Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

READ IT HERE: Opening brief in Bostic v. Schaefer at Fourth Circuit

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Fourth Circuit map
Fourth Circuit map
Norfolk County Circuit Court Clerk Schaefer has just filed his opening brief in Bostic v. Schaefer in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Schaefer is one of the defendants in the case, arguing in favor of the ban. You can read the brief here. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is litigating the case for the plaintiffs. They’re represented by Ted Olson and David Boies. Lambda Legal and the ACLU, who filed their own case in Virginia (a class-action), is intervening in this case.

The case will be argued in the Fourth Circuit on May 13.

EqualityOnTrial will try to report on the brief as soon as we read it.

14-1167 #71 by Equality Case Files

Much thanks to Kathleen Perrin and Equality Case Files for this filing

For more information on Bostic v. Rainey (formerly Bostic v. McDonnell)from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.

96 Comments

  • 1. sfbob  |  March 28, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    The brief begins by mischaracterizing the basis of Judge Allen's decision and asserting that since Virginia law has always defined marriage as being between a man and a woman there is no further argument to be had. And then characterizes the case as being about the "right to same-sex marriage." Then it asserts the state's right to define who may marry. And then it goes downhill.

  • 2. davep  |  March 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    I can almost hear them tap dancing from all the way out here in California.

  • 3. Ragavendran  |  March 28, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    "However, this framework ignores the basic, core tenant that marriage has always been understood to be and defined as a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. Virginia’s understanding and definition of marriage has remained unchanged throughout its history. Recent changes to Virginia statutes and the Virginia Constitution did not change that definition; they were explicit codifications of the understanding of marriage in the Commonwealth."

    Pray, tell me, if you maintain that marriage has, by definition, always been understood to be between a man and a woman, then what is your reason for wanting to "codify" this definition of marriage in the Virginia Constitution?

    And the assertion that Virginia's understanding of marriage has been unchanged throughout its history is laughable. Didn't Virginia exist pre-Loving?

  • 4. sfbob  |  March 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    I'm not sure what illiterate wrote this brief but "core tenant [sic]" sort of stood out for me (yes, it's right there in the PDF). It's "tenet." "TENET." Sheesh. A "tenant" is something entirely different and not at all pertinent.

  • 5. davep  |  March 28, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Ha! That one deserves a Rosanne Rosanadana – esque "oh… never mind!" How embarrassing for them.

  • 6. Rick O.  |  March 28, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    Maybe it also mentions "eagle rights".

  • 7. davep  |  March 29, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    "…. and what's all this I keep hearing about gay and thespian marriage?" Okay, I'm done now.

  • 8. Matt  |  March 28, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    Maybe he's a Doctor Who fan. :p

  • 9. JustMe  |  March 29, 2014 at 4:05 am

    They use the same word…. but in the correct way lower down in the brief. Looks like a spell check error.

  • 10. montezuma58  |  March 29, 2014 at 9:05 am

    I remember seeing the same error in one of the amicus briefs in the Utah case. Probably just a blind cut and paste.

  • 11. Dr. Z  |  March 28, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Marriage has always been understood to be one man and one woman? Really? They ought to read that Bible they've been thumping, because King David had 18 wives.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David's_

    Not counting Jonathan, of course. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 12. JimT  |  March 28, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Solomon holds the record, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

  • 13. bythesea  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Those numbers don't at all seem suspiciously round.

  • 14. Dr. Z  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    After the first 50 or so I'm sure he stopped counting. That's a new wife or concubine about every six weeks. I guess he liked weddings (or more likely, he liked dowries.)

  • 15. sfbob  |  March 29, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    "It's good to be king."

  • 16. bayareajohn  |  March 28, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    "Revisionist history" is a redundant phrase.

  • 17. KarlS  |  March 29, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    I think it's more like an oxymoron…
    ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • 18. Pat  |  March 28, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    74 pages?!
    Hmm, the judge must be thrilled to read their nonsense.

  • 19. Steve  |  March 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    They have clerks who have to suffer through that shit for them

  • 20. Dr. Z  |  March 28, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Interesting, this is a recurring pattern – the legal teams opposing ME keep submitting these voluminous briefs. They've often requested permission to exceed the maximum page count. And yet, they haven't got an argument that will stand up in court.

