuation of the stay this early!

  • 70. Raga  |  November 18, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    I guess they want the motion to be filed timely. It is notable that their motion isn't an emergency motion – they merely request expedited consideration. It will be to their disadvantage if they had all this time to ask the Eleventh Circuit but they wait till the last minute and file an "emergency application" like all the other states have been doing.

  • 71. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    Probably sitting in a corner, sucking his thumb and saying something to convince himself that it's all a dream!!!

  • 72. RnL2008  |  November 18, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    ROTFLMAO………always a good one:-)

  • 73. Waxr  |  November 19, 2014 at 5:08 am

    Which one is Scalia?

  • 74. South Carolina Marriage E&hellip  |  November 19, 2014 at 7:23 am

    […] Equality on Trial reports: […]

  • 75. South Carolina Marriage E&hellip  |  November 19, 2014 at 8:06 am

    […] Equality on Trial reports: […]

  • 76. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  November 19, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    Lol, thanks, Rose! Always glad to make you smile. 😀

  • 77. RnL2008  |  November 19, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Here's a big hug for ya((((((hug)))))

  • 78. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  November 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Yay!!!! All the hugs back at ya!!!

  • 79. davepCA  |  November 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    He had better ask them to pay him up front and in cash. Brandall has just posted some recent financial news about NOM in the newer thread……….

  • 80. SeattleRobin  |  November 19, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    I especially noticed that about the order also. It's an issue that I brought up a few days ago. Her order leaves no doubt that it's not just about getting married, but being treated equally once married. I hope any more rulings coming will take note and include that as well. It's an important preemptive strike.

  • 81. Cristianos Gays » C&hellip  |  November 20, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    […] que ya ha sentado jurisprudencia favorable al matrimonio igualitario en el caso de Virginia, ha rechazado la solicitud de suspensión permanente del fiscal del estado. La administración de Carolina del Sur ha recurrido entonces al […]

  • 82. fatihin  |  April 4, 2017 at 3:20 am

    undangan pernikahan kalender
    undangan pernikahan bahasa inggris islam
    undangan pernikahan islami
    undangan pernikahan unik dan murah
    undangan pernikahan modern
    undangan pernikahan online
    undangan pernikahan
    undangan pernikahan amplop surat
    undangan pernikahan simple
    undangan pernikahan murah
    undangan pernikahan unik
    undangan pernikahan artis
    undangan pernikahan modern
    undangan pernikahan artis
    undangan pernikahan arab
    undangan pernikahan
    undangan pernikahan
    Masker kefir<a/>
    masker kefir murni<a/>
    jual masker kefir<a/>

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