Equality On TrialNevada marriage equality case to be argued at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September

Nevada marriage equality case to be argued at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September

May 23, 2014

By Scottie Thomaston

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal’s challenge to Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban, to be placed on their argument calendar. The case will be argued some time in September, though the order doesn’t specify an exact date.

Last night, the plaintiffs filed a request with the appeals court to schedule their case no later than a separate challenge to Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban. The Nevada case has been on appeal in the Ninth Circuit since December 2012, while the Idaho appeal was only docketed a couple of weeks ago.

The Idaho case, Latta v. Otter, will be argued the week of September 8.

It’s unclear why the Nevada case hasn’t been argued yet, since briefing has been completed for awhile. The state initially defended the ban, but they subsequently changed their position and withdrew their brief.

The plaintiffs, same-sex couples, lost their case in district court on November 26, 2012. Judge Robert C. Jones, a nominee of President George W. Bush, upheld the ban.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings

For more information on Sevcik v. Sandoval from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.

Buzz about Tenth Circuit decisions today in... A message from the EqualityOnTrial regarding site...

30501228 Comments2014-05-24+00%3A25%3A18Scottie+Thomaston

1. TKinSC | May 23, 2014 at 5:36 pm

Ridiculous delay.
2. Matt227 | May 23, 2014 at 5:37 pm

It's clear to me why. Someone on the inside wanted to sabotage this case, which will not be appealed, so another case that will be appealed could be heard first. When Latta v. Otter was docketed, then Molly Dwyer decided to finally let Sevcik be docketed too.
3. Tony | May 24, 2014 at 3:17 am

Remember also, that Kennedy is THE justice that covers the 9th circuit. When a ruling comes down, the loosing party will file an appeal to SCOTUS. If it's an emergency appeal, say from the state, the appeal goes directly to Kennedy to deny or affirm. He does not want to tip his hand via an emergency appeal before a case is heard by SCOTUS, and he's no doubt made the 9th aware of this.
4. Matt227 | May 25, 2014 at 5:39 am

Kennedy tipped his hand in Windsor, and every other abuse of government power against LGBTs.
5. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 9:05 am

Like it was diluted when them thar coloreds started marryin' white people!
6. Marnie | May 25, 2014 at 11:17 pm

It is absurdly a-historic: Pocahontas married John Rolfe in 1614. The Constitution wasn’t ratified until 1789. The Bill of Rights wasn’t included in the Constitution until 1791. The 14th Amendment didn’t become a part of the Constitution until 1868.* To draw the obvious connection here, even if marriages could be declared unconstitutional (they can’t, see No. 1), there was no Constitution in 1614 and wouldn’t be for another 175 years. Add on that the basis of these same-sex marriage cases is the 14th Amendment, and the relevant constitutional provision regarding the constitutionality of marriage didn’t even exist until 254 years after Pocahontas’ nuptials.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/j…
7. Retired_Lawyer | May 23, 2014 at 5:42 pm

It is simply appalling that Sevcik v. Sandoval will not be heard until September. That this has been described by the 9th Circuit as expedited calendaring invites derision.
8. Mike in Baltimore | May 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm

Agree.

Something tells me that SCOTUS, either publically or privately, will also tell the 9th that expedited does NOT mean an almost 2 year delay between docketing and hearing.

An early indication that SCOTUS has spoken
9. Mike in Baltimore | May 23, 2014 at 6:46 pm

(Continuing – #%$# laptop!)

(An early indication that SCOTUS has spoken) to the 9th will be the time between the hearing and the ruling.
10. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 5:42 pm

"further expedite"? That's ridiculous! They're acting like they've just granted a rarest of rare motions to double-expedite a case. Shame on the Ninth Circuit.
11. Scottie Thomaston | May 23, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Haha I didn't even catch that. That is AMAZING. Wow.
12. Bruno71 | May 23, 2014 at 6:11 pm

I wonder if they're trying to push this case out as far as possible, so it wouldn't appear before SCOTUS next year?
13. Matt227 | May 23, 2014 at 6:16 pm