    "If you can't blind them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

  • 21. ebohlman  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:26 am

    The briefs are written for their donors, not for the courts.

  • 22. Retired lawyer  |  March 29, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    In fairness to the lawyers who prepared this brief: it is a much better piece of work than what Monte Stewart, the most distinguished conservative Constitutional scholar in Boise, has been sending to the 10th Circuit. Read, for example, his Reply of Utah in the Kitchen case. This brief to the 4th does not have any folksy references to "moms and dads," nor gibberish about genderless marriages, nor is there any reliance on the discredited bogus research of Mark Regnerus, Joseph Price, and Douglas Allen. It is about as good a defense as one could mount for a weak, nearly indefensible position.

  • 23. Dr. Z  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    One of the elements of good writing is felicity of style. It's not easy to achieve, particularly in an age of tweets and instant messaging.

    There's a story attributed to Mark Twain that his editor sent him this telegram: "Need two pages two days." (Telegrams charged by the word; they were the tweets of their day.)

    Twain replied: "No can do two pages two days. Can do thirty pages two days. Need thirty days do two pages."

  • 24. KarlS  |  March 29, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Years ago, a print reporter was chastised by his editor for failing to submit brief and succinct lead-ins for his reports. He finally succeeded one day after writing a story about a man who escaped from an insane asylum and sexually assaulted two women in a laundromat…he suggested "Nut Bolts and Screws Washers"

  • 25. Zack12  |  March 28, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    The bigots like to rewrite history and pretend the arguments used against interacial marriage back then aren't the ones being used against same sex marriages today.
    Nice try but everything from state's rights to the slippery slope arguments..they've all been used before.

  • 26. montezuma58  |  March 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    They spend an inordinate number of words arguing why one couple does not have standing with regards to recognition of out of state marriages. Technically may be correct as the defendants (at least the county clerk) has no responsibility in that regard. However from a practical standpoint it's irrelevant. If the state does manage to have their standing denied it does nothing to address the core issues of the case. If they do get their way on that point and ultimately loose in circuit court all it means is couples will just get remarried in VA until they prevail on a subsequent suit.

  • 27. Nyx  |  March 28, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    The clerk can make the claim that he is not a party to a case that involves an out of state marriage, but that does not make the couple lack standing. Remember, the State is also a party to this case which gives this couple standing. And since the State is declining to defend this case in the courts it only increases the probability that the couple with an out of state marriage will win.

  • 28. JustMe  |  March 29, 2014 at 3:47 am

    The state is NOT a party to the case… Its called the 11th amendment to US Constitution.

  • 29. ebohlman  |  March 29, 2014 at 11:28 am

    The 11th Amendment has been held not to preclude all lawsuits against states if Constitutional rights are at issue.

  • 30. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 4:15 am

    A STATE cannot act unconstitutionally.

    The language of the statute:

    "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

  • 31. KarlS  |  March 29, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    As long as you're weighing in on this issue in opposition to virtually everyone here, why don't you take a moment to explain why and how YOU personally are so invested in it? Just tell us how the hell it is any of your concern who someone you don't even know wants to marry.

  • 32. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 4:03 am

    Because I'm married. And when a law that touches upon that status is declared to be unconstitutional, that affects me personally.

  • 33. Steve  |  March 30, 2014 at 4:13 am

    No, it's doesn't you liar. Not unless you are gay married or want to get married.

  • 34. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:10 am

    "Because Plaintiffs have shown that Texas' same-sex marriage ban violates their equal protection rights, the law is unconstitutional without the need to reach any other constitutional challenge."

    So, the Court has just declared opposite-sex marriage unconstitutional ("the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL)". That affects me.

  • 35. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:16 am

    Here is the law that I am talking about:

    "Sec. 6.204. RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR CIVIL UNION. (a) In this section, "civil union" means any relationship status other than marriage that:
    (1) is intended as an alternative to marriage or applies primarily to cohabitating persons;"

  • 36. Steve  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:21 am

    You are becoming more unhinged every day.

  • 37. Sagesse  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Breaking my rule about feeding Trolls.

    Opposite sex marriage is as constitutional the day after the ruling as it was the day before. Otherwise your opposite sex marriage and everyone else's would have been dissolved.

