Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Arkansas and Oregon marriage equality news, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit– Maggie Gallagher, who co-founded the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) spoke to the Huffington Post‘s Lila Shapiro about marriage and the Supreme Court, among other things.

– An Arkansas marriage equality case filed in state court will be argued April 17.

– The consolidated Oregon marriage equality cases are profiled here, with a discussion about how the case may move forward.

– The Ninth Circuit has filed an order asking for briefing in Jackson v. Abercrombie the challenge to Hawaii-s now-repealed same-sex marriage ban. The appeals court is concerned about “whether the enactment of Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act of 2013 moots these consolidated appeals.” The briefing schedule: “The opening brief is due April 25, 2014; the answering brief is due May 27, 2014; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.”

– The New York Times discusses bisexuality.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. Tim  |  March 21, 2014 at 8:35 am

    Is the above re Hawaii the reason why the Nevada April hearing was cancelled? If so, can we please split these two cases up now? It's not relevant to keep them together any longer. They're divergent.

  • 2. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 9:37 am

    The two cases have been separated. The reason the oral arguments in Sevcik scheduled for April 9 were canceled was that the ban proponents had specifically asked in their briefing not to have oral arguments scheduled for that week because they were also going to be involved in oral arguments in Kitchen (Utah) on April 10. There's no good excuse for why they haven't been rescheduled (or why they were originally scheduled incorrectly; not having to appear in oral arguments before two different circuits on two consecutive days is one of the very few reasonable things the opposition has asked for).

  • 3. GregG  |  March 21, 2014 at 9:16 am

    I thought the reason the 9th postponed the Nevada hearing was because of a scheduling conflict with the 10th's Utah hearing. I believe the same firm is involved on the defendant's side of both.

  • 4. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 9:58 am

    And we're still waiting on DeBoer (Michigan)? Wasn't this supposed to be out this week?

  • 5. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 10:09 am

    It is supposed to be issued today. It will be posted here:

  • 6. Kevin  |  March 21, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Was there news that the opinion would be out today? Link me plz!

  • 7. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:22 am

    This speculation is probably based on comments from the judge on the last day of trial where he apparently said he expected the ruling to be out "the week after next", i.e some time this week. Of course he could take longer.

  • 8. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:28 am

    A Detroit News story on Wednesday said that the decision has been written, but that it would be posted on Thursday or Friday. Of course, the reporter may have been mistaken. I linked to that news story in a post Wednesday. I'll try to find it and repost it here.

  • 9. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Here is the link:

    It was a post at that said it was due yesterday or today: "MICHIGAN: Marriage Ruling Due
    The ruling in Michigan's marriage equality trial is due to be issued and could come today or tomorrow. "

  • 10. Michael Grabow  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

    I don't see where it says the decision has been written and is waiting to be posted. I am just losing my mind?

  • 11. Terry  |  March 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    I see the word "could" and not "will".

  • 12. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Here's a little bit more; maybe, maybe not…

  • 13. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Thanks. This seems to be as definitive as we are going to get. Maybe today, maybe not.

  • 14. marvelmvs  |  March 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    The bisexual article raises a lot of interesting questions but sadly like most similar articles doesn't really get anywhere. Still it is a good sign to see The New York Times writing on the issue regardless.

  • 15. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    Ack. It's frikken 4:30PM in Michigan. Come on, dang it.

  • 16. Michael Grabow  |  March 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling on VA came out at around 10pm. Maybe this will be similiar…?

  • 17. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    We win!

  • 18. Kevin  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm


  • 19. Michael Grabow  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Someone tell Razor and Justme, they'll be so excited!

  • 20. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm


  • 21. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    YEAH! From ABC NEWS:

  • 22. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Ok, i'm reading quick, but I can't see mention of a stay. The state is simply enjoined from enforcing the ban!

  • 23. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    The state AG has just filed a petition for an emergency stay. Utah all over again?

  • 24. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Where are you reading? Got a link to the ruling?

  • 25. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    On huffpost

  • 26. sam  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Nor in the judgement (as posted by exNoCali)

    No stay!

  • 27. Rich  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Michigan becomes the 18th state!!

  • 28. exNoCali  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Only thing I could find – not even Buzzfeed has it:

  • 29. exNoCali  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Short and sweet!

  • 30. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Wow, is that really all? no other details or comments like in all the other cases??

  • 31. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    OK my bad, I found it.

  • 32. Christian  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Why was the Arkansas suit filed in state court? Is there some strategy here I'm not getting?

    Also, isn't Arkansas the only southern state with a repeal-effort underway? Who came up worth THAT idea? Seems like it could lead to a significant defeat for us

  • 33. Ragavendran  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Probably because federal courts for AR are bound by 8th circuit precedent, and in a 2007 case called Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against marriage equality. That decision, while binding on federal courts, is only persuasive for state courts. But the State, being the defendant, has the option to have the case removed to federal court, where they'll likely have higher chances of success. Federal courts have to balance the direct 2007 8th Circuit precedent in Bruning with the not-so-direct 2013 Supreme Court precedent in Windsor.

  • 34. Bruno71  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Arkansas has 2 active cases. Jernigan v. Crane is filed in federal court, and Wright v. Arkansas is in state court.

  • 35. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    I love this nugget: The Court finds Regnerus' testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.

  • 36. Kevin  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    "While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a
    researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable."

    This too. Reminds me of the Creationism trial in Pennsylvania where the judge actually charged one of the right-wing witnesses with perjury.

  • 37. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Note that the judge in that trial, John Jones III, will be presiding over PA's marriage equality trial in June.

  • 38. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:33 am

    […] USA, Hawaii: The Ninth Circuit is still considering the marriage equality lawsuit, specifically whether to wind it down now that the state has passed the marriage equality law. full story […]

  • 39. bythesea  |  March 24, 2014 at 11:50 am

    PA needs freeping:

  • 40. Equality On TrialDecision&hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:56 am

    […] case was argued on April 17, and at that time, the judge had said he would rule within two weeks. The new letter notes that he […]

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