Equality On Trial

3030859 Commentshttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityontrial.com%2F2014%2F04%2F28%2Fsixth-circuit-court-appeals-stays-decision-tennessee-sex-marriage-case%2FSixth+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+stays+decision+in+Tennessee+same-sex+marriage+case2014-04-28+17%3A00%3A56Scottie+Thomastonhttp%3A%2F%2Fequalityontrial.com%2F%3Fp%3D30308

• 1. Dr. Z  |  April 28, 2014 at 10:35 am

  The Tennessean is reporting that the plaintiffs already married during the window before the 10th issued its stay, and claiming those marriages are now voided. Sounds like Utah and Michigan all over again. The SCOTUS needs to stop playing around with these stays. They want things to remain frozen in amber until they rule, but it's not working and is only increasing pressure in SCOTUS, not reducing it.

  The link is behind a paywall but for some reason I was able to read it anyway.
  http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/201…

• 2. ragefirewolf  |  April 28, 2014 at 11:28 am

  I believe you meant 6th, not 10th, yes?

• 3. Dr. Z  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:00 pm

  Ah yes you are right. Lots of balls in the air right now. Thinking about Tennessee and Utah at the same time…

• 4. ragefirewolf  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:32 pm

  I figured. Just was wondering. Thank you, Dr. Z.

• 5. Ragavendran  |  April 28, 2014 at 11:41 am

  The Plaintiffs were married elsewhere before seeking recognition in Tennessee. Their marriages were recognized as valid before the stay was issued. The Tanco-Jesty couple even had their baby's birth certificate stating that they were the parents. Now the stay comes and voids the three marriages. One has to wonder – isn't this the height of harm to the child of the same sex couple?

• 6. Dr. Z  |  April 28, 2014 at 7:38 pm

  Sure hope the Tennessee couples appeal to SCOTUS. They may not grant the stay but they deserve to be reminded of the human cost to this baby.

• 7. Ragavendran  |  April 28, 2014 at 7:46 pm

  I hope so too. I found them on FB and urged them to in a message. I hope they see my message though…

• 8. Bruno71  |  April 28, 2014 at 12:08 pm

  United Church of Christ brings first of it's kind religious freedom/marriage equality suit in North Carolina: http://act.ucc.org/site/MessageViewer/?dlv_id=854… It's about time!

• 9. Michael Grabow  |  April 28, 2014 at 12:12 pm

  This is awesome.

• 10. Guest  |  April 28, 2014 at 12:43 pm

  I don't know about that. While it is refreshing that a singular Christian church is doing something about the overall discrimination that is occurring in N.C., I think we are living in a rather pathetic reality. This church is one out of how many tens of thousands that advocate for our discrimination? Christianity by and large is not doing anything to correct the atrocities it has leveled against us. I think the anti-gays need to be fiercely criticized. Leveling criticism against them is not the same as advocating for laws against them. That is what they do to us.

• 11. Retired_Lawyer  |  April 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm

  The United Church of Christ is a denomination that includes several churches in the Protestant Reformed tradition, including the Congregationalists, the New England-based churches that in the United States first fomented the abolitionist action against slavery.

• 12. Guest  |  April 28, 2014 at 1:32 pm

  I'm sure it's a pleasant compilation of Christians.

  Conversely, it seems that the region of New England has dealt with the issue of marriage equality without any help whatsoever from Christianity. Would you not agree that the institutions of Evangelical, Catholic and Mormon are actively in the business against us? What marriage that they created are they working to undue?

• 13. Retired_Lawyer  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:35 pm

  The effort in the six New England states to achieve marriage equality was primarily a secular effort involving numerous groups. In particular, thanks are due to Mary Bonauto and the other lawyers with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. We have advanced through the involvement of numerous groups; and, in my opinion, we would be wise to welcome more groups as allies, including the United Church of Christ. I agree with you that we have been villified by the hierarchies of the Roman Catholic Church, LDS, and denominations that could fairly be called Devangelical in the sense that they actually seem to be driving followers away. Having the United Church of Christ actively working on our behalf will give the lie to the the conservative narrative that their culture war is Christianity versus the gays.

