Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Briefing in Kentucky, Tennessee same-sex marriage cases in Sixth Circuit to be completed by late June

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Kentucky state seal

UPDATE 6:25PM ET: The Sixth Circuit has ordered an identical briefing schedule in the similar Tennessee challenge, Tanco v. Haslam, though the cases are separate. That case was filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). The district court issued a preliminary injunction applying only to the three couples in the lawsuit, and now the state is asking the Sixth Circuit for a stay.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has set a briefing schedule for the challenge to Kentucky’s ban on recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside of the state. Briefing will be completed at the end of June. The order setting the briefing schedule is here, and the first filing is due May 7:

Appellant’s Principal Brief Appendix (if required by 6th Cir. R. 30(a) and (c)) Filed electronically by May 7, 2014

Appellee’s Principal Brief Appendix (if required by 6th Cir. R. 30(a) and (c)) Filed electronically by June 9, 2014

Appellant’s Reply Brief (Optional Brief) Filed electronically 17 days after the appellee’s brief is filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(c)

The district court judge struck down the non-recognition provision in February and later issued a stay pending the Sixth Circuit appeal.

The appeal was filed by Governor Steve Beshear, who hired outside counsel to defend the non-recognition provisions after state Attorney General Jack Conway declined to defend those provisions.

Along with the Sixth Circuit appeal, a different set of plaintiffs in the same court are still in district court, challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The new plaintiffs attempted to get a marriage license in the state, but were denied. The briefing on that issue will be completed by May 28.

Every state that falls within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has a marriage equality case pending in the appeals court.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings

For more information on Love v. Beshear (formerly Bourke v. Beshear) from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.


  • 1. Eric  |  March 28, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    The billable rate for the partners of the firm representing the state are $125/hr. The rates go down from there. Animus just doesn't pay what it used to for federal appellate work.

  • 2. Eric Koszyk  |  March 28, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    Live Blog as marriage comes to England and Wales:

  • 3. Angry Birds Games  |  March 28, 2014 at 11:47 pm

    Same-sex marriage is illegal.

  • 4. davep  |  March 29, 2014 at 12:13 am

    Looks like you haven't turned on the TV since the beginning of the 21st century.

  • 5. bayareajohn  |  March 29, 2014 at 12:26 am

    This is deliberately irritating spam, trying to get clicks on the user link.

  • 6. KarlS  |  March 29, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Does your mommy know you play with her computer while she's out giving $5 handjobs to buy you crayons, little boy?

  • 7. Mike in Baltimore  |  March 29, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    Same-sex marriage is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia, and there are now cases in several Circuit Courts of Appeals, including the 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 9th, and multiple Federal District Courts and state courts in several other jurisdictions.

    I live in Maryland, where same sex marriage has been legal since January 1, 2013. The first state allowing same sex marriage was Massachusetts, since May 17, 2004.

    You, personally, may not agree with same sex marriage, but it IS legal in multiple jurisdictions in the US, and in several other countries outside the US.

  • 8. davep  |  March 29, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    BayAreaJohn nailed it. It's just SPAM from a frikken game site, and it's been reported.

  • 9. RJW  |  April 2, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Ghandi has spoken…lol. Not entirely ABG…and certainly not everywhere.

  • 10. Sean from NJ  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:19 am

    Off topic: One of our marriage lawsuits in OH just got yanked:

  • 11. Sean from NJ  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:22 am

    Here's a more in-depth article on the same subject:

  • 12. ebohlman  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Quick summary: male couple with kids was suing because they couldn't get a family health insurance policy (which would have only one deductible for the whole family rather than separate deductibles for each member) Thanks to recently-issued Federal guidelines they were able to get a family policy and therefore there's no longer a case or controversy regarding the matter.

  • 13. dakotahgeo  |  April 1, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Thank you! That is ONE important fact that Sean from NJ left out. Kudos!

  • 14. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:43 am

    […] USA, Kentucky/Tennessee: Briefing in the two marriage equality cases should be complete at the Sixth Circuit by late June. full story […]

  • 15. RobW303  |  March 29, 2014 at 8:26 am

    I'm confused: Equality on Trial previously reported that same-sex couples had filed a challenge in (KY) district court and labelled that case Bourke v. Beshear, with a briefing schedule ending about May 28. But isn't Bourke v. Beshear the KY case now going to the 6th CCA? Is the district court case actually Love v. Beshear?

