Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

State defendants in Utah marriage equality case ask district, appeals courts to halt same-sex marriages

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Judge Robert Shelby. Attribution: Edge Boston
Judge Robert Shelby. Attribution: Edge Boston
Two different requests for a stay of the federal district court’s decision striking down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban have now been filed. In order to have a district court decision stayed, it needs to be sought first by the district court judge, and then, if it’s denied, the denial can be appealed to the court of appeals.

First, the state asked the district court judge to issue a stay on his decision. As EqualityOnTrial noted earlier, the filing discussed the relevant factors for granting a stay:

In summary, the state argues that lower court decisions and an 8th Circuit decision provide evidence they’re likely to succeed on the merits; as far as irreparable harm to the state, they argue that the state suffers irreparable harm in the absence of a stay because the amendment was enacted by voters, and because of the administrative burdens associated with implementing the decision, both the state and the public interest suffer. Beyond that, the filing focuses mostly on the harms to same-sex couples who are plaintiffs. They argue that the marriage equality ban should remain in effect to prevent harms to same-sex couples because “the Plaintiffs and others will suffer harm if a stay is not granted and they proceed to marry during the pendency of an appeal that is ultimately successful.” Thus, they argue there would be a “cloud of uncertainty” over the marriages, which would harm same-sex couples.

But as the Associated Press has reported, the judge has suggested it will be days before he considers the request for a stay. In the meantime, same-sex couples are getting married in Utah. And although it’s the weekend, some counties will stay open in order to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Because of the fact that same-sex couples will be receiving marriage licenses and entering into legally sanctioned marriages due to the district court’s decision, the state defendants consider the matter urgent, and believe that their administrative resources and Utah’s taxpayers’ money could be wasted on implementing the district court decision before an appeal is considered. The state filed a late-night emergency stay request to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (where the district court’s decision was appealed late this afternoon) urging the appeals court to grant a stay at least until the district court is able to consider the earlier-filed request for a stay. The emergency request points to the belated consideration of the request filed to the district court, as well as the fact that on Monday, all county clerks in Utah will operate under normal business hours. The filing notes that since the request to the Tenth Circuit is only for a temporary stay, unlike the request filed with the district court, the state won’t make arguments related to the normal factors for granting a stay.

The Tenth Circuit could rule any time. The district court may ask for a response from the plaintiffs before deciding on a stay pending the appeal of the decision on the merits.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. davep  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:42 am

    I promise I'll get back on topic and post a bunch of relevant stuff – but aw shucks Judge Shelby is just frikken adorable, isn't he?

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:45 am

    Right?! Not even my type but I was just like "awwwww".

  • 3. rainey13  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:51 am

    So, the basic concept behind the stay requests is that it's an emergency that the people of Utah are being afforded equal rights…

  • 4. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    The acting DA does seem a bit like Lionel Hutz. "Your honor, I move for a…um…bad trial…thingie…"

  • 5. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    Sorry, AG not DA.

  • 6. clark  |  December 21, 2013 at 4:05 am

    I'm happy to see another ruling in favor of American ideals. It's pretty amazing how far we've come in the last decade. Thanks to our predecessors sacrifices.

    15 years ago, after I finally came out to myself, I assumed being gay meant I'd never be able to marry. It was sorta a given that I would live as a second class citizen. It was either that, or live the poisonous, miserable closet life the NOMbies wish they could force on us all. In contrast, look at the way things are now! Last week, I married my partner of 13 years. On one hand, nothing really changed. 13 years and you've been through pretty much everything right? We already made the commitment to each other long ago, and this was just another legal formality. And on the other hand, everything changed. Saying vows in front of the judge, being congratulated by almost everyone along the way. Hotels and restaurants giving us free upgrades and celebratory deserts just like they do for hetero couples. At the airport I had to correct myself when I introduced my husband to someone I knew for the first time…'This is my partn….err…this is my HUSBAND!" Co-workers asking curious questions like 'Do you have to change your name' and actually wondering for the first time about how our states active discrimination against gays impacts someone they actually know(and thus have a stake in). And the dumbfounded reactions they have when I explain the differences and idiotic complications. My niece posting on facebook about our wedding and how happy she was for us, completely unafraid of judgment by her peers, because young people don't even see why there is even an issue anymore.

    There was that 1 co-worker who tried to save me from hell by warning me 'If you really love him, you should just be friends." But instead of being offended, it made me laugh. Because her viewpoint is so far from where regular people are right now.

    We've gone from lawyers being afraid to take gay rights cases because they were lost causes to courts actually ruling marriage equality as a constitutional right(which it is). All I can really say to that is…Epic.