    The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional.

    Not feeding the Troll anymore.

  • 38. SoCal_Dave  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:01 am

    How does that even follow? The law that disallows same sex marriage is declared unconstitutional and somehow you think that means opposite sex marriage is unconstitutional? This is one of the big problems. It's not either/or. Same sex marriage can be legal AND opposite sex marriage legal AT THE SAME TIME. You are lost in this bizzaro world where everyone has to be the same, one or the other. That's not the real world.

  • 39. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:26 am

    Its because the law that defines marriage as a whole has been declared unconstitutional. That includes opposite sex marriage.

  • 40. bayareajohn  |  March 30, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    You simply have that wrong, and appear not the least bit interested in getting it right. When prohibitions of interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional, marriage continued to exist.

  • 41. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    “The plain meaning of words and not the perception of such words by interested parties like the HEW shall always be the “master”: “When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean no more, no less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that['s] all.” Finnegan v. Matthews, 641 F.2d 1340, 1344, fn. 5 (9th Cir.1981), citing to L. Car[r]oll, The Annotated Alice, 269 (1960).

  • 42. Steve  |  March 30, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    And this is how we know that you're really SHOETHROWER. The walls of random and misunderstood legalese.

  • 43. Quack Quack  |  March 30, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    This one's an odd duck.

  • 44. Background Gal  |  March 30, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    It's a testament to the success and value of this blog that such trolls as this increasingly find it necessary to extend their deliberate disinformation efforts here.

  • 45. KarlS  |  March 30, 2014 at 6:18 am

    If you're married to someone of the same gender, you're arguing against your own interests…and if you're married to an opposite gender person, the issue can not possibly have any effect on your circumstances in which case you're just fucking nuts.
    Go to hell.

  • 46. JayJonson  |  March 30, 2014 at 6:42 am

    Don't be so harsh. We all know that as soon as marriage equality is achieved throughout the nation, no straight person will ever want to be married and all of them already married will divorce. And then all that irresponsible heterosexual procreation will begin. That's what these briefs have been arguing all these years.

  • 47. KarlS  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:32 am

    I know, I know…but after hearing that BS for 69+ years, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    People like that idiot could save themselves a LOT of anxiety and angst if they'd just MTOFB, knowwhatImean?

  • 48. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:20 am

    When you're trying to overturn a constitutional amendment of MY state, it is my business.

  • 49. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:23 am

    That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

    Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

    Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

  • 50. Fluffyskunk  |  March 30, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    …and?

  • 51. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    And…nothing. That's how you can tell he's the SHOETHROWER troll. He never makes a cogent argument, he just posts a bunch of nonsequitur citations as if quotations alone constitute a cinching argument. It's usually impossible to follow his reasoning because he doesn't offer any.

  • 52. Guest  |  March 30, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    A troll on crack cannot be reasoned with.

  • 53. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 9:19 am

    When a law is declard unconstitutional, it affects EVERYBODY.

  • 54. davep  |  March 30, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Well, yes, but not for the reasons you are trying to argue. The aspect of these laws that denied marriage to same sex couples which was unconstitutional was the fact that they treated one group differently from another and caused harm to the targeted group for no legitimate reason.

    So when they are overturned, this has an immediate impact on only the group that was harmed by the denial of equal legal treatment, and there's no change to the way laws treat the other group.

    But in a sense, the overall process DOES affect us all because it's important to each American to know that we can rely on our branches of government to each do their job and assure that all of our laws comply with our Constitution. That's why it's so important for laws to comply with requirements of Equal Protection. It assures that, if unjust laws get aimed at ANY of us, we have a path of recourse.

  • 55. Zack12  |  March 30, 2014 at 7:00 am

    An older interracial couple I know remembered hearing the same thing when people were fighting for bans on interracial marriages.
    You're just upset because a group you think should be thrown back in the closet will be treated more equally.
    You are a bigot and nothing more.

  • 56. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:12 am

    You must not have much faith in the strength of your own marriage if you think it's endangered by something as unconnected as other people's same-sex marriages.

