Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Decision in one challenge to Arkansas same-sex marriage ban is expected by May 9

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Arkansas state sealThe judge overseeing a state court case challenging the Arkansas constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has notified the parties that he will issue a ruling “no later than Friday, May 9th.”

The case was argued on April 17, and at that time, the judge had said he would rule within two weeks. The new letter notes that he will take an additional week to review the case materials.

Although the case was brought in state court, it raises federal claims, alleging that the state constitutional amendment violates the federal Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

The case is Wright v. Arkansas.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. Rik  |  May 2, 2014 at 10:33 am

    Do we know anything about this judge?

  • 2. sam  |  May 2, 2014 at 10:42 am

    Well he has form in our favour,

    read some of those quotes and guess how he'll view this case…

  • 3. Cherylg43  |  May 2, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    Rik, I looked up the judge.
    He's likely a bit busy — running for re-election on May 20.

    Judge Chris C. Piazza, Arkansas Sixth Circuit judge since 1990, democrat.
    Elected 1990. Term expires 2014.
    Running for re-election to his 2nd term, on 5/20/14 – unapposed
    – despite ruling for equality in that 2010 adoption case.

    In his 2010 decision, Piazza wrote,
    “ Due process and equal protection are not hollow words without substance. They are rights enumerated in our constitution that must not be construed in such a way as to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. ”

    Supporters of Initiative 1 vowed to appeal the decision to the Ark. Supreme Court.
    Was that ever appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court?

  • 4. Ragavendran  |  May 2, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    The ruling was upheld unanimously by the Arkansas Supreme Court on April 7, 2011.

  • 5. Rik  |  May 2, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    I wonder how his running for reelection will color his judgement. If he plans to rule in our favor, it may have been to his advantage to postpone two more weeks…

  • 6. Mike in Baltimore  |  May 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Since he is running unopposed, his decision on this case probably won't matter much.

    Besides, even a two week delay in announcing his decision would still put the announcement before the election – instead of May 2, then May 9, the decision would still have been, with a 2 week delay, announced on May 16. Is the election to be held on May 20?

  • 7. Angela  |  May 8, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    This judge in Arkansas is the same judge that ruled the ban on "cohabitating" unmarried couples from adopting and fostering. A ban to stop LGBT individuals from adopting or fostering.

  • 8. Ragavendran  |  May 2, 2014 at 11:20 am

    An initial report on how the hearing on preliminary injunction and summary judgment went this morning in Judge Young's Evansville courtroom in Indiana (Baskin v. Bogan):

  • 9. KarlS  |  May 2, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    I'm confused, does Judge Young have something to do with this case?

  • 10. Ragavendran  |  May 2, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Oh, this is the Indiana case, not the Arkansas one. I admit my comment was off-topic. Judge Young heard arguments this morning in the Baskin case.

  • 11. Rik  |  May 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    wow so two decisions next week.. awesome. Thanks for sharing!

  • 12. Keith  |  May 2, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Maggie Gallagher throws in the towel she finally sees the writing on the wall….

  • 13. davep  |  May 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Wow, there is some really revealing (and bizarre) stuff in her comments. Like when she mentions Chuck Cooper helping to plan and host the wedding of his stepdaughter, an event which Cooper himself describes in a very positive manner, Maggie refers to this as a "family crises". Sheesh. And then there is her reference to "the Love problem", a very bizarre turn of phrase.

    And of course her mandatory repetition of the logically invalid bumper sticker meme: "marriage is between a man and a woman because kids need a mother and a father". Allow me to unscramble that for you, Maggie:

    Marriage is most often between a man and a woman, except when it's between two people of the same sex. And anyone who is parenting a child, whether they are single or married, and whether that marriage is same or opposite sex, ought to take their parenting responsibilities seriously because kids need parents, and the state ought not needlessly make their parenting roles more difficult with discriminatory laws that deny important protections for their families.

    The days when her vindictive and harmful rhetoric actually had any power have ended. She is now reduced to just another anti-gay internet ranter.

  • 14. Eric  |  May 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Maggie wouldn't sound like a fornicating hypocrite, if she were married to the father of her children.

  • 15. ebohlman  |  May 2, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    The father of her first child ran out on her when he learned she was pregnant. That appears to have completely warped her views about marriage; she had a very legitimate complaint against him and against all men who do the same thing, but somehow she's taking it out on same-sex couples instead.