• 14. Jack  |  April 28, 2014 at 3:29 pm

  I am an Episcopal priest and it was my great privilege to officiate at the 3rd same-sex marriage in my congregation in NJ in the last 7 months on Saturday. I'm delighted the UCC has taken this step– but I do want readers of this blog to know they are not the only Christian church that supports marriage equality. I said in my sermon Saturday that the church has been (typically, alas) behind the curve on this matter of justice when, if we were faithful followers of Jesus who fought injustice and commanded love, we would and should have been leaders. I know that GLBT people have suffered much at the hands of Christian bodies, and we have much to account for in our behavior, past — including those traditions, like mine, that have (finally) begun to see the light — and present, including those who continue on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of faithfulness. But please know that there are some followers of Jesus who are your allies and rejoice in the opportunities to celebrate marriages with you.

• 15. Mike in Baltimore  |  April 28, 2014 at 4:37 pm

  Another denomination that is generally judged to be 'bad' is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – probably because people see 'Evangelical' as the first word in the name and automatically discount them because they claim to be 'evangelical'.

  The ELCA also has almost 4 million members, 4 times as many as the UCC.

  And in the Latin Rite Catholic church, the hierarchy is mostly against ME, but the people in the pews are mostly for ME.

• 16. Fyoung  |  April 29, 2014 at 6:18 am

  "And in the Latin Rite Catholic church, the hierarchy is mostly against ME, but the people in the pews are mostly for ME."

  Same for the mainstream Roman Catholic church in the countries that have marriage equality.

• 17. ebohlman  |  April 29, 2014 at 1:54 pm

  And in the US: all states where the population is more than 20% Catholic have marriage equality.

• 18. Mike in Baltimore  |  April 29, 2014 at 7:10 pm

  Actually, that is not the case.

  Florida has 26% of the population with a Catholic tradition;

  Louisiana has 28% of the population with a Catholic tradition;

  Texas has 24% of the population with a Catholic tradition;

  Nebraska has 31% of the population with a Catholic tradition;

  And several other states who do not have ME are in that same position (states including AZ, NV, WY, MT, the Dakotas, WI, PA, etc).

  ( http://religions.pewforum.org/maps )

• 19. Christian  |  April 28, 2014 at 4:53 pm

  Thank you!

  I'm exhausted of the rhetoric of some non-religious gays and lesbians regarding allies who are religious and in favor of the civil rights of the LGBT community as a fluke and that they (indeed, we, as I am a gay Episcoplalian Christian) act as allies in spite of the religious faith. And to that end that Christianity is somehow the enemy, falling for the religious- right 's sheepskin disguise

  To alienate either religious or non-religious allies of lgbt civil rights would be much like the exclusionism of the right wing.

• 20. Eric  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm

  It's the millennia of bearing false witness towards gays that has earned Christians the anti-gay reputation. It will take time and repentance to overcome that.

• 21. Guest  |  April 28, 2014 at 7:29 pm

  I must disagree, and quite forcefully. Christianity is awful. Whatever level of equality the gays have is no result of Christianity. I'm organizing a protest against the hundreds of Christian zealots who descend into the city once a year in their pious attempt to snatch away abortion rights. That is all it exists for. It's empty, and an irritant at the most.

• 22. Bruno71  |  April 28, 2014 at 4:35 pm

  I'm not sure what your point is. The church (and others) involved in this case are showing that there is no unified bloc when it comes to Christianity vs. gays. I think that's quite important, to show that there isn't one religious argument to be made in this country. Of course we could do it without them, but I see no harm, only help, if these denominations hop on board the equality train.

• 23. KarlS  |  April 29, 2014 at 8:46 am

  Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said,
  "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

  He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said,
  "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
  He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too!

  Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

  He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist
  Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern
  Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

  Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative
  Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great
  Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!"
  And I pushed him over.