    Unless, perhaps, you think that teh gays are taking the "easy way out" by giving in to homosexual desire? The lust that you have struggled against for years? Is your marriage like an Alcoholics Anonymous sobriety chip whose value would be cheapened if it were suddenly to be awarded to people who hadn't spent years waging secret war with yourself? Does your marriage prove you're heterosexual? And maybe if gay people could get married to, then your marriage certificate wouldn't have the same value to you as a psychological crutch?

    Just a wild guess, of course. But if you think your marriage is going to be impacted by mine, then you are hiding something.

  • 57. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Wait a minute … marriage is marriage right?

    It is plain that an opposite sex marriage and a same sex marriage do not carry the same obligations and responsibilites…

  • 58. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Well, okay. I'll concede another possibility, you may simply be off your rocker.

  • 59. Zack12  |  March 30, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    I saw it happen here in NY. Some people have complete meltdowns over the fact same sex couples could legally marry.

  • 60. Keith  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:31 am

    @JustMe You obviously have a lot personal problems and much anger, perhaps you aren't as "happily married for 20+ years" as you have claimed to be in a different post on this site. If your marriage was good you would not be spending your weekends troll posting on this site as you have done so much of. Or you are just another right winger who trolls political sites to spread dissent and negative comments.

  • 61. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:36 am

    I have neither … and I am happily married.

    I just dont believe in same sex marriage…

  • 62. JayJonson  |  March 30, 2014 at 11:23 am

    If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. A very simple solution, especially since I doubt someone of the same-sex would be willing to marry you, given your attitudes.

  • 63. Steve  |  March 30, 2014 at 11:47 am

    Newsflash: most things don't require you believing in them in order to exist

  • 64. Guest  |  March 30, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    You don't sound very happy to me. If you were so happily married you would be having lavish sex, and you wouldn't give a damn about the lives of the gays. Instead, I think you're an empty Christian bigot.

    Also, your opinion is worthless because the worth is in the power of law. Even if you did believe in same sex marriage, your opinion would continue to be worthless because it is the law that has manifested our legal reality not powerless opinions. Likewise, your opposite sex marriage came to be in the same manner, by way of law, not the kindness of strangers.

    Christian inc. shall pay!

  • 65. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    Has JustMe/SHOETHROWER ever spouted any Christianist rhetoric? I've always wondered if he might one of those secular bigots. They do exist.

  • 66. Zack12  |  March 30, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    I'm assuming you would have been equally outraged over segregation and interracial marriage?
    Because Texas had to be dragged into the light on those things as well.

  • 67. Kevin  |  March 30, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    He is just taking the rage and resentment he feels toward his failure to keep his own, prior, marriage intact and projecting it onto a group of people whose vulnerability and status as social 'other' remind him of parts of himself that he despises.

  • 68. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  March 30, 2014 at 8:37 am

    14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    This overrides the 11th Amendment (but does not overturn it).

  • 69. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:15 am

    No it doesnt…

    "In making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be unconstitutional, it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act, or else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the State, and thereby attempting to make the State a party."

  • 70. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:16 am

    Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123, 169 (1908).

  • 71. Kevin  |  March 30, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Your pincite is incorrect.

  • 72. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Sorry … that should be:

    Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123, 157 (1908).

  • 73. Background Gal  |  March 31, 2014 at 3:42 am

    That's OK, JM, It can be difficult to manage all that cut and paste of other people's work, all just to annoy folks you hate.

  • 74. Kevin  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    It's also usually a bad idea to take a case holding that plaintiffs can seek forward-looking injunctive relief from Minnesota state officials to argue that plaintiffs in this case cannot seek forward-looking injunctive relief from Virginia state officials. I'm just curious, did you make it to the actual holding of this case? Or were you happy to select some dicta that you thought supported your feckless argument?

  • 75. sfbob  |  March 29, 2014 at 8:46 am

    It seems par for the course now for elected or appointed officials to claim (in these cases) that because the states themselves cannot be sued–per the Eleventh Amendment–that they can't be sued either. This of course ignores the fact that those officials charged with implementing an offending law can certainly be sued. Federal courts have upheld this approach over and over and over again.

    The alternative would be that a citizen would have no recourse at all if they were to be, let us say, denied equality under cover of state law.

  • 76. montezuma58  |  March 29, 2014 at 9:11 am

    Reading through the case in Oklahoma the parts where they analyze standing of the defendants will make your head hurt. It looked like the defense was going around in circles to attempt to make it look like there was nobody proper to sue in the case.