    She's currently married, but she acts as if she's ashamed of it and one has to speculate that it has something to do with her husband's last name being Srivastav, which might not impress the kinds of people she's been trying to impress. I think we'll know she's truly given up the fight when she starts publicly acting proud of her own marriage.

  • 16. Steve  |  May 3, 2014 at 7:35 am

    Or they are separated but either stay married for the sake of the children or because as a Catholic fanatic she considers divorce a grave sin.

    As for her first boyfriend. Running away was the best decision he ever made.

  • 17. Dr. Z  |  May 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    Maggie Gallagher got her start in politics as a columnist for the Portland Oregonian. She was under the patronage of David Reinhardt, the resident Neanderthal of the editorial staff. Reinhardt was fond of giving lots of gushing free press to "ex-gay" poster boys. After Maggie started her column she got nailed for taking kickbacks to promote policies of the Bush II administration. After that episode she needed to find another meal ticket because she could no longer plausibly pass as a "journalist" even in quotes. The timing of the 2004 Dubya reelection campaign and founding of NOM worked out well for her because she was able to manipulate her Bush admin rolodex and land herself on the board of an organization that provided her with a nice steady meal ticket for a while. But when the funding well started for NOM started running dry she turned it over to true-believer Brown. Since then she's been playing a coy game of now-you-see-it, now-you-don't distancing herself from NOM so as not too get too typecast as a SSM foe, all the while keeping up her Republican bona fides so that she's employable no matter which way the winds blow in the future.

    She's a con artist. She has no core convictions except getting paid. This has just been a meal ticket for her.

  • 18. Zack12  |  May 3, 2014 at 11:10 pm

    Indeed she is and I don't get why so many blogs seem to think she is throwing in the towel or is changing her tune.
    She is just as bigoted as she's ever been.
    But as you said, she's a con artist. And con artists are good at fooling people, even those who should know better.

  • 19. Dr. Z  |  May 2, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    Only the deeply cynical are completely free of hypocracy. That's because they believe in nothing but their own self-interest.

  • 20. Lymis  |  May 3, 2014 at 4:26 am

    I think believing that any towels are being thrown anywhere is missing the point.

    None of these people ever thought they'd "win." Even if it's possible to believe that someone somewhere thought this was a winnable issue, Maggie and Brian clearly never did – their entire structure and all their tactics have never been about actual wins, and certainly never about any arguments anyone could actually believe.

    Maggie bailed on NOM a couple of years ago to start a new organization to raise money to fight non-discrimination laws under the cover of "religious discrimination" and "protecting religious liberties."

    That wasn't going to be a really easy sell until it was clear that there would be such lawsuits. As long as NOM was convincing people that anti-gay victory was inevitable, there wouldn't be much money in gearing up to fight when they lost.

    This is, purely and simply a ploy. They know that even the most naive are about to realize that marriage equality is going to happen – and coupled with the end of DADT, fighting to put gays down isn't going to be a money maker. Fighting to keep uppity gays from victimizing poor defenseless straight (usually Christian) victims, however, is something they can ride for at least another decade.

    And their funding sources have never cared about the issues. They just want a wedge issue to keep the donors and voters coming, and to keep them distracted from what they're really doing. "Who cares if they're sending all our jobs overseas, slashing our civil liberties, controlling our reproductive rights, cutting our pay, and stripping away unions, they are the only thing protecting Christianity from complete destruction!"

    No towels are being thrown. Maggie is just gearing up for the next phase of their money grab. Don't buy it for a minute. She just gave it a new coat of paint, but it's the same story it ever was.

  • 21. KarlS  |  May 2, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    I have to say, I never really trusted the person this clip is about…the person always made me doubt its sincerity in many ways and I continue to think that.

  • 22. Thomas  |  May 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    You actually trust some politicians, believe they are sincere and always say what they really think? I don't, but i am still able to support those who I believe will do the job in a satisfactory manner.

  • 23. Thomas  |  May 2, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    You actually trust some politicians, believe they are sincere and always say what they really think? I don't, but i am still able to support those who I believe will do the job in a satisfactory manner.