This case isn't going to SCOTUS; that's the whole point. There is no one with standing who will appeal.
14. Scottie Thomaston | May 23, 2014 at 6:19 pm

I don't agree. This case is like Windsor. The state agrees the ban is unconstitutional and they're not presenting arguments defending it, but they're still in the case. If the plaintiffs win in the Ninth Circuit and the state wants to petition SCOTUS for review, it would be similar to what the Justice Department did in Windsor.
15. Bruno71 | May 23, 2014 at 7:42 pm

I thought I read somewhere that the Nevada state officials are required by law to defend state laws in court. Is that true?
16. Matt227 | May 24, 2014 at 6:10 am

Well they aren't now. This was a big deal a few months ago. We forced the AG to stop defending the ban.
17. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 7:19 am

They also are sworn to uphold the federal constitution, a point which is often overlooked.
18. Bruno71 | May 24, 2014 at 12:29 pm

What I read was (and I think this may have been on JMG comments so take with a grain of salt) that there's actually a specific law in Nevada that says the AG has to provide a defense for the law, even if they disagree with it or find it unconstitutional. That obviously doesn't seem to be the case, or at least the AG's defense doesn't have to be robust.
19. StraightDave | May 24, 2014 at 7:04 am

In Windsor, the presence of BLAG seemed to tipped the scales. While their status as a party was never made perfectly clear (at least to me) SCOTUS did seem to give them some weight, if for no other reason than to provide strong arguments on the other side.
The only other "participant" in Sevcik is the initiative proponents who are clearly DOA.

And I can't imagine for a second why NV would want to appeal. They're done! They don't have the DOJ perspective of wanting a national ruling. Not the same kind of situation at all.
20. Warren | May 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm

I think the group that put the ban on the ballot has legal standing in NV?
21. Stefan | May 25, 2014 at 1:43 am

Not in federal court though.
22. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 6:54 am

DEAN WORMER: "I'm putting Delta House on probation."

MARMALARDE: "Sir, Delta House is already on probation."

DEAN WORMER: "They are? Then as of this moment they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!"
23. Mr. E | May 23, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Does anybody know if the 9th FINALLY decided whether to rehear SmithKline or not? I hope not b/c it would make striking down the bans much easier 🙂
24. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 5:44 pm

No news today. (Nothing so far on PACER.) Maybe next week.
25. Kevin | May 23, 2014 at 7:43 pm

The en banc process can be painstakingly long. Looking at their current docket, there are cases that languished for six months or more before en banc orders were issued. I am doubtful that the call coming sua sponte from a judge makes much difference too. Pacific Shores Properties v. Newport Beach was decided on September 20, 2013, a sua sponte call made, and an order denying en banc review not issued until March 4, 2014. The circuit is also dealing with Michelle Friedland's recent confirmation and the seating of John Owens, so getting them situated and up to speed may slow the process as well. I think it is anybody's guess.
26. Ragavendran | May 24, 2014 at 7:10 am

Wow, more than four months in that case between filing of supplemental briefs and decision. When it finally came down, it had a lengthy (13-page) dissent by O’SCANNLAIN.

And oh, here is Rule 5.1(b)(2) which I'd overlooked:

"The en banc coordinator shall supervise the en banc process, including time schedules provided in this chapter; shall circulate periodic reports on the status of each case under en banc consideration; may, for good cause, extend, suspend, or compress the time schedules provided in this Chapter; may designate another judge to perform all or part of the en banc coordinator's duties during the coordinator's absence; may suggest, for any particular case, a modification or suspension of the provisions of this chapter; and may for good cause suspend en banc proceedings."