  • 16. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Bourke v. Beshear started out as a marriage recognition case in a Kentucky district court. On February 12, a ruling on that case came down, stating that Kentucky must recognize same sex marriages performed out of the state. This ruling has been stayed pending appeal, and said appeal is now before the 6th Circuit, with briefing to be completed by June. Meanwhile, on February 28, the district court allowed new plaintiffs Love et al. (seeking the right to marry in Kentucky) to intervene in (the still open) Bourke v. Beshear, and ordered the renaming of the case to Love v. Beshear. Briefing on the intervenors' complaint is due to be completed by May 28. (Therefore, the appeal is still named Bourke v. Beshear, because Love is still in the district court, and hasn't reached the appeals court yet.)

  • 17. Dr. Z  |  March 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Hey Ragavendran, with all the research you're doing you should write a history of this when it's all over.

    And to think – the first SSM are taking place in England and Wales today, when just a little more than a decade ago they had a law in place banning the "promotion" of homosexuality or implying any "pretended family relationship" between gay people. Gives you hope that we will eventually prevail in all of the many homophobic places around the world. Certainly there was a great deal of homophobia in pre-Stonewall New York City, and yet this year SSM is legal there, a New Yorker won a landmark Supreme Court case on SSM, and hizzonor the mayor and many elected officials skipped the St. Patrick's Day parade. We shall overcome. 🙂

  • 18. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    I hope you're right, Dr. Z! My biggest disappointment has been my own home country, India, which took a huge step back in December. To see England and Wales turn around so fast, but the hate their reign spewed in other countries like India still alive and kicking, is bittersweet.

  • 19. JimT  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    I betcha Scott Lively's globalized hate the gay organization influenced what happened in India and they probably did so behind closed doors.

  • 20. Dr. Z  |  March 29, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    India (and Pakistan) have a long history of violent religious strife that makes America's recent culture wars look like a spirited cricket match. Their religious fundamentalists have been tearing at each other's throats for centuries. They didn't need Scott Lively to give them a reason to hate. The decision by the Supreme Court of India was astonishing on multiple levels – terrible reasoning of an indefensible law imposed by the Victorian Empire, on top of the fact that their SC has extraordinary powers and a mandate to remedy social injustice like this. The decision to uphold the 1860 sodomy law is completely at odds with India's Constitution, and it will not stand. It will be reversed within a generation, and will go down as one of the worst decisions in India SC history.

    And it will go down through the actions of brave LGBT people who come out to their friends and family.

  • 21. Mike in Baltimore  |  March 29, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    It was a Hindu religious fundamentalist who killed the Mahatma Gandhi (also a Hindu) after Gandhi was elected as Prime Minister of the newly independent India, but before he could take the oath of office.

  • 22. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    For those not familiar with the details of the India Supreme Court Judgment in December, I'll summarize the main aspects of the judgment in this (quite lengthy) comment.

    Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code:
    Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

    The procedure laid out by the India SC over years of precedent for the review of a law's constitutionality (regardless of whether it was a law that was enacted by Parliament, or adopted by the Parliament post-independence) is very much like the "rational basis review" here in the US. Meaning, to begin with, the presumption is that the law is constitutional because it was enacted/adopted by the Parliament which is elected by the people and reflects its best interests. Starting with this presumption, if there is any conceivable rational interpretation of the law that upholds its constitutionality, then the law is held constitutional. Therefore, the Court observed that it is "apposite to say that unless a clear constitutional violation is proved, this Court is not empowered to strike down a law merely by virtue of its falling into disuse or the perception of the society having changed as regards the legitimacy of its purpose and its need."

    Then, the Court correctly noted that the law "does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which if committed would constitute an offence. Such a prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation."
    In this sense, perhaps it is harder to find a constitutional flaw in the law on the surface-level. But the Court ignored, citing lack of substantial evidence, that the law has only ever been used on homosexuals, to harass and demean them. It noted that the lower court "overlooked that a miniscule fraction of the country's population constitute lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders and in last more than 150 years, less than 200 persons have been prosecuted (as per the reported orders) for committing offence under Section 377 IPC and this cannot be made sound basis for declaring that section ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution." (The "miniscule minority" part angered me quite a bit.)