  • 24. Rakihi  |  May 2, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Given that the quote is from January 2000, a time before "civil unions" even existed, I think the whole exercise is more than a tad bit misleading.

    How many national figures were on record as being supportive of marriage equality at the time? I can't think of a single one.

  • 25. davep  |  May 2, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    Indeed. Personally, I don't have a problem with any politician changing their position from opposing our marriage rights in 2000 to supporting them in 2014. I don't think it would be very reasonable to consider that as 'hypocritical'.

  • 26. Jesse  |  May 4, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Nancy Pelosi is about as close to a national figure I can figure but I believe she was one of few members of Congress who voted against DOMA.

  • 27. Sean from NJ  |  May 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Oregon AG filed a brief yesterday asking that NOM's intervention be denied:

  • 28. Sagesse  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:18 am

    Read the brief itself. The language is much more powerful and persuasive than the summary in the article can be. It is not long, and is a treat to read.

  • 29. Eric Koszyk  |  May 3, 2014 at 7:39 am

    I love this part from page 5:

    Anyone with an interest in same-sex marriage knew or should have known of the state defendants’ position on February 20.And in fact NOM did know, because it issued a press statement the same day in response to the Attorney General’s announcement. In it, Mr. Brown said that “Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty,” and said that “[Attorney General] Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her conclusion that the amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments.” (
    Potter Dec., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) His statements were reported in the press the same day. (
    Potter Dec., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) NOM knew the position the state defendants would assert in the litigation two months prior to filing its motion to intervene, but waited until just 38 hours before the summary judgment argument to submit a lengthy memorandum of law in support of intervention

  • 30. KarlS  |  May 3, 2014 at 8:46 am

    The poobahs at NOM are either too stupid to realize their lies will be exposed or too arrogant to care. It would actually be funny if it weren't so goddamn pathetic.

  • 31. Zack12  |  May 4, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    I'd go with the latter. No judge is going to allow someone to come in at the last minute like this.
    It would gum up the courts.
    I imagine on May 14th, the judge will give this the consideration it deserves and throw the request in the trash.

  • 32. bayareajohn  |  May 4, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    If NOM wanted to be heard, they would have filed long ago. They want to be denied, for their losing arguments NOT to be heard. They gain more anger in their base to point to how the evil forces silence their holy call…and can't even dare to let them be heard… such is the martyr/victimization strategy of those who already know they are losing.

  • 33. grod  |  May 5, 2014 at 3:23 am

    John – time and again NOM have used the courts or quasi-judicial bodies as a means to grab newsworthiness and to appeal to their base – i.e. Maine's Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. In their eyes, being engage in legal processes lends credibility but is an abuse of process, as it is in this case as the AG's filing: Brown has sworn that he only learns of the AG's position in March. "That isn't true…. NOM publically criticized it on February 20th" p 5. Have they ever won?

  • 34. Dr. Z  |  May 5, 2014 at 6:38 am

    I don't see how the judge can grant the request. The timeliness of the request must be determined before its merits may be considered.

  • 35. Eric Koszyk  |  May 3, 2014 at 5:48 am

    Why did you post this conservative drivel here?

    I go to GMU as a grad student. I wish they would have interviewed me; I would have called them on their bullshit.

    This is totally misleading. A great deal of people have changed their position on marriage equality from 2000 until today. I doubt they told people that she had said it way back in 2000. A time when George W. Bush was pushing for a national constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, even from states who decided to have it.

    The important thing is that she now supports the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to get married to the person they love. The 2016 GOP nominee won't.

    I hope they try to use this tactic against her if she runs in 2016. They're gonna lose.

  • 36. Ragavendran  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:14 am

    Whoa – I didn't intend any offence towards anyone. People are free to post their comments in this blog. (Take a look at TKinSC who is having a field day in another thread.) It is a video related to marriage equality that had (in my opinion) interesting reactions from students of GMU. That is all. I perfectly agree with your comments, as do a few others who replied to the video post.

  • 37. Eric Koszyk  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:24 am

    Okay, I understand that and I appreciate all you have done for us. I still think that the creators of this video are so misleading that it probably is not worth consideration, although that is my opinion.

    They probably asked leading questions to begin with, to find students who are passionate about the issue of marriage equality. And they didn't tell people the quote was from 2000, which would be a huge difference than say if it was from 2008 or 2009 or 2011 even. The one guy in the purple polo shirt nails it — he says something about it probably being a quote from a "Democrat from ten years ago".