    As for the VA case the standing of the one couple is practically a side issue. Yet the brief dedicates a bunch of space to it. They're probably searching for some minor point they might win in court so they can then turn around to their supporters and distort the significance of it.

  • 77. JustMe  |  March 30, 2014 at 10:39 am

    “The Attorney General’s sweeping responsibility to enforce the laws of the State of Louisiana lacks the Ex parte Young specificity nexus between the Attorney General and the alleged unconstitutional provisions that is essential to defeat sovereign immunity,” Feldman writes.
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/12/01/court-d

  • 78. Eric  |  March 28, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    The brief opens by admitting that the marriage restrictions in Virginia have been religiously based from the very beginning:

    The earliest records of Virginia law only indicate the recognition of marriage between a husband and wife…(In September 1696 the General Assembly provided: “That noe minister or ministers shall from henceforth marry any person or persons together as man and wife without lawfull lycense, or without their publication of banns, according to the rubrick in the common prayer book. . .”)

  • 79. bayareajohn  |  March 29, 2014 at 12:34 am

    By the way, "Publication of Banns" refers to publishing the marriage announcement in advance, so that any party who has reason to object to the marriage (like another wife!) has legal notice.

  • 80. Retired lawyer  |  March 29, 2014 at 5:44 am

    Someone who knows more than I do about the history of Virginia can weigh in here, but the date of 1696, the reference to a minister with a lawfull lycense, and the requirement of the rubrick of the common prayer book add up to a requirement that marriages be limited to those performed by the Church of England, the established church in Virginia. Scottish settlers (Presbyterians), Baptist ministers (who were refused licenses in Virginia throughout the colonial eras, and Quakers (who don't have minister) and, of course, all Catholics, were excluded altogether by this law. The book of common prayer was, and is, a feature of the churches that belong to the Anglican communion.

  • 81. Rick O.  |  March 29, 2014 at 6:47 am

    Like most colonies, Virginia had a state religion – meaning you had to pay church taxes. Madison became famous for defending jailed dissident Baptist ministers. Md. was for Catholics. Rhode Island and Connecticut were founded by those escaping the tyranny of Massachusetts' religion (remember that meeting houses were both church AND town hall, and they had heresy trials). Vermont was arguably the first atheist state (read Ethan Allen) and was originally an independent Republic, like Texas, with a 20 year shooting war against NY and then the crown over land and freedom from state religion.
    All this leading of course, to everyone realizing religion had to be left out of politics and law if states were to unite, though complete "disestablishment" of state-level religion was not completed till about 10 years after the U.S. Constitution (N.H. about 1802??).
    So yes, the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation" in the same sense it was founded as a white, male, Anglophone, nation, but every "Founder" knew from bitter experience separating religion from law was vital to ditching kings and establishing a republic. Arguments to the contrary are woefully and willfully misinformed, concocted by people who are here to inform you your favorite color is NOT yellow, it's blue like all good persons', and one more word about yellow and we'll punish you. So much for freedom.

  • 82. Mike in Baltimore  |  March 29, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Maryland may have been founded as a 'Catholic colony', but it has never had a majority population of Catholics. Most of the people on the Ark or the Dove (the original ships carrying colonists to Maryland) in 1634 (March 25, which is now celebrated as a state holiday [Maryland Day] in the state) were Protestants.

    "The Calvert family, who founded Maryland partly as a refuge for English Catholics, sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and those of other religions that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of England and her colonies. This led eventually, via periods of religious tension and violent struggle in the new colony, to the passage of the Maryland Toleration Act in 1649. It was the first law ever passed to guarantee the right to worship regardless of Christian denomination."
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland#17th_centur… )

    "After Virginia made Anglicanism the established religion in the colony, numerous Puritans migrated from Virginia to Maryland. They were given land for a settlement called Providence (now Annapolis). In 1650, the Puritans revolted against the proprietary government and set up a new government that prohibited both Catholicism and Anglicanism. In March 1654, the 2nd Lord Baltimore sent an army under the command of Governor William Stone to put down the revolt, but his forces were decisively defeated by a Puritan army near Annapolis in what was to be known as the Battle of the Severn."
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland#18th_centur… )

    The Calvert family regained Maryland colony in 1658. The Toleration Act was reinstated, but in 1688, the 'Glorious Revolution' established Protestantism as the religion of England, and the Toleration Act was retired until after the American Revolution.