This is a lot of power to the en banc coordinator to essentially, if there exists "good cause", delay the voting and release of the final order as long as they want to. What are the chances that O’SCANNLAIN is our en banc coordinator here? I'm not holding my breath.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rul…
27. Matt | May 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm

If I recall, the appealing party isn't contesting the aspect of the ruling that deals with level of scrutiny. Assuming that's still the case, a rehearing of SmithKline shouldn't have much impact on marriage equality rulings.
28. AndyInCA | May 23, 2014 at 6:19 pm

The Ninth is spooked about doing any ME related rulings, after what happened in the Prop 8 case. They don't want to be the ones in the spotlight again. That's my guess.
29. Barf | May 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm

Who farted?
30. JustMe | May 23, 2014 at 7:56 pm

I have had terrible gas all week with occasional bouts of projectile diarrhea causing accidents. I believe it's due to all these marriage equality rulings. I don't know if my side is going to win.
31. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 7:02 am

Hey Scotty, the regulars to this site have discussed the trolling situation and we reiterate our offer to moderaye. Please consider delegating the moderator responsibility to some of the EoT regulars. Here is a draft set of guidelines we have developed to deal with trolls.

What is trolling?
1. Engaging in behavior that is deliberately disruptive.
2. Consistently employing language that is demeaning to LGBT persons. This includes using scare quotes as in gay "marriage."
3. Arguing that ME is bad, as opposed to arguing whether DOMA laws are constitutional.
4. Engaging in sophistry.

What is not trolling?
1. Arguing that DOMA laws are constitutional – this should be permitted provided such arguments are grounded in legal case law, and that the poster engages in debate with pro-SSM legal arguments. A person like SHOETHROWER who throws out legal justifications against SSM but refuses to debate opposing points of view is a troll.
2. Personal disagreements and legitimate differences in perspective.
3. Flaming. Flaming is strongly discouraged but it is NOT trolling unless the intent is to demean LGBT persons.
32. Matt227 | May 23, 2014 at 6:24 pm

There was something about this case in particular. The lack of defendants. There is a reason Latta v. Otter was set first.
33. TKinSC | May 23, 2014 at 6:38 pm

So Sevcik gets to get tangled up with another case like it did with HI – and possibly have it's fate tied to it. Also, if it's heard in September, wouldn't surprise me if there's no decision on it in 2014.

I don't think the Plaintiffs should have suggested Sept would work for them – just that they wanted it heard before Latta. Or is the 9th off in the summer? I think the 9th was like "Fine, we'll schedule you with them then!".
34. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 7:13 pm

They're not off in the summer. Despite their calendars looking full for the summer months, I'm sure they could have squeezed in Sevcik if they wanted to:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/
I don't know if they want Latta and Sevcik to be heard by the same panel.
35. TKinSC | May 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm

I'm wondering if they're scheduling for Sept, because that is the latest they see it being heard, but if SmithKline finishes before then, they have the option to hear sooner since the appellants are requesting that. Under promise and over deliver? That's an optimistic take on it.

I'd love to get Jon Davidson from Lambda's take on it.
36. Christian0811 | May 23, 2014 at 6:38 pm

Any idea as to when the 9th might issue a mandate regarding the status of the level of scrutiny required when examining cases regarding sexual orientation? Any such mandate would certainly affect 'Sevik' on appeal.
37. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 7:08 pm

Here's the thing. Latta and Sevcik share Monte Neil Stewart as well (no pun intended). I hope there are no calendaring clashes in September that could further delay Sevcik!
38. Matt227 | May 24, 2014 at 6:13 am

I smell a conspiracy.
39. M.- | May 23, 2014 at 7:29 pm

So, with this hearing dates, there's no doubt that the 5th or the 10th Circuit will rule before the 9th on the same-sex marriage issue.
What's blowing my mind at the moment is not knowing WHY are the 9th C. judges delaying this THAT much… Do they want to finish with SmithKline before taking marriage equality cases? Do they want another Appeals Court to issue an opinion first? Do they want to hear a no-standing problems case before Sevick? Do they want more District Courts rulings? Or are they just lazy lads?
Anyway, what disappoints me the most is not having news regarding the SmithKline case. C'mon, get over it!
40. M.- | May 23, 2014 at 7:33 pm

Oh, BTW, I need some help please: Do we know what are the Judges that will hear Sevick and Latta?