    He knew they were fishing.

    By the way, I think people should ignore TKinSC who is just a troll. I also flagged him for whomever moderates this blog although it seems that no one ever takes action on such things.

    Anyway, I appreciate your response. Thanks.

  • 38. Ragavendran  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:37 am

    You're welcome, Eric. Spot on. I actually got to this video through this article.

    And for what its worth, Hillary aside, whether the video expressly went hunting for marriage equality supporters or not, I felt a lot of support and encouragement by watching the students in the video. True, it has been a while since I came out and accepted myself, but I'll still gladly accept every bit of positive and supportive energy that comes my way. I need it to offset what people like TKinSC throw out.

  • 39. Eric Koszyk  |  May 3, 2014 at 5:55 am

    By the way they also have a video clip where they interview people who have been conceived thru rape and they argue that abortion should be outlawed in all cases, including rape.

    Not really a "media" organization I would want to utilize to make my point. Just saying.

  • 40. Ragavendran  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:15 am

    Right, I was making no point other than the fact that I found the GMU students' reactions interesting.

  • 41. Reformed  |  May 3, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Actually, Maggie,

    If you were not always fanning the flames of discord, you wouldn't even be having to think along the lines of religious liberty. It is your side that has ALWAYS been the aggressor seeking eliminate the other side, and, failing that, to marginalize them in (your) society and silence them in the public square. What of your coffee and cherrios boycott if not to try to intimidate and silence. Why not just participate in life and try to stay out of trouble, or doesn't that pay enough?

  • 42. sam  |  May 3, 2014 at 11:54 am

    Interesting, the AG supports SSM…

  • 43. davep  |  May 3, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Wow, that has to be some kind of convoluted thinking going on in his head. He says "I want to tell you I do support marriage equality and I do believe Arkansans should have the right to be equal in the eyes of the law", and "It's become more and more difficult for me to accept the idea of anyone being treated as a second class citizen"

    …. but then says "I'm going to zealously defend our constitution, but at the same time I think it's important to let people where I stand on the matter" and "I'm determined to live up to my obligation, and that includes with regard to our state's definition of marriage"..

    Uuuuh…. nobody is asking him to decide whether to defend the ban based on his personal PREFERENCE about same sex marriage. He is required to decide whether to defend it or not based on his conclusion as the Attorney General about whether the ban complies with the federal Constitution.

    What the heck?

  • 44. Zack12  |  May 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Roy Cooper of N.C. is doing the same thing.

  • 45. davep  |  May 3, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    That's frikken weird. It's not as if they are saying "I have concluded that the ban IS constitutional but I think we ought to let them marry anyway". These guys are saying things that clearly reveal that their reasons for opposing the ban are precisely BECAUSE it violate principles of our federal Constitution. And yet they choose to defend it..? On what basis could they be justifying that?

  • 46. Zack12  |  May 3, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    It's all political for Roy Cooper.
    He hopes that by defending the ban, he will take away a weapon McCory could use against him.
    Here's the thing, you don't win in a Red State by being Republican lite. Between the Democrat and the Republican, the Republican will win almost every time, period.
    All Cooper is doing is driving away Democrats.

  • 47. Thomas  |  May 4, 2014 at 8:10 am

    If he defends the ban, using all the arguments that have failed in every other case, and loses, as he probably will, then isn't he in a position to decide to appeal or ask for a stay or not? At which point he could say that the court has decided the case correctly and not appeal or ask for a stay. My point is that playing good lawyer and making your clients case gives you some power to affect the course of the case when it is lost. If you say you will not defend the ban, someone else will and you have no say in any further actions. In my state of PA the attorney general left the matter in the hands of the governor, whose entire tactic is to delay a decision on the merits, where he would probably lose. Had the attorney general not taken herself out of the picture, she could have taken the principled stand that the commonwealth deserved a decision on the merits of this important matter and tried to get it through the courts in a timely fashion. I don't know how the attorneys general who are defending their state bans in court will act, but I do think that not defending the bans is not the only principled tactic.

  • 48. thomas  |  May 4, 2014 at 8:13 am

    My last sentence has too many "not"s. Can one edit a comment after posting?