    Hence, in searching for a "rational basis" to counter the equal protection claim, the Court found one, noting, "those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification. What Section 377 does is merely to define the particular offence and prescribe punishment for the same which can be awarded if in the trial conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other statutes of the same family the person is found guilty."

    Next, the Court addresses the due process claim:
    "The requirement of substantive due process has been read into the Indian Constitution through a combined reading of Articles 14, 21 and 19 and it has been held as a test which is required to be satisfied while judging the constitutionality of a provision which purports to restrict or limit the right to life and liberty, including the rights of privacy, dignity and autonomy, as envisaged under Article 21. In order to fulfill this test, the law must not only be competently legislated, but it must also be just, fair, and reasonable. Arising from this are the notions of legitimate state interest and the principle of proportionality."
    And it found that for the same reason, the due process test was also satisfied by the law. (It held that "the mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section.")

    The Court also criticized the lower court's reliance of judgments in other jurisdictions (mainly the US, citing Lawrence and Barnette among other cases). It noted: "In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Section 377 IPC violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature."

    Seriously? The highest court of a nation referring to rights of minorities as "so-called"???

  • 23. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:25 am

    As I recall, the India SC decision cited the lines of legal reasoning (if you can call it that) used in Bowers and some of Scalia's dissents. Certainly the "so-called rights of LGBT persons" sounds a lot like this insult from the Bowers decision:

    "Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious."

  • 24. FYoung  |  March 31, 2014 at 2:01 am

    "But the Court ignored, citing lack of substantial evidence, that the law has only ever been used on homosexuals, to harass and demean them."

    Had evidence of this been adduced at trial?

    Since the Indian wording is very close to that used by other Commonwealth countries, were precedents from those countries argued?

  • 25. Ragavendran  |  March 31, 2014 at 7:01 am

    Well, Indian police officials don't keep records of harassment. Of what records existed (mostly from news media), the Court said, "a miniscule fraction of the country's population constitute lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders and in last more than 150 years, less than 200 persons have been prosecuted (as per the reported orders) for committing offence under Section 377 IPC and this cannot be made sound basis for declaring that section ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution." But it wouldn't matter anyway, because the Court also held that "the mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section."

    I'm not sure if precedents from other Commonwealth countries were argued, but if you see the last part of my comment, the Court didn't like the fact that the lower court relied on judgments from other jurisdictions.

  • 26. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    And once the Court concluded there wasn't anything unconstitutional about the law, it said that it was up to Parliament to change/repeal it, where the consideration of factors such as misuse of the law would be more appropriate. So it was that it did not address all the tradition and sanctity crap that was thrown around quite copiously during oral argument. But it did note, quite curiously, that:

    "It is true that the theory that the sexual intercourse is only meant for the purpose of conception is an out-dated theory. But, at the same time it could be said without any hesitation of contradiction that the orifice of mouth is not, according to nature, meant for sexual or carnal intercourse."

  • 27. Rick O.  |  March 30, 2014 at 5:29 am

    Smug in their personal mind set, which is what you get when you are too reserved to talk about sex. They might have some hesitation and contradiction if "orifice of mouth" and "nature" were allowed to testify.

  • 28. KarlS  |  March 30, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    They never heard of the Kama Sutra??????

  • 29. Dr. Z  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Don't despair. This is only a temporary setback. We had a similar one in the US with the Bowers v Hardwick decision in 1986, but look where we are now.

    Ome thing I find remarkable about the gay rights struggle is that we have slowly but surely advanced and made inroads in some very hostile territory. In 1981, when I came out, our struggle was with the Democrats – they would take our money (quietly) then throw us under the bus at the first sign of trouble. Dem pols would sometimes feign fake outrage and make a big show of returning campaign contributions from LGBT organizations that became known to the press. But look where the fights are taking place now – within professional sports, mainline Protestant denominations, high schools, Red states – even in the Republican Party itself. We won because we will never give up, because gay and lesbians exhibit the simple courage to come out, and because our straight friends and family see the injustice and have the integrity to speak out against homophobia. It's not an overnight process, but it's cumulative and very powerful.

    It's the incredible bravery and sacrifices by the LGBT people who are fighting for justice in India, in Africa, in Russia and elsewhere that will ensure our eventual victory over homophobia everywhere.