M.- (not the James Bond one! hah)
41. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 7:49 pm

No. The Ninth, like the Fourth, I believe, announces its merits panel on the Monday of the week preceding oral argument.
42. TKinSC | May 23, 2014 at 7:58 pm

I think it's the 10th not the 4th. The 4th announces day of.
43. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 7:59 pm

Yeah. My bad. I was just gonna edit it and you beat me 🙂
44. M.- | May 23, 2014 at 8:27 pm

Thanks to u both guys! Good luck there!! ..Here in Europe we're having the elections at the moment… Sadly, the far right is rising everywhere but well, we still got some hopes. We'll see on Sunday. Anyway, the European Parliament has always been more pro-equality, the problem is the Comission, which es faaar more conservative. Regarding marriage equality our eyes are upon Luxembourg and Finland now.
45. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 12:11 am

Yes, we should finally get Luxembourg by this summer (the fact that the new prime minister is openly gay helped speed up the process!)
And Finland is hold hearing in parliament, which will hopefully bring marriage equality in a matter of a few months, thereby completing the last piece of Nordic countries.
Also Greenland (this Danish territory did not have marriage equality so far) should become equal by July 1st, 2014.
And Ireland is due to organize a referendum in the first half of 2015 (which public opinion overwhelmingly supportive).
There might finally be some action in Switzerland in the next year or two. The situation here is interesting. One political party submitted a ballot proposal to remove some unfairness in the Swiss fiscal system regarding marriage (right now, stupidly, married couples pay more taxes than if they were single and would file their taxes separately) but they also, amazingly, managed to include a little line in their text to stipulate that, by the way, marriage is between a man and a woman only. Surprisingly, the government approved the text of the referendum, which should be submitted to the voters shortly. This measure to fix the tax code is very popular and would probably pass easily, since voters might overlook that it would SIMULTANEOUSLY enshrine opposite-sex in the constitution. To counter this, the Green Liberal Party introduced a bill to make same-sex marriage legal. It will be interesting to see what happens to these 2 initiatives. A recent poll put public support for same-same marriage at 63%.
46. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 2:28 am

Great to finally get some news from Europe!

The news I heard about Finland a couple of weeks ago was pessimistic, which was puzzling to me. I hope Finland finally joins the rest of the Nordic countries this summer.

I was looking at Greenland on the Wikipedia map a couple of weeks ago, and thinking why it wasn't dark blue like Denmark? It would add such a large splash of blue. It seemed like a missed opportunity.

Also a missed opportunity for a number of European dependencies in the Caribbean; it would be good marriage and cruise ship tourism for them.

Please keep us up-to-date on SSM in Europe. No one has been doing that here, and it extremely difficult to find information in English online.

There really should be somebody covering this online in English.
47. M.- | May 24, 2014 at 3:11 am

Hi FYoung;
I totally agree with you about Finland. I was particularly disappointed when I knew that the new same-sex marriage bill (entered as a citizens' initiative after a first failed attempt) was sent to the same Committee that previously rejected it. If I'm no wrong, that Committee hasn't change any of its members yet so it's actually bad news, but on the other hand, this time we have a lot of signatures on our side, it will be hard for them to just skip the issue (the problem is the President of that Com.).

Regarding Greenlands, Pat was right: about 1st July marriage equality should be the law of the land. In fact, the have a State Church and its Bishop, Sofie Petersen, is in favour.

Regarding European dependencies, I think Curacao, Saint Marteen, St. Eustaquis, Bonaire and French Guaiana are all perfoming or at least recognizing same-sex marriages perfomed in the Netherlands and France, respectively.

Finally, I'd like to mention Austria and Italy. After Conchita Wurst won the Eurovision song contest, she met with the national Chancellor and they discussed some equality issues. Some newspapers have reported that, apparently, the Chancellor (or Prime Minister), Werner Faymann, is in favour of marriage equality and would like to start a national debate in Parliament. The problem are his partners n Government, I hope they don't become a big obstacle.

On the other hand, in Italy -for the first time!- a Distric Court judge recognized a gay marriage performed in New York. That decision was appealed, but at least it "reactivated" the debate. There are currently two or three bills in Parliament, but not debate scheduled yet.