  • 83. Dr. Z  |  March 29, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    "Hey! According to the town charter, I'm supposed to get a pig every month! And "…two comely lasses of vyrtue true.'"

  • 84. Rose  |  March 29, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    What is ironic is that these IDIOTS don't get is that we are NOT asking for the right to enter into a Same-Sex marriage because quite frankly that DOESN'T exist……..HOWEVER what we are asking for is the right to marry WITHOUT restrictions to the other person's gender!!!

    So, the question should be this…is marriage a Fundamental Right ONLY if it is to a person of the opposite-sex or is it a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT without regards to a specific gender make-up……my opinion is that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT regardless of the gender make-up and as long as words like "HOMO", "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" are used in from of the word MARRIAGE…….these silly arguments are going to be used….fail as they will….but used NEVERTHELESS!!!

  • 85. Rose  |  March 29, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Is marriage such a fundamental right that persons have nearly absolute discretion to choose their marital partner, even if their choice is outside society’s historic and traditional understanding of the basic definition of marriage? This question should be answered in the negative.

    See, the answer should NOT be answered in the negative……it should be affirmed that one has the ABSOLUTE discretion to marry the person of their choosing REGARDLESS of what the hell society has done in the past!!!

  • 86. Tom  |  March 29, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    In Windsor, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “equal dignity” of the “intimate relationship between TWO people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community. . . .”

    Moreover, the state does not issue a Certificate of Same Sex , Opposite Sex, Interracial or Felony Marriage Licenses. Only a Certificate of Marriage.

  • 87. sfbob  |  March 29, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Judges and justices appear to understand this. Attorneys intent on subverting marriage equality wish they didn't.

  • 88. Luke  |  March 30, 2014 at 11:43 am

    A person with the name "Just" as part of their name implies low self-esteem. A person claiming to have an opposite sex partner but posting on gay sites against marriage equality (EoT, or hanging out on Washington Blade) also implies low self esteem or "issues". It would be the same if there were gay people posting on marriage sites for straight couples (although they could have slightly more justification since they can't marry freely across the country).

    Sometimes people can become so passionate (i.e. closet-case and/or insists on holding others back from their "exclusive" club) they are not self-aware enough to know what they're doing is seen as really odd behavior.

  • 89. Steve  |  March 30, 2014 at 11:46 am

    He could just go back to his old name: SHOETHROWER

  • 90. Dr. Z  |  March 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    It's been illuminating to me. I've always been puzzled why some people are so vociferously opposed to SSM, it hadn't occurred to me before that some deeply closeted individuals could be thinking of their OSMs as a kind of Hererosexuality Merit Badge, that proves they're straight no matter what their innermost feelings could be telling them. Suddenly a lot of things in this debate start to make sense in that context. I'm not suggesting that all opposition to SSM stems from this rationalization, but it could certainly account for some.

  • 91. Zack12  |  March 30, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    A lot of people opposed to SSM marriage are self-loathers, we've certainly seen a lot of that over the years.
    On the other hand, many aren't self-loathers, they simply believe their ideas about gays and lesbians being sinful should be the law of the land.

  • 92. nrpnevis.com&hellip  |  June 23, 2014 at 6:39 am

    nrpnevis.com

    Equality On TrialREAD IT HERE: Opening brief in Bostic v. Schaefer at Fourth Circuit ยป Equality On Trial

  • 93. Equality On TrialREAD IT &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:03 am

    […] first brief, filed by Norfolk County Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, is here. The second, filed by Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michele McQuigg, is […]

  • 94. Equality On TrialREAD IT &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:06 am

    […] first brief can be found here. The second brief can be found here. The third is here. The brief filed by the Bostic plaintiffs is […]

  • 95. Equality On TrialREAD IT &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:52 am

    […] You can read the brief here. Clerk Schaefer’s opening brief, which we posted earlier, is here. […]

  • 96. Equality On TrialREAD IT &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:57 am

    […] first brief can be found here. The second brief can be found here. The third is here. The brief filed by the Bostic plaintiffs is […]

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