  • 30. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    I sincerely hope so! We need more people to come out, more mainstream movies and films with LGBT characters. Bollywood is big in India – nothing carries a message across like a movie. Even though the Supreme Court set us back a decade, a change in people's hearts and minds, which will then fuel a change in the elected authorities in Parliament, will ultimately lead to the repeal of this law. (I still think fundamental rights should not be subject to vote and be decided by a majority, but the Supreme Court has sealed this route.)

  • 31. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:44 am

    The India SC hasn't sealed this route – they have only delayed it. The LGBT community in the US was faced with the same impossible task after Bowers, to convince legislators in places like Louisiana and South Carolina to voluntarily repeal their sodomy laws which of course they would never do. Nevertheless, the SCOTUS did eventually reverse itself, 17 years later, after the LGBT community did a lot of hard work to change people's hearts and minds, and after the makeup of the court had changed. It won't be easy, but I think India is one of the most promising sodomy-law countries to pursue change. India's economic outlook is oriented to the West, and many high tech workers spend time in the US and in Europe where they have openly gay colleagues. I have several Indian nationals working for me, and I've always been forthright about my husband – our relationship is treated in a casual and matter-of-fact manner at team functions. This kind of social contact, together with the work of LGBT groups within India and the coming out process of Indian gays and lesbians, will help build the straight support we must have to win.

  • 32. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Hey, maybe that's your book Ragavendran: how did the US LGBT community go from Bowers to Lawrence in 17 years, and how might the lessons of that US experience translate to an Indian cultural and legal setting?

  • 33. Ragavendran  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:04 am

    He he.. Good idea! I should start working on my law degree now 🙂

  • 34. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    There's an old saying: "Don't let your education interfere with your learning." Depending on how you approach the subject, you may not need a law degree.

  • 35. sfbob  |  March 29, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    I really appreciate your skill at managing detail, Ragavendran. When you began posting on this site (a couple of months ago was it?) you seemed to be worried about how you would be received. To me it seems like you are an enormous asset; I'm glad you decided to stick around.

  • 36. Tim  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    I've said it before but me too.

  • 37. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Thank you very much! Your encouragement means a lot to me!
    Yeah, I'm not leaving anytime soon 🙂

  • 38. Guest  |  March 29, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    I completely disagree.

  • 39. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    And I respect your opinion, as long as you have a rational explanation behind it. Care to elaborate? Thank you.

    P.S.: I think, looking at all my recent comments and seeing that they've all been downvoted again, mystery solved 🙂

  • 40. JayJonson  |  March 31, 2014 at 6:56 am

    "Guest" is no doubt a troll. Anyone who comes to this site for good information and thoughtful discussion is in Ragavendran's debt, and in debt to so many other commenters here. As I have said before, the quality of commenting here is very high indeed. But then, of course, there are people like "Just Me" and "Guest."

  • 41. davep  |  March 29, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Sounds like somebody has a petty personal resentment. Look, just because you don't like the fact that the civil laws against same sex marriage are being proven to violate the Constitution in trial after trial, and the opposition is repeatedly unable to offer any argument to defend these laws, doesn't mean that people who are providing information about this are doing something they shouldn't be doing. What's your complaint, exactly?

  • 42. grod  |  March 29, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    Guest and Angry Birds Games
    I encourage you and all readers to reflect on this opinion piece on dignity and respect marking the commencement of the debate on the Civil Right Act 1964 this date fifty-years ago. Let Bruce Ackerman's word remind all of us that we in North America are challenged by our forefathers to be tolerant people, open to a [more] inclusive society.

  • 43. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:13 am

    And so it is that Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee have identical briefing schedules. Admittedly, these cases are different (in decreasing order of their scope/magnitude), but they still have common underlying issues (also shared with the Ohio appeal). Would all four cases be heard by the same 3-judge panel? Otherwise, if four different 3-judge panels hear these four appeals and issue inconsistent rulings (which seems possible due to there being a 75-25 split between republican and democratic appointees), will there be an en banc rehearing (sua sponte or otherwsie) to sort out the inconsistency? Will all four cases be reheard separately or consolidated together? What if one of the losing parties gets impatient and appeals to SCOTUS in the meantime? It looks like this has the potential to dethrone the Utah showdown in Kitchen in terms of the amount of judicial drama that could ensue. (I'm not even considering the possibility that district courts in Ohio and Kentucky could issue final rulings on Henry and Love by that time, which would add two more appeals into the mix. The Sixth Circuit could implode.)