The next big goal we're trying to achieve is for the European Comission and the European Parliament to mandate every member state to recognize the marriages or civil unions performed in other member states. In fact, that is why these elections are THAT important and, sadly, the far right is rising… We'll see on Sunday-Monday!

Thanks a lot and sorry for my poor English writing!
48. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 4:32 am

Yeah it's interesting to note that some countries have different rules regarding the possibility to give their dependencies and overseas territories some freedom on marriage laws.
The French law which passed last year after a nasty and bitter debate covers all of France and its overseas departments and territories (DOM-TOM).
But for the Netherlands carribbeans, only Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba perform same-sex marriages. In the other Dutch islands of Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten, marriages can only be registered, not performed.
For the UK dependencies, it is probably less surprising that they don't have marriage equality, since only Wales and England have it now (and Scotland's law should come into effect this fall).
Finally, in addition to Austria and Italy that M- is mentioning, let us add some progress in the micro-states of Andorra and San Marino.

More details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in…
49. JayJonson | May 24, 2014 at 6:30 am

Don't forget the Channel Islands, where there has been some movement toward at least recognizing UK marriages. One of them, Jersey or Guernsey, offers civil unions, if I remember correctly, but the other does not. Apparently, the Channel Islands are Royal Territories and for some reason are not bound by UK laws.
50. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 7:09 am

Thanks Pat, for the European update.

As far as you know, is the Wikipedia world map correct with respect to dependencies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-…

And thanks for the Wikipedia link; it appears reasonably up–to-date. I should have remembered that Wikipedia has everything.
51. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Haha, I'm no expert in all the laws of all the tiny islands (the map makes it impossible distinguish between all the Caribbeans anyway).
Probably a good reference table for all LGBT-related issues by country and dependency can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_count…
52. Richard Weatherwax | May 24, 2014 at 2:46 pm

It is unfortunate that both the US map and the world map on Wikipedia has to use so many colors to indicate the status of SSM under different state and national governments.
53. Matt227 | May 24, 2014 at 6:19 am

Finland is in a rut. You're right the Legal Affairs Committee hasn't changed membership and can't just get rid of the new bill because it was petitioned, but that hasn't stopped Anne Holmlund from dragging the progress. The committee keeps on ordering more and more testimony, but Tahdon2013 is optimistic for a vote by summer.
54. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 6:48 am

Thanks for the update. Please reassure me that the committee has not brought in Maggie Gallagher, Scott Lively, Regnerus and the like to testify. Surely.
55. M.- | May 26, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Noooo…please don't bring them here. Unfortunately, we have already have some of ther colleagues working here haha!
56. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 7:14 am

Thanks for the European update, M!

Between your posts and those of Pat today, that's more European SSM information than I have been able to find online over the last year, apart from the UK and France. Even the ILGA site has only a bit of information and it is outdated.

By the way, you write English as well as anybody here.
57. StraightDave | May 24, 2014 at 7:21 am

Sometimes even better English! At least he makes a serious effort, which is more than I can say for some of our natives.
58. M.- | May 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Guys, than you so so much to both of you for that commentabout my English skills… I felt really flattered.. I swear I try to do my best.. In Spanish or Italian would be much easier, but well, I'll keep trying! Thanks. Nice weekend – with PA and OR I'm sure it will be!
59. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 3:45 pm

M, you shouldn't hesitate to comment on this blog,or anywhere, in English.

I do lot of writing and some editing in English (mostly news releases and published guidelines) and your writing is better that of many native English university students.

The main mistakes you make are typos, probably due to an awkward keyboard.
60. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 3:46 pm

…an awkward keyboard.