  -Emo Phillips

• 24. Alan Robinson  |  April 29, 2014 at 2:42 pm

  As I read this conversation, I am struck by what so many people are forgetting or ignoring. Jesus required of us that if someone smites on the cheek, that we turn and offer the other. If anyone demanded our coat, we must offer our cloak also. We must forgive our brother not once, not three times, neither seven times but seventy times seven.

  I never read that there was a time limit or an expiration date on any of these commandments, or that they applied to Christians only. Consider how much better off your life would be if you could set aside your anger and treat everybody as Jesus advocated.

• 25. Guest  |  April 29, 2014 at 6:22 pm

  It's not so much a matter of forgetting or ignoring, it's more a matter of not knowing. With 30,000+ versions of Christianity, it is nearly impossible for non-Christians to know the dogma of each Christian denomination.

  But, if Jesus calls on Christians to turn the other cheek, then pro-equality Christians know what they need to do when they feel grouped with anti-gay Christians. Christian animus is why the LGBT community was and is murdered, fired, beaten, and denied housing, so clearly a large number of Christians don't even follow the teachings of your dogma.

• 26. KarlS  |  April 30, 2014 at 2:57 pm

  One doesn't need to believe in imaginary supernatural deities to appreciate or embrace those idea(l)s…they are simply logical extensions of the universally understood principle of "don't do to others what you don't want done to you"…a corollary of the so-called 'golden rule' that all sentient or even semi-sentient organisms recognize.
  Of the 3 billion or so humans who call themselves Christians, about 2 or 3 thousand actually are.

• 27. Ragavendran  |  April 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm

  Great gesture. Probably the first ever litigation challenging a state gay marriage ban on First Amendment grounds (in addition to the Fourteenth Amendment). Seeing as NC is in the 4th Circuit though, it's all but certain that a positive ruling on the Virgina case would render this case moot. (But an unlikely negative ruling wouldn't, because the grounds for challenge are different.) Nevertheless, this is an astonishing but welcome move.

  The case has been assigned to District Judge Robert J. Conrad and Magistrate Judge David Keesler. Keesler has already issued several orders today, hours within filing of the case, granting motions for leave to appear pro hac vice to many counsel for the Plaintiffs.

  Here is the Complaint.
  Here is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support.

• 28. Reformed  |  April 28, 2014 at 1:10 pm

  Spectacular! The religious beliefs of the right do not have a superior status to the religious beliefs of the left(?) . Otherwise and official religion is established.

• 29. Larry  |  April 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm

  I skimmed the complaint and it's a bit more complicated than the article says. First, the plaintiffs are the UCC, other clergy, and several same-sex couples. Second, in addition to the 1st amendment claims from all the plaintiffs, there's also the more standard Equal Protection and Due Process claims (14th Amendment) from just the couples.

  I'll be honest, I don't understand the legal reasoning. I don't get how the NC clergy have standing – how their 1st Amendment complaint could succeed while the couples' 14th Amendment complaint fails. It would make sense in a place like the UK, where same-sex couples CAN get married by a government registrar, or by most churches, but NOT by the Church of England and the Church of Wales. There would be a legal argument that a clergy's rights are being denied since the Anglican vicar can't do what their Catholic equivalent can. But I don't see how that's true in North Carolina.

• 30. Frisky1  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:52 pm

  From what I understand it is a crime in North Carolina for a minister to perform a marriage for a couple without a legal marriage license.–45 days of jail time. So the state has criminalized the church's ability to perform marriages according to their religion. Not that those marriages would be recognized by the state, they would just be recognized by the church.

• 31. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:05 pm

  That does indeed provide the basis for standing. Thanks!

• 32. Lymis  |  April 29, 2014 at 4:20 am

  That makes a huge difference. Thanks.

  Because the best analysis I've seen was the decision that legalized marriage throughout Canada – and they addressed the religious question head on, since one of the cases before them was from clergy claiming they were prohibited from following their religious beliefs. The Court said that nothing was preventing the churches from holding whatever purely religious ceremonies they wanted to hold and to declare they had whatever religious significance they had – that religious marriage is essentially no different from religious baptism or bar mitzvah.