  • 49. bayareajohn  |  May 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    If you register with INTENSE DEBATE, you can indeed edit your posts… until someone replies, then it is locked. Even then, you can still delete your post, but it will show that there was a post,deleted by you, it will not just vanish.

  • 50. Stefan  |  May 4, 2014 at 10:28 am

    The powerful brief submitted to the PA Supreme Court by the couples married by the clerk brings up the issue of the merits, and why they should (and likely will) strike down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

  • 51. Thomas  |  May 4, 2014 at 11:44 am

    That is great and I hope the case is decided soon. My beef with the PA attorney general is that it should have happened sooner, and might have, if she had stayed involved. I don't think she ever gave it more thought than that copying the CA AG's action would boost her political appeal.

  • 52. Craig  |  May 5, 2014 at 4:24 am

    It's tricky. There are advantages to prosecuting the case and then having some leeway to accept a district ruling and not appeal – very advantageous for us given the tendency to stay rulings that we have seen. Psychologically I think it's very difficult, even harder since Windsor.

    If one is not homophobic one cannot buy into the Regnerus nonsense. That more or less leaves you with Baker and federalism (which you probably don't believe in either).

    It gets to the point where it is close to impossible to make a case unless one says things one knows not to be true.

    I am not a lawyer but if I were I could defend a murderer because the system is adversarial and a citizen accused has the right to mount a defense, however improbable – it's part of a system that guarantees (or seeks to) a fair trial and there would be many more injustices if the accused are not able to effectively defend themselves.

    In civil matters likewise people and organisations have the right to representation.

    Where a law is believed to be unconstitutional different issues arise. The AG will have sworn to uphold the US Constitution and little good is to be gained defending it past this point, especially where another party is able, as in PA, to run the defense.

    The point I would make is that we are not only winning in a lot of courts (which is gratifying) but in case after case after case it is getting to be very difficult to articulate a case against us that goes beyond Regnerus and Baker. Post Windsor it's getting to be genuinely difficult and that is the reason so many Democrat AGs are declining to defend the law – they simply don't have the material to be able to do so without either lying or deliberately botching the case.

  • 53. Thomas  |  May 5, 2014 at 5:46 am

    Maybe my impatience is skewing my judgement, post Windsor I have no patience. Although I don't find making the arguments for the ban that can be made in court and getting a decision to be unprincipled or not upholding the constitution. I do consider the state's legal strategy of trying to avoid a decision on the merits unprincipled. I have no reason to believe that the state's lawyers believe their case is really viable. I simply think they realize that the decision by judge Jones will be stayed on appeal and nothing will happen until the SCOTUS rules. On the state cases they are doing nothing to speed things up.

  • 54. Dr. Z  |  May 5, 2014 at 6:36 am

    I think the US AG in Windsor, and Oregon's AG in the current mini-DOMA case have got it right: the AG should continue to enforce the law but not defend it; and remain as a party to the dispute to preserve standing, but allow the opportunity for a third party (e.g. ADF) to mount a defense. What I can't quite understand is why ADF didn't intervene in Oregon, and NOM only did so at the eleventh hour. What did they want the Oregon AG to do, send them a scented engraved invitation?

  • 55. Zack12  |  May 5, 2014 at 6:44 am

    That is my biggest question as well. As the AG noted, her office made it clear back in February she wouldn't be defending the ban and there is no way NOM can claim they didn't know because Brian Brown put out a money bag grab condemning that move.
    And from what we've seen in other places the ADF has been, fighting a losing battle has never stopped them before, why ignore OR?
    I think if they had tried to jump in back then, the judge very well would have granted them the request.
    But at the last hour, not going to happen.

  • 56. grod  |  May 5, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Stefan: Is [ Deb and Susan] Whitewood v Wolf the PA case? If so their brief filed April 22 is here:… ; their motion for summary judgment is her:e… and summary of facts here:

  • 57. Tim  |  May 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    I thought the governor of PA also wants a summary judgment in the Whitewood case (in Jones' court). That doesn't seem like a delay tactic to me (at least any longer if he was trying to delay it before). Neither side is disputing the facts.

  • 58. Stefan  |  May 4, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    It also could be an indicator that Corbett may drop the defense altogether. He's down in the polls for November and could use this to his advantage.