And no doubt also due to the fact that this blog does not permit editing after posting.
61. ebohlman | May 24, 2014 at 4:30 pm

If you sign up with IntenseDebate (the commenting service this blog uses) and log in to this site, then you'll be able to edit after posting up until someone replies to your post (after that, it's frozen so that people can't change the history of a discussion).
62. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 9:48 pm

Unfortunately I seem to be unable to use IntenseDebate from my phone. (Might just be my phone, it's a bit cranky at the best of times)
63. M.- | May 24, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Thanks to you FYoung.. These things (information exchaging) are the truly good things about Internet 🙂 …By the way, now we need some Southamerican and Austrlian "informers" hehe!! C U!!
64. Chuck from PA | May 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm

There is a great web site that keeps everything up to date regarding ME in Australia. Generally well written news. http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/
65. M.- | May 25, 2014 at 8:45 am

Thanks a lot Chuck, that's been really useful!!
66. Deeelaaach | May 24, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Thanks for the info! Also, you said, "Thanks a lot and sorry for my poor English writing!" Had you not said this I would have assumed that English was your first language. As for me, I only speak English 🙁
67. M.- | May 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm

Thanks Deeelaaach. It's ok you only speak English, luckily for u, your language is the universal one hehe! c u!
68. SPQRobin | May 24, 2014 at 8:13 am

Things aren't changing in Europe as fast as in the US, by far! The situation in most countries has been the same for months/years. Wikipedia should be mostly up-to-date (I help updating wherever possible).

As for Greenland, they currently have the same law as Denmark pre-2012, which is marriage equality except in the state church. So the new law would extend it to church weddings, which has support from Greenland's bishop.

As for Luxembourg, the gay Prime Minister didn't make much difference. The Parliament has been reforming the whole marriage law, which takes a long time. The Council of State just gave its opinion on the law. We'll see next week what the Parliament's Justice Committee does with it.

As for Finland, all the experts they are calling can be viewed here http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/vkx3000.sh?T… At least they are actively considering it. It still can succeed or fail, we'll have to see.

The Croatian government promised a partnership law, but it stalled in Parliament and still hasn't been given a final vote…

Internationally, I would like to mention Chile. The civil unions bill has been given priority status for MONTHS now. http://www.camara.cl/pley/pley_detalle.aspx?prmID… It's frustrating.

And I'm most frustrated by the lack of progress in Germany!

Regards from Belgium, where tomorrow important elections are held for the regional and federal parliaments as well as the European Parliament! (We have a gay Prime Minister now, but I would not like to see him back for political-ideological reasons :p)
69. Valquiria | May 24, 2014 at 9:26 am

Germany, with its "separate but equal" system, is acting as a major bulwark against the advance of marriage equality into central and eastern Europe. Merkel's government is propping up the idea that you can be civilized and European and still treat gays as second-class citizens whose relationships are intrinsically different and less valid.
70. M.- | May 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm

You're absolutely right, Valquiria. The only big European countries without marriege equality here are Germany, Italy and Finland. Sadly, I truly believe that as long as Merkel is in Germany, we won't have marriage equality. That's a pitty, 'cause -as u said- Germany is REALLY powerful here now, it's like a model that several countries follow.

Regarding Italy, the process will be veeeery slow, at the moment they're concentrating on getting over the crisis and some other government problems. That said, my hopes are in Finland!

I strongly bliebe that if we can get those three countries plus Ireland, then we will be able to make the European Court of Human Rights to rule that prohibiting same sex-marriage is anti-European Convention.

Regarding Southamerica: we must pay attentiont to the Mexican Supreme Court, which already ruled that not allowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional. The problem there is they don't have "common law" or the power of precedent as in the US, the rulings only apply "inter-partes". Maybe they could make an "hybrid" decision mandating the Congress to change the law federally (similar to what happend in South Africa).

In the meantime, there are two cases pending at the Interamerican Comission on Human Rights (from Mexico and Chile). I hope they can soon reach the International Court really soon.