  • 7. JayJonson  |  December 21, 2013 at 9:43 am


  • 8. Rose  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Congratulations on your "OFFICIAL" wedding day and may you have many more.

  • 9. weshlovrcm  |  December 21, 2013 at 4:24 am

    It's amazing the panic on the right in Utah and how frantically they are trying to foist the tyranny of the majority back on loving gay couples!

  • 10. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    You have to live here to fully appreciate the impact of a totalitarian religion on a "secular" government. We make jokes about the Utaliban. Sometimes the jokes just are not funny.

    >> . . . foist. . .

    Hawaii (L. C. Dunn memos)
    California (Prop. 22)
    Utah (de facto instructions on how to vote on Amendment 3 from LDS leaders a few weeks before election day)
    California again (Prop. 8)
    Maine and elsewhere using their NOM front group

    Did you seriously think institutionalized bigotry would be so easy to change?

    I am reminded of the picture of Guv George Wallace blocking the doorway at the University of Alabama.

  • 11. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:53 am

    I think the state may be in trouble with these stay requests. All of the cases they cite (the 2006 Bruning case from the 8th Circuit, the Abercrombie and Sandoval district court cases from the 9th Circuit) are pre-Windsor. Nowhere in their discussion of the likelihood of success of their appeal do they address the importance or even the existence of the Windsor decision.

    Here's my guess: the 10th Circuit will punt. They will deny the emergency request (as will Sotomayor, the SCOTUS justice for the 10th Circuit) and will direct the State of Utah to pursue its request for a stay through the normal channels, beginning with the district judge who will take his sweet time ruling on the motion. Unless they draw an ideologue at the 10th Circuit, nobody there is going to stick their neck out to grant an emergency stay only to be overruled by Sotomayor.

  • 12. Tim  |  December 21, 2013 at 7:08 am

    Is that how it works? One 10th circuit judge will get picked at random to decide on the request for a stay, and if that judge decides to grant the stay then Sotomayor can overrule him or her?

  • 13. Bruno71  |  December 21, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    I assume the plaintiffs in the case could appeal the emergency stay? Not sure.

  • 14. StraightDave  |  December 21, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Only if those plaintiffs haven't yet gotten married. If they got married already then they are unaffected by the stay and wouldn't have standing to appeal. The stay only affects future marriages.

  • 15. Bruno71  |  December 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    One of the plaintiff couples were already married in Iowa while the other two couples were denied licenses. I wonder if those two couples have married yet…it might actually be better if they don't marry this weekend.

    Edit: It seems to me both couples were married. Well, that's probably the right thing to do given it could be a short window to do so. I also wonder if they couldn't appeal the stay based on non-recognition of the marriage, though that might be hard to show .

  • 16. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    I read somewhere (can't remember where right now, might have been on the NBC News site) that one of the couples involved with the law suit is not going to marry right away, but wait until a later date. They could be the couple who can appeal any stay granted. After all, they 'won' in court, and another court would be attempting to take away that 'win'.

  • 17. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    The plaintiffs could always argue they have standing because, in the event that the district ruling is overturned, the courts will have to determine whether the licenses issued thus far are valid. Since the plaintiffs could still suffer irreparable harm, they should still have standing.

  • 18. Craig Nelson  |  December 21, 2013 at 7:24 am

    I know it's state law not federal law but the rulings on stays in recent New Jersey cases must surely be very persuasive. I am not too sure how requests for stays are considered; I would have thought weighing relative harms and likeliness of prevailing would possibly be important.

    Married same sex couples are already living in Utah and will continue to do so. The benefits for plaintiffs are very considerable (notably dignity and very real and important family protections). If the State prevails at the 10th Circuit then those protections can come to an end (pending SCOTUS appeal) and no harm is done (though this points to the final weakness of their case and why they must surely ultimately lose) – people were merely afforded the same amount of protection in Utah as in nearby California, New Mexico etc.

    Same sex couples being able to marry is not an innovation any more (post Windsor and Perry no longer some sort of taboo) and therefore weighing up the relative harms of a stay makes it less and less likely to be granted with each state – marriage equality is now a well adumbrated issue within the legal system.

    The very fact that the State of Utah wishes to stay the ruling is evidence of their desire to continue to exclude LGBT people from marriage on grounds impermissible in Lawrence (and Windsor) and further evidence of animus against them.

  • 19. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    >> . . . further evidence of animus against them.

    The most extreme of the extremely extremists control Utah politics by manipulating the Republican party candidate selection process (caucuses) and using political pressure to control the Churchislature.

    State government MUST pander to these individuals or the extremists will cut off political contributions and back someone who promises to do their bidding (for example, Senator Mike Lee).