  • 59. Thomas  |  May 4, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    I don't see how. The true believers will want him to fight to the end and most ME advocates will not vote for him just because he gives up at the last moment.

  • 60. Zack12  |  May 4, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    Indeed… and the base on the right will be angry with him if he doesn't defend the ban and might not decide to show up.

  • 61. Stefan  |  May 5, 2014 at 4:05 am

    Extremists on either side rarely end up actually doing that, no matter how much they threaten too.

  • 62. Thomas  |  May 4, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    A lot has happened since the Bruce Hanes case, where the state successfully avoided a decision on the merits. Maybe they have given up as court after court has shot down all their arguments. If they don't ask for a stay to appeal the expected decision from judge Jones, then I will believe delay is no longer their goal.

  • 63. Mike in Baltimore  |  May 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    What amuses me the most about all the AGs who say they are going to defend the state law/constitutional amendment (even if they don't agree or not) is that the oath of office they take (to be an attorney OR the state AG) almost always says that they will ALSO defend the US Constitution.

    And even if the oath they take doesn't contain the phrase about defending the US Constitution, I believe Article VI, Section 2, of the US Constitution pretty much states it.

  • 64. Steve  |  May 4, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    They always violate the constitution by consistently placing state law above it.

  • 65. TKinSC  |  May 6, 2014 at 1:38 am

    Defending the Constitution means complying with what courts say the Constitution requires. It doesn't mean abandoning your duty as a state AG to defend a state law against a federal constitutional attack, simply because you think that the state should lose. The AG's job is to make the best case he can. If the case is truly a lost cause (because the Constitution or a Supreme Court decision explicitly and directly answers the question presented) then the AG can ethically decide not to waste state resources on its defense. However, the AG certainly may not use the resources of his client to help make the case for the other side; not only is that a grave ethical violation, it also calls into question the objectivity of the decision not to defend in the first place.

  • 66. Ragavendran  |  May 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    SD News:

  • 67. Tyler O.  |  May 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Any updates on the Idaho case? I think there was a hearing last week.

  • 68. Ragavendran  |  May 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    The hearing is on Monday, May 5.

  • 69. Tyler O.  |  May 3, 2014 at 9:36 pm


  • 70. DaveM  |  May 6, 2014 at 5:49 am

    Hearing yesterday; press reports here:

    No timeline set for ruling, other than "relatively near future."

  • 71. Margo Schulter  |  May 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    The Oregon AG’s brief against NOM’s attempted intervention is great! Especially impressive is the section at pp. 8-10 where AG Rosenblum cites Oregon law on recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, and on adoptive parents being seen by the law the same as biological parents, as contradicting NOM’s standard marriage ban arguments — followed by a reminder that under Hollingsworth v. Perry, NOM simply doesn’t have Article III standing!

    The Attorney General’s vindication of real Oregon law, often diametrically opposed to the arguments of NOM, is really one high point of this filing — well worth reading in full!

  • 72. Ragavendran  |  May 4, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    This is weird:

  • 73. Big Rick  |  May 4, 2014 at 11:59 pm

    Sad. He may be a conflicted person, ashamed and in denial of who he is. Or just a political opportunist.

  • 74. Mike in Baltimore  |  May 5, 2014 at 1:39 am

    My guess would be a political opportunist, and only that.

  • 75. Steve  |  May 5, 2014 at 7:24 am

    He can be both.

    Also a religious nut who thinks marriage belongs to the churches and that government involvement is unconstitutional. He's just stupid and uneducated.

  • 76. AndyInCA  |  May 5, 2014 at 8:34 am

    Got a good laugh out of that this weekend. He's not only a back-stabbing opportunist, he's just plain dumb. Did he really think he could run on an anti-gay platform after being a local drag personality??? "Don't forget to tip the girls on stage, and buy raffle tickets!!!"

  • 77. JayJonson  |  May 5, 2014 at 6:32 am

    A judge in Missouri has granted a divorce to a same-sex couple despite the state's constitutional ban on recognizing same-sex marriage:

  • 78. howtolastlongerinbed8  |  May 8, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    How to Last Longer in Bed
    Blogger’s brilliant Efforts are really appreciable. Anyone can easily understand the thoughts. Also I like the conclusions made on this topic which is really very informative.

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