There's also a same-sex marriage case pending in the Constitutional Court of Colombia, but they always delay "hot" issues (the adoption case from a lesbian couple has been stalled for more than 3 years, and take into account that a lil' child is in the middle!!! They care more about their reputation than thousands of people!). I have some hopes in Chile now, as they have a new President, Socialist Michlle Bachellet, whose party has a strong majority and whose platform declared support to same-sex marriage before winning. If we get the, will have the extreme south. 🙂
71. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Yes. Actually considering population rather than size, the big holdouts from the EU are Germany (80 million people, more populous country in the EU), Italy (60 million) and Poland (39 million). Sadly, not much is gonna change in Poland soon. Barely a third of Poles even support registered partnerships! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in…
72. Bruno71 | May 25, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Sorry to say, Poland has never been known to be progressive on civil rights. My Jewish-Polish parents can attest to that.
73. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 3:57 pm

Again, thanks, M, for all the Information on the Americas.

You are a veritable fount of information that is difficult to get elsewhere.
74. F_Young | May 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm

While we're on the subject of SSMs in Europe and the Americas:

"Peruvian Politician Comes Out Amid Debate For Same-Sex Civil Unions, Showcases Peru's Fight Against Homophobia" http://www.ibtimes.com/it-gets-better-peruvian-po…

According to the article, Peru's Congress is expected to reach a decision on a bill by the end of June.
75. Christian0811 | May 24, 2014 at 7:12 pm

Why has no one sued in Germany? They have very robust civil protections and a Constitutional Court endowed with the power of constitutional review

In fact, East Germany equalized the age of consent though it's constitutional court.
76. Steve | May 25, 2014 at 4:19 am

People have sued, but always about single rights or laws. Like second-parent adoption. Or certain kinds of tax breaks.

It's a silly and time consuming process, but that way domestic partnerships have been made equal to marriage in most of the really important areas. Joint adoptions still aren't possible and there are still differences in more obscure laws.

But the government has delayed turning those orders from the court into laws. They always wait as long as possible and never do anything more than the minimum necessary to comply.

At this rate, Germany will be the second-last country in western Europe with marriage equality. It's certainly won't ever happen with the conservatives in power (who are dominated by church-obedient fanatics). Only Italy will take longer.
77. Christian0811 | May 25, 2014 at 12:15 pm

Huh, Germany tends to be extremely secular (except in Bavaria). Youd think they'd've gotten this out of the way ages ago.
78. Bruno71 | May 25, 2014 at 3:05 pm

That's what happens when conservatives win elections.
79. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 9:48 am

Thanks for the European update, SPQRobin!

"As for Greenland, they currently have the same law as Denmark pre-2012, which is marriage equality except in the state church."

Then, I would say Greenland should already be navy on the Wikipedia maps, since they should reflect only civil marriages, not religious marriages.
80. SPQRobin | May 24, 2014 at 10:02 am

Well, I was a bit brief; they are called registered partnerships but have the same rights as marriage (à la Malta). I'm no expert on Danish law, but marriage appears to be reserved for the (state) church. It's different from a US-like system with separation of church and state.
81. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm

@SPQRobin "As for Greenland, they currently have the same law as Denmark pre-2012, which is marriage equality except in the state church. So the new law would extend it to church weddings, which has support from Greenland's bishop."

So, is the law already passed, but won't come into effect until July 1? If so, the maps should already reflect that change, as they do for Scotland, and Greenland should be coloured Navy.

Or will same-sex weddings in the state church still not provide the same rights as opposite-sex weddings even after July 1?
82. SPQRobin | May 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm

The problem is that I can't find many sources. The only ones I found are on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Gree…
Even searching on the parliament's website gives no result.
Otherwise I would be the first to color it navy blue!

Edit: some more info (I like digging into legal/legislative stuff!):
So the 2012 Danish law says it does not apply to the Faroe Islands or Greenland, but can be made so by a Royal Order (kongelig anordning).
The process seems to be as follows more or less: the Greenland Government requests the Danish Government to prepare a Royal Order (which it did). Seems to be this: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20131/almdel/gru/bilag/1…
Then the Greenland's Parliament approves the Royal Order so it can be signed.
In Greenland's Parliament, the most recent document I found is http://www.inatsisartut.gl/media/1753363/pkt2_dgo… from 18 March, where it is point 21 on their agenda. It is something like (I don't speak Danish but I recognise words) "Proposal for a Parliament decision so that the Greenland Government approves the Royal Order to enter into force in Greenland parts of the marriage law and to repeal the registered partnership law".
83. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Thanks. That is the most credible and detailed information on SSM in Greenland I have yet seen.