    The rest of the sheep . . umm. . . voters will push the huge red "R" block voting. . . umm. . . straight ticket voting button because that is what the Ghost of the Dead Bircher (initials E.T.B.) tells them they must do or be denied a place in the Celestial Kingdom (highest level of Mormon heaven). . . NO kidding, look it up.

    Real animus exists here. The bigger problems are arrogance, willful ignorance, irrational prejudice, self-deception, and cult-like behavior.

  • 20. grod  |  December 21, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Craig: NJ Judge Mary Robinson's October 10 2013 17 page reasoning denying a stay:… – such as "there can be no irreparable harm to a [government] when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, because it is always in the public interest to protect constitutional liberties". pg 5

  • 21. davep  |  December 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Bonus point to Craig Nelson for use of the word "adumbrated". Nice!

  • 22. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    Go get 'em, Wise Latina! ;D

  • 23. Craig Nelson  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:18 am

    It is a very interesting scenario. As more and more states (and indeed countries) allow same sex marriage these marriages are being recognize as per Windsor even if they live in non-marrying states (including Utah). About a third of states and a third of the population live under full marriage equality. One senses that it's not really that big a deal that there will simply be more coupes in Utah with equal protection of laws. If a judge is sufficiently alarmed they'll grant a stay during the interval at the theater or over the dessert course (I may be exaggerating a little here).

    There may at some point be a stay from the 10th Circuit but it's clear their heart isn't in it. Could the 10th circuit reverse the ruling? Yes, it could. Is it likely to? I think not because Windsor sets the direction and the ruling rests on very clear language and of course Scalia's words are extremely clear in both Lawrence and Windsor.

    The ruling is very lucid and hard to overturn. My betting is that the 10th Circuit would uphold it, meaning marriage equality across the circuit in one fell swoop, after which the Supreme Court would most probably not take the case but leave marriage bans to be picked off one at a time or Circuit by Circuit. As they surely would be – this is not the last marriage equality ruling by a district judge.

    Of course if they did overturn then straight to SCOTUS who would have no gradualism option left to them.

    One can therefore see that appealing district rulings is a high risk strategy that they might want to avoid.

  • 24. bythesea  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:48 am

    I think you may be exactly right.

  • 25. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 7:16 am

    If the 10th Circuit does uphold the decision it's hard to envision the State of Utah not appealing to SCOTUS but you raise an interesting point, SCOTUS could just let this simmer for a while until more districts weigh in.

    I find it delicious that a ruling striking down DOMA throughout the 10th Circuit would bring SSM to Oklahoma. Their teabagger Governor will have a seizure.

  • 26. Zack12  |  December 21, 2013 at 7:49 am

    Scotus would punt IMO. They know there is only one way to rule (even though Scalia will make something out of thing air to say no) and that is to strike down all the bans.
    Oklahoma would be espescially good since it is one of if not the most anti-gay state in the U.S.

  • 27. Valquiria  |  December 21, 2013 at 7:52 am

    When SSM comes to Oklahoma, expect the wingnut authorities to orchestrate campaigns of "civil disobedience". There might be gay-bashing incidents at county clerk's offices, physical intimidation of gay couples seeking licenses, attempts to shut down offices altogether, etc. It will be especially dicey outside of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and elected officials will probably throw fuel on the fire.

  • 28. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 8:08 am

    In looking past the current round of court cases to a future time when the last vestages of overt state-sanctioned homophobia have finally been swept aside, I can easily see how places like Oklahoma and Utah will try to perpetuate covert homophobia through selective enforcement of the laws. That is now happening in Madrid. They have nondiscrimination protections in place for sexual orientation, so their homophobic mayor is trying to shut down the Pride parade by levying huge fines for violation of noise pollution laws.

    This is why SCOTUS needs to stop tap dancing around the scrutiny issue. As long as judges keep saying DOMA laws fail to satisfy the rational basis test and therefore they don't need to extend suspect class protection to include sexual orientation, we will continue to be at the mercy of selective enforcement of local laws and Oklahoma etc. will take full advantage of the loophole.

  • 29. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    I suspect if any violent action is contemplated or actually happens, the nationalization of the National Guard in those states will be seriously considered, even instituted, and it could even be Federal marshals and/or Federal troops sent in ala Alabama, Mississippi and Little Rock during the attempts by those states to deny African Americans their Civil Rights.

  • 30. Paul S  |  December 21, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Remember it takes 4 justices to take a case. The four conservative justices on the Supreme Court will very likely vote to take up a marriage equality case for a few reasons:

    1. They know their time is up and the longer they wait, the more likely it is that they will be a minority on the court. Right now they have Kennedy and they'd probably rather take their chances with him now, than letting this simmer.