  • 44. Richard Weatherwax  |  March 29, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Let the Sixth Circuit implode.

  • 45. ragefirewolf  |  March 29, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    The SCOTUS cannot ignore this once it reaches their level. One can only hope that it happens before any imploding does from all these competing cases.

  • 46. Stefan  |  March 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    It doesn't seem the opposition is going to drag it out any longer then they can this time around, since they've been requesting the cases be fast-tracked.

  • 47. StraightDave  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    Many of them can read the writing on the wall and the politicians with something to lose just want to be put out of their misery before an election blows up in their face. The private lost-cause funders don't give a damn and will continue to scrounge up ever-more-unqualified lawyers. The quality of defense is falling off a cliff. UT sure got scammed for their $2M.

  • 48. Tim  |  March 29, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    For the record, the split is more like 60% Republican nominees and 40% Democratic ones. Helene White, the dissenter on the Deboer stay, was originally nominated by Clinton, and through a Senate deal, renominated by Bush.

  • 49. Ragavendran  |  March 29, 2014 at 10:04 pm

    Yes, White dissented in the decision to grant the stay pending appeal in DeBoer. I'd be content to count her among those likely to rule in our favor. Even counting her as a republican appointee, my math was way off. It should have been 67-33. Good catch!

  • 50. Mike in Baltimore  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    Can anyone remember when any one Circuit Court had so many possible cases on a single issue? I can't, even just after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed in the mid-1960s.

    And probably just as important if there were as many cases, were they combined, or kept separate?

  • 51. Sagesse  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:43 am

    The Church of England is the establishment church in the UK. It is also the home to the leadership of the Anglican/Episcopalian Communion worldwide. Under the UK law that went into effect this weekend, the Church of England is prohibited by the statute from performing same-sex marriages.

    Here's the varied reaction from the C of E to the new reality of marriage equality:

    Media coverage of church responses to same-sex marriage [Thinking Anglican]

  • 52. Craig Nelson  |  March 30, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Small correction. It is only the established church in England. There are episcopal churches in Scotland, Wales and Ireland but these are not established. The Church of Scotland (a Presbyterian church) is the established church there. There is no establishment in Wales or Northern Ireland.

    There are several aspects to establishment in England; one is that the Monarch is the nominal head of the church; a number of bishops sit in the House of Lords. A further feature is that the legislation covering the church passes through Parliament and the Church also has the power, subject to final parliamentary approval, to amend an Act of Parliament (including this one).

    A particular issue in this legislation is that any person in England, whether Anglican or not (or indeed even Christian or not) has the right under common law to get married in their own parish of the Church of England. Hence when same sex marriage was legalised the opponents started fear mongering that the Church of England would be forced into carrying out same sex nuptials and that even if the legislation precluded that, that people might take a case to the European Court of Human Rights where there was a possibility (however unlikely) the Court would define the action of the Church registering marriages was a public function on behalf of the State. Although the Anglican Church in Wales was disestablished it continues to marry people in a similar way to the Church of England, hence a separate section in the law devoted to the Church of Wales, even though it is not established).

    While this legislation prevents the Church of England from conducting marriages for same sex couples they have the power to amend the legislation if they wish to (that will be a long time coming however). There is also a section that allows for the legislation to be amended to enable the Church in Wales to carry out same sex marriages were they to decide to do so.

  • 53. Tim  |  March 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    For additional information on marriage equality cases, often more current, try the open group below:

    It's a good supplement to this site. Scottie knows as he's a member. Kathleen Perrin posts a lot of updates there.

  • 54. Sagesse  |  March 30, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Hobby Lobby’s secret agenda: How it’s quietly funding a vast right-wing movement [Salon]

    "Hobby Lobby-related entities are some of the biggest sources of funding to the National Christian Charitable Foundation, which backed groups that collaborated in promoting the anti-gay legislation in Arizona – recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer – that critics say would have legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians by businesses.

    "The path of SB 1062 to the Arizona statehouse was built by two groups, the Center for Arizona Policy and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Center for Arizona Policy employees regularly spoke in favor of the legislation, appearing as the grass-roots face of a bill that the center’s president, Cathi Herrod, characterized as “[making] certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993,” according to a statement on the group’s website. (One hundred and twenty-three Center for Arizona Policy-supported measures have been signed into law; its legislative agenda ranges from requiring intrusive ultrasounds for women seeking abortions to HB 2281, a bill that, if passed by the Arizona Senate, would exempt religious institutions from paying property taxes on leased or rented property.)