  Of course, in the same ruling that they declared there was no religious discrimination involved in the question of marriage equality, they firmly declared that there was a civil discrimination that was completely unconstitutional.

  But if they are actually fining religious authorities for conducting religious ceremonies, they are going to get their butts handed to them.

• 33. sfbob  |  April 29, 2014 at 9:46 am

  It seems to me that unless a member of the clergy attempted to invoke state power as part of the ceremony and attempted to complete and sign a marriage certificate, there would be nothing to prosecute.

• 34. Frisky1  |  April 29, 2014 at 5:53 am

  I'd gotten the 45 day thing from a Salon or Slate article I saw yesterday but that appears incorrect–I wonder if they were just quoting the maximum sentence for a class 1 misdemeanor, which this is. The specific penalty pertaining to performing unlicensed marriages is actually a fine of $200. It's mentioned in the complaint, see Ragavendran's link above, on page 2 and then written out in full on page 18 (number 91).

  Here is the text from the statute:
  § 51-7. Penalty for solemnizing without license.
  Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (R.C., c. 68, ss. 6, 13; 1871-2, c. 193, s. 8; Code, s. 1817; Rev., ss. 2087, 3372; C.S., s. 2499; 1953, c. 638, s. 1; 1967, c. 957, s. 5; 1993, c. 539, s. 415; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001-62, s. 7.)

• 35. JayJonson  |  April 29, 2014 at 7:23 am

  Doesn't this phrasing, "shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor," mean that a minister who marries a couple without a license could be liable for the $200 payment to whomever sues PLUS the penalty for committing a Class 1 misdemeanor, which could be 45 days in jail? That is the way I read it.

  Of course, I doubt that the penalty has ever been enforced or is likely to be enforced. Still, I would think that at least this part of the statute will quickly be declared unconstitutional.

• 36. Frisky1  |  April 29, 2014 at 8:40 am

  You may be absolutely be correct about the penalties. Tho these penalties and/or prohibitions appear to be in many state statutes so not sure how unlikely they are to be enforced. There's also that Wisconsin law that says Wisconsin citizens are banned from entering marriages that are unlawful in Wisconsin. That's a $9000 fine or something like that. It was meant to prohibit underage kids from going out of state but could apply to gay couples.

  I wouldn't put it past states that kept their sodomy laws or figured out elaborate ways to segregate after Brown v Board not to try.

  Oklahoma §43-14. Penalty for performing unlawful marriage.
  Any minister of the Gospel, or other person authorized to solemnize the rites of matrimony within this state, who shall knowingly solemnize the rites of matrimony between persons prohibited by this chapter, from intermarrying shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.

  Virginia: § 20-28. Penalty for celebrating marriage without license.

  If any person knowingly perform the ceremony of marriage without lawful license, or officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so, he shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $500.

  (Code 1919, § 4542.)

  Pennsylvania

  (c) Marriage license needed to officiate.–No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.
  (June 22, 2000, P.L.443, No.59, eff. imd.; Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days; Dec. 1, 2004, P.L.1777, No.232, eff. 60 days; July 14, 2009, P.L.81, No.18, eff. imd.)

  Florida: 741.08 Marriage not to be solemnized without a license.—Before any of the persons named in s. 741.07 shall solemnize any marriage, he or she shall require of the parties a marriage license issued according to the requirements of s. 741.01, and within 10 days after solemnizing the marriage he or she shall make a certificate thereof on the license, and shall transmit the same to the office of the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court from which it issued.
  History.—ss. 2, 3, Nov. 2, 1829; s. 1, ch. 3890, 1889; RS 2057; GS 2576; RGS 3935; CGL 5854; s. 28, ch. 73-334; s. 1, ch. 74-372; s. 1059, ch. 97-102.

• 37. Mike in Baltimore  |  April 29, 2014 at 8:01 pm

  'Private academies' were very popular in Virginia, especially during the late 1950s to the early 1980s. The 'private academies' created during that period were almost always used to get around Federal anti-segregation laws.