    2. Taking the case would delay marriage equality for a few months, and delaying it might be all they have left, so they'd probably take it.

    3. They want to put the fair minded justices in the hot seat and make them finish what they started with Windsor. Creating a commotion about nationwide marriage equality might be the last hurrah to motivate the conservative base in the next election cycle. Republicans certainly aren't going to win without it.

  • 31. Zack12  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Or they might punt again. Scalia,Thomas and Alito will be no votes but Roberts knows there is no way to put the breaks on this issue when it gets to them.
    As for Kennedy,yes there was a lot of federalism in his ruling but there was also equal protection and other things as well.
    More to the point,as several writers have pointed out,he could have simply ruled using the 10th amendment and struck DOMA down that way.
    But he used the 5th amendment with language he had to know (and Scalia pointed out) would be used against the state bans.
    Bottom line,there are five votes IMO to strike down state bans as well and the bigots know it.
    Thus I don't think they will touch this ruling in the end.

  • 32. Steve  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    They will probably wait until more state have legalized it.

  • 33. Bruno71  |  December 21, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    The justices who are in favor of equality on SCOTUS have weighed in about delaying the issue: "percolation" among the states. The only way they can really control this is by not granting cert. So it surely makes sense that the first case in the pipeline (Nevada's) will reach SCOTUS with an equality-favorable ruling, and SCOTUS will punt. The 10th (Utah's) is next, and that could go either way. Cases coming out of the 5th (Louisiana) and 11th (Alabama/Georgia/Florida…don't think any cases are started yet) would surely go against us. So I suppose SCOTUS could allow a few states to be without equality by not granting cert on those cases as well. The questions are when would they be ready to take a case, and will they wait until the very last circuit court has addressed the issue? It'll be interesting to see if this is indeed how it plays out, and at what time.

  • 34. Craig Nelson  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    If all Circuits rule in the same way there is no need for SCOTUS to intervene and this is a possibility. My personal theory is that SCOTUS will deny cert to cases that uphold marriage equality which spreads marriage equality and sends a very clear signal to other circuits/states. Thus marriage equality spreads. On the other hand if a Circuit of appeals rejects marriage equality there are – in my view – 5 votes to establish marriage equality across the US and they would at that point do so.

  • 35. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    The district judge in Ohio has said he expects to hand down his ruling on their DOMA law before Christmas. He's being asked to rule whether funeral directors should record the deceased as married. His questions suggest he's having a real problem with the constitutionality of the state DOMA law – he could strike it down on Monday or Tuesday. Keep your fingers crossed!

  • 36. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Judge Shelby will consider a written request for a stay, probably on Monday, but may not make a ruling until Plaintiff's have had a chance to respond. The Court is closed on Wednesday, so Shelby may not rule on the motion for a stay until the end of the week.

    The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has a reputation for being right-of-center conservative. More likely a judge there will grant a temporary stay.

    >> . . . provide evidence they’re likely to succeed on the merits. . .

    Like so many Utahns, these people are totally self-deceived.

  • 37. Sagesse  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:25 am

    Deseret News, a Mormon Church-owned publication, is not happy with the Utah decision.

    In our opinion: Judicial tyranny

  • 38. StraightDave  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:40 am

    And they're getting reamed out by the public comments on their "opinion".

    "Wow! Rarely has there been strung together a more pathetic collection of legalistic whining and petty parliamentary proceduralism masquerading as argument.

    Only trained legal mind simultaneously blunted and blinded by religious dogma could possibly blow so much impotent hot air as this.

  • 39. Steve  |  December 21, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Not entirely. There are lots of Mor(m)ons there who cry about "the will of the people", "activist judges", majorites and shit. One even says that if a judge can't uphold Mormon theology he needs to be removed.

  • 40. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:55 am

    They're still desperately clinging to the 1972 Baker decision, I see. It's amazing to see them backed further and further into a corner until that's literally the only argument they have left. "We have this forty-year old one-line dismissal that trumps all logic and subsequent legal developments, so there. La la la, I can't hear you."

  • 41. Zack12  |  December 21, 2013 at 7:54 am

    It's all they have left,a ruling made 40 years ago when people were still outraged over the fact the Supreme Court had struck down the ban on interacial marriages four years earlier.

  • 42. JayJonson  |  December 21, 2013 at 9:49 am

    "Responsible procreation" isn't working either.

  • 43. Zack12  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:15 am

    The state's attorneys basically had to admit under that logic,infertile couples and elderly women shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
    That and the fact having children has NEVER been required in order to get married.