    "For its part, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national Christian organization based in Arizona, works toward the “spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family,” according to the group’s website. Both groups are heavily funded by the National Christian Charitable Foundation, “the largest Christian grant-making foundation in the world,” as described on the group’s website….

    "[A] 2009 NCF tax filing, reported here for the first time, offers insights into the deep pockets backing National Christian Charitable Foundation.

    "The form… shows a total of nearly $65 million in contributions coming from a combination of Jon Cargill, who is the CFO of Hobby Lobby, and “Craft Etc.,” an apparent misspelling of Crafts Etc., a Hobby Lobby affiliate company. The document shows that Hobby Lobby‑related contributions were the single largest source of tax-deductible donations to National Christian Charitable’s approximately $383.785 million in 2009 grant revenue.

    "According to addresses on the filing, both the contributions from Crafts Etc. and Jon Cargill came from a massive warehouse and office facility housing Hobby Lobby’s headquarters in Oklahoma City….

    "The exact use of Jon Cargill’s and Crafts, Etc.’s contributions to the foundation aren’t clear, but National Christian Charitable’s outgoing grants reveal a series of disbursements to groups that have offered legal services to Hobby Lobby or signed on to amicus briefs supporting the lawsuit. In 2012, the NCF contributed $94,340 to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the D.C.-based legal group representing Hobby Lobby in the upcoming Supreme Court case. Between 2002 and 2012, National Christian Charitable also contributed to at least 40 of the groups that signed on to amicus briefs supporting Hobby Lobby’s case."

  • 55. Lee  |  March 30, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    "The document shows entities related to the company to be two of the largest donors to the organization funding a right-wing Christian agenda, investing tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars into a vast network of organizations working in concert to advance an agenda that would allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny their employees contraceptives under a maximalist interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution."

  • 56. FYoung  |  March 31, 2014 at 2:13 am

    Is there evidence that Hobby Lobby is funding the National Organization for Marriage (except those they don't approve of)?

  • 57. JimT  |  March 31, 2014 at 6:39 am

    That is a good question. I think HRC is still attempting to find out who the mysterious donors are for NOM.

  • 58. Dr. Z  |  March 31, 2014 at 9:20 am

    Wasn't NOM ordered to disclose its donors in Maine and Minnesota? That was at least a year ago after several court challenges. Did those court orders just disappear into the memory hole, or what?

  • 59. Christian  |  March 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    SB 1306, sponsored by EQCA and endorsed by GLAAD, is going to its first hearing April 8th at 1:30 to the Senate Committee on Judiciary!

    The bill, authored by Mark Leno, would repeal discriminatory statutes prohibiting marriage equality dating back to 1977. The bill would also repeal the so-called California Defense of Marriage Act, AKA Prop 22, which has been rendered null by a series of court decisions ending last June.

    The bill will also make all other marriage language gender neutral, replacing terms like "husband" and "wife" with "spouses"

  • 60. davep  |  March 30, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Excellent. Some 'spring cleaning' to sweep the trash out of our law books.

  • 61. Eric  |  March 31, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Offering couples the option to back date their marriage to the start of their Registed Domestic Partnership would be a nice amendment.

  • 62. Christian  |  March 31, 2014 at 11:34 am

    That and to extend domestic partnerships to opposite sex couples (where one of the partners is NOT 62 or older), like PACS in France.

    I'll write a letter suggesting those amendments!

  • 63. Policy and Legal Update &&hellip  |  March 31, 2014 at 7:00 am

    […] KENTUCKY • On 28 March 2014, in Timothy Love, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (formerly Gregory Bourke & Michael De Leon, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear), a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set the briefing schedule:  KY principal brief (7 May 2014), plaintiffs’ principal brief appendix (9 June 2014), KY reply brief (26 June 2014).  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source […]

  • 64. Supreme Court again takes&hellip  |  March 31, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    […] Briefing in Kentucky, Tennessee same-sex marriage… Three-judge panel announced for Tenth Circuit… […]

  • 65. Supreme Court again takes&hellip  |  March 31, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    […] Briefing in Kentucky, Tennessee same-sex marriage… Three-judge panel announced for Tenth Circuit… […]

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