  The 'private academies' were 'private', thus able to get around court and Federal rulings and laws, and state law intentionally didn't harm or hinder those 'private academies', especially the ones that were formed to continue the previous state-ordained segregation policies.

• 38. Chuck from PA  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:33 pm

  The broad spectrum of plaintiffs in this action is encouraging. While United Church of Christ has taken the lead, ministers from the Lutheran, Baptist, and Unitarian traditions are included as well as representatives of the Jewish faith. Being a Northerner, from unfortunately the last remaining Northern, East Coast state without marriage equality, I know many ministers and rabbis who support ME enthusiastically, and have long wondered when and where a freedom of religion attack in support of ME would be launched. I applaud all parties bringing this case.

• 39. Retired_Lawyer  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:52 pm

  I just looked at the formal papers. Plaintiffs are being represented by Arnold & Porter. There are few law firms as good; there are none that are better, anywhere.

• 40. Michael Grabow  |  April 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/pope-fra…

  You don't say?

• 41. Ragavendran  |  April 28, 2014 at 1:39 pm

  BREAKING: Sixth Circuit UNANIMOUSLY DENIED initial en banc hearing in Michigan's DeBoer appeal.

• 42. bayareajohn  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm

  "O R D E R The court having received a petition for initial hearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated to all active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having favored the suggestion, It is ORDERED that the petition be and hereby is denied."

  NO JUDGE favored it. None. I like.

• 43. Retired_Lawyer  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm

  That really is remarkable, that not a single judge on the 6th supported initial en banc review.

• 44. Pat  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:30 pm

  I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, It seems having directly an en banc hearing would have spared us later delays, right? So now they will have a panel hearing hearing and ruling first, and THEN likely a request for en banc re-hearing and re-ruling.
  Maybe they can finally schedule the damn hearing!

• 45. Ragavendran  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:39 pm

  I agree about an initial en banc hearing being probably the fastest route to SCOTUS (whichever way they rule). Still, if not a single judge favored an initial en banc hearing, then I doubt there will be a majority that favors an en banc rehearing. Unless simultaneous decisions from different panels are released that result in an intra-circuit conflict. Also, if an initial en banc hearing was granted here, then the other cases would have to be stayed and/or granted an initial en banc hearing as well. I guess they want to avoid setting a precedent here.

• 46. Kevin  |  April 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm

  All marriage equality cases will be stayed pending SCOTUS review and everybody knows it. That is not really a concern.

  Also, en banc review may very much be in the cards if non-panel judges disagree with the holding or rationale of the case.

• 47. Zack12  |  April 28, 2014 at 3:18 pm

  The only I could see not being stayed is Oregon. Other then that, it's stays all the way.

• 48. Bruno71  |  April 28, 2014 at 4:30 pm

  The judge in Oregon could issue a short stay pending appeal, which obviously the state would not do if the ruling's in our favor. Or he could just know that it'd be pointless. When can we expect his ruling?

• 49. Zack12  |  April 28, 2014 at 4:52 pm

  May 14th at the earliest.
  That is when he will address the rest of NOM's request to intervene in the case.

• 50. Chuck from PA  |  April 28, 2014 at 3:27 pm

  Perhaps the universal experience of favorable decisions being stayed in Federal Courts might favor our side bringing cases in State Courts and arguing ME on the grounds of state constitutions rather than Federal grounds. If a case rests on non-federal issues alone, and state courts complete both the cases and the appeals more expeditiously than any case being brought to the SCOTUS, a shift in strategy may prove more effective. Our side has several wins in State Courts.

• 51. Thomas  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:17 pm

  Yes! I can't see how the state DOMA statute can possibly be upheld under the PA constitution. The Bruce Hanes appeal might do it but still might never get to the merits off the case as happened in Commonwealth Court. I think the New Mexico route might work in PA with a clerk being ordered to grant a license by a court. The state could not deny that a court had the right to rule on the constitutionality of the law.