  • 44. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:58 am

    I was in Judge Shelby's courtroom during arguments on Dec. 4. At one point I almost felt sorry for the State's lawyers. . . almost. But then I remembered who these people are representing. . . NOT the citizens of this state. . . NOT me and my neighbors. . . Utah state government is the political arm of the LDS organization. One cannot feel sorry for representatives of fear-mongering hypocrites.

  • 45. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    Nor is the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage. The New Mexico SC rightly called it circular reasoning that at no point touches on a legitimate state interest.

  • 46. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:51 am

    The Deseret News has NO credibility outside the membership of the One and Only True, Restored Church of Jesus Christ, i.e., the Brighamite Mormons. The rag is nothing more than a modern version of a mimeographed church newsletter.

    There are always differences of opinion, but this editorial appears to be deliberate obfuscation.

    Judge Shelby's ruling is exceptionally deferential to Utah voters. I encourage anyone who has an interest in LGBTQ equality to read all 53 pages. It's double spaced. . . easy to understand.

  • 47. Bruno71  |  December 21, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Thing is, 34% of Utah voters (IN 2004!) voted against amendment 3. That number would probably be in the low to mid 40's now, and that's being a bit cautious in consideration of the sheeple-like loyalty of LDS church members. This may be a controversy, but it's not some outlandish thing to assume the voting public is changing their collective mindset, just as they are in every state in this country.

  • 48. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    A challenged law is constitutional if it meets the requirements of Rational Basis judicial scrutiny. The number of votes a constitutional amendment receives is irrelevant.

    Utahns would vote to move Mount Nebo into Utah Lake if they though their religious leaders wanted them to do so.

    I have asked my fellow Utahns if left-handed citizens could be stripped of their Second Amendment right to bear arms by a popular vote. Their response usually is irrational blathering followed by, "It's not the same."

    As Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

  • 49. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:03 am

    At the risk of being overly dramatic, I feel like Kitchen v. Herbert is the Doolittle Raid of the U.S. marriage equality war. Unexpected, deep in the heart of enemy territory, not something that wins the war in and of itself, but that has massive impact on morale. Small wonder the antis are trying to issue an emergency stay – you can practically hear the air raid sirens….

  • 50. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:08 am

    More like D-Day, I'd say.

  • 51. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:28 am

    If we hold Utah, I'll concede that it's D-Day. 🙂

  • 52. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    We have to hold Utah Beach, then. 🙂

  • 53. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 22, 2013 at 2:50 am

    The Germans knew D-Day was coming, they just didn't know the time or place. In fact, they figured it would take place further East, probably near or just West of Calais. And prior to June 6, they thought the English Channel was too stormy for any invasion, so the German command was not ready for the actual invasion on June 6. In fact, they went back to Germany with Rommel to celebrate Rommel's wife's birthday.

    The Doolittle raid was not even on the Japanese radar (literally and figuratively). Thus the Doolittle raid is a much more apt comparison, IMO.

  • 54. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:43 am

    We have a saying here in Utah about having one's jammies in a twist. The situation today is far worse. Heads are exploding all over Utah like in the movie "Mars Attacks!"

  • 55. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:56 am

    Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
    When I'm calling you
    Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
    Will you answer too?
    Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo

  • 56. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Greetings from HATU—The Bass Ackwards Hate State (Utah)

    Many Californians have posted comments on the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper web site. Considering Utah's role in Prop. H8, we welcome your participation. (Karma bites!)

    >> . . . provide evidence they’re likely to succeed on the merits. . .

    Lawyers representing the State of Utah are delusional. . . but this is Utah, "delusional" is the foundation of Utah society.

  • 57. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    I am sure the readers of this web site understand that lawsuits against a sate government are not cheap. Restore Our Humanity initiated and is the financial backer for Kitchen v. Herbert. (I am a member of the ROH board.)

  • 58. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    And the URL for donations is…?

  • 59. David UT  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    The web site is for ROH is Restore Our Humanity dot org with no spaces

  • 60. Dr. Z  |  December 21, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    I would just like to express my joy for the happy newlyweds in Utah. What a wonderful and unlooked-for Christmas present. It's like Santa Claus visiting the Island of Misfit Toys.

    Now, this is my idea of a Star-in-the-East Christmas miracle. 🙂

  • 61. Equality On TrialDistrict&hellip  |  December 23, 2013 at 10:50 am

    […] in the state after the district court decision came down, prompting the state defendants to ask both the district court and the appeals court to issue a stay. Over the weekend, the Tenth Circuit received briefs on a request for an emergency […]

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