• 52. Stefan  |  April 28, 2014 at 10:04 pm

  The Hanes case had a strong brief written by several couples who received marriage licenses by him, urging the court to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage. They cited several cases where the state supreme court issued rulings which went beyond the matters at hand. Also, if the federal judge strikes down the ban it'll provide even more motivation for them to take care of it (assuming the federal ruling is stayed/appealed, which many are now speculating may not happen)

  We also will likely have the entire 9th Circuit issuing licenses by the end of the year since the only group defending the Nevada ban doesn't have standing to appeal. Other contenders are Arkansas (through the state supreme court), and Wyoming (via legislation).

• 53. Ragavendran  |  April 28, 2014 at 10:59 pm

  Yes, Pennsylvania might well be the state to break the "gay means stay" streak. The remaining states in the circuit already have marriage equality, and the Governor, who is facing reelection this year, might just let this pass and not appeal. The earliest the Hanes case can come up for oral argument is in the Court's September session, by which time both Pennsylvania cases would have been decided by the district courts (hopefully).

  Ha. The 9th Circuit. Its extremely unpredictable, seeing as they haven't even bothered scheduling oral argument on a case that they agreed to "expedite". (Not sure if they are secretly waiting for Smithkline to be settled first, but I can't really think of any other rational explanation.) There are slim chances that a 9th Circuit case could wind up at SCOTUS as well. One possible scenario is that Sevcik (the Nevada case) gets ruled in our favor, and the judge in Latta (the Idaho case) cites Sevcik and provides a summary judgment in our favor. Then an adamant Defendant there could appeal to the 9th (which would quickly affirm) and then beyond to SCOTUS, correct? So Sevcik could reach SCOTUS indirectly. (Whether SCOTUS would then entertain such an appeal is a different issue, of course.)

• 54. david  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:26 pm

  Nope, Snyder and Schuette are in the heat of reelection they want this over ASAP. As not to have to address it as part of an issue in the election. So now it will be an issue…….at least thru august… I surmise they will not go en banc even if they lose the panel

• 55. david  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm

  Nope, Snyder and Schuette are in the heat of reelection they want this over ASAP. As not to have to address it as part of an issue in the election. So now it will be an issue…….at least thru august… I surmise they will not go en banc even if they lose the panel

• 56. Zack12  |  April 28, 2014 at 3:12 pm

  Good news on the judicial front. Michelle T. Friedland, the nominee for the 9th circuit that the Religious Right tried to keep off the bench for her work on Prop 8 and defending the conversion therapy ban in CA has been confirmed by a vote of 51-40.
  Close vote to be sure but at the end of the day, we now have a major ally on our side as the gay marriage cases are heard in the 9th circuit and someone who can help balance the scale against the bigotry of O'Scannlain and some of the other bigots on the 9th.

• 57. Margo Schulter  |  April 28, 2014 at 4:28 pm

  Chuck, the idea of state constitutional challenges to marriage bans is very promising — except for the very widespread use of state constitutional amendments against marriage equality, which often leave state courts in a position where they feel there are no independent state grounds left in support of marriage equality.

  In a state without such a constitutional provision. however, such a challenge might succeed, as it did in California in 2008. After Proposition 8, which sought to overturn that ruling by the California Supreme Court in favor of marriage equality, it was the federal Constitution which came to the rescue in Judge Walker’s courtroom, after the California Supreme Court found that the voter’s decision was definitive as far as the California Constitution was concerned.

• 58. Landon  |  May 2, 2014 at 2:26 pm

  The mantra with the National Association of Realtors is
  “real estate property only goes up. They say: “I offer an ad inside the paper and I’m going to don it Craigslist.

  (FSBO response) Would you have time to meet tomorrow afternoon or evening.

  That means you’ve got an advantage on them by simply virtue of living and investing where you are.

• 59. May: A Month for Marriage&hellip  |  May 3, 2014 at 3:02 am

  […] the 6th Circuit a stay pending appeal has been issued on a Texas district court’s ruling to strike down the state ban on gay marriage. The court has said the […]