So, it looks realistic than the Danish law could come into effect in Greenland on July 1. It's not like they have to draft, study, debate and pass a new law from scratch.

In fact, since Wikipedia's policy has been to switch map colours when the last legislative step has been concluded, instead of waiting till the law comes into effect, we may yet see Greenland turn Navy Blue some time in June. Great!
84. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 1:59 pm

It's a little different. According to WIkipedia, the registered partnership law in effect in Greenland has "almost all the same qualities as marriage (…) with the following two exceptions:
– laws making explicit reference to the sexes of a married couple did not apply to registered partnerships
– regulations by international treaties did not apply unless all signatories agree."
Regarding adoption, "There is no law on joint adoption. However, there is not only a chance at step-adoption."
In any case, this is clearly a separate-but-equal system with (almost) the right as marriage, but still a separate institution, that's why it's not yet navy blue colored for the time being.
85. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 7:17 am

Thank you for the update from Europe, it is most appreciated! As ME becomes a reality throughout the US it would be nice to see this blog expand to report on ME throughout the world. (After all, when it started out as the Prop8TrialTracker it was only covering California.)
86. Valquiria | May 24, 2014 at 7:32 am

This is a good idea. For all the progress made in Europe and the Americas, there are still billions of people living in jurisdictions where it's not even legal to be gay, much less marry a same-sex partner.
87. JimT | May 24, 2014 at 8:27 am

For worldwide LGBTQ marriage equality and other news check this site out http://equaldex.com/
88. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 9:54 am

Thanks! This is the first I hear of this site.
89. Valquiria | May 24, 2014 at 10:03 am

It's a nice concept, but it doesn't look accurate at all. Just take a look at the "marriage" and "discrimination" maps.
90. JimT | May 24, 2014 at 12:33 pm

The site is fairly new, the inaccuracy apparently is a bad link or bug that needs to be fixed. That's common with any new site. It is a massive undertaking being steered by a young man named Dan Leveille who is/was involved in a few other successful projects. I commend and applaud him for doing this. Here's a link to his Google+ page https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanLeveille/about
91. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Yeah, seems quite inaccurate…
The great map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_count… has the advantage of listing sub-national entities (different status in US or Mexican states, etc.) and seems far more reliable.
92. Ragavendran | May 23, 2014 at 7:45 pm

You mean 4th not 5th. Having two appeals courts' opinions before the 9th hearing oral argument might make it easier on them. Other than that, I have no idea why they're delaying Sevick so much. I'd go with lazy lads.
93. M.- | May 23, 2014 at 9:38 pm

Sorry, I was wondering: why do I have a dislike on my previous comments? It's not that I won't be able to sleep, but I'd like to know if I said something offensive,or if I behave as an ignorant? …I really don't know, maybe there are some rules to follow here and I don't know them, and I really mean it. I'm from Europe so of course there are a lot of things about American law that I'm still learning, so I apologize in case I've said something offensive.
94. sam | May 24, 2014 at 1:39 am

You've said nothing wrong. On some devices it's easy for ppl to hit the dislike by accident instead of the like, maybe it was that.
95. FYoung | May 24, 2014 at 2:35 am

I agree you said nothing wrong. Also, this blog is plagued with trolls that deliberately disrupt discussions, and the people in charge don't seem to willing to do anything about it
96. Joseph | May 24, 2014 at 3:56 am

I will be thumbing down anyone who replies to the troll.
97. Ragavendran | May 24, 2014 at 6:42 am

Here I say, "come to my arms!" (A reference from the Asterix comic books.)

To add to what others said above, try not to take it personally. I was you a few months ago. Just "let it go" as much as possible. It wasn't easy for me at first, but it's slowly getting better. Yes, it gets better!
98. Zack12 | May 23, 2014 at 9:39 pm

People need to know this simple fact. The 9th circuit isn't the liberal court people think it is anymore.
St. Ronnie was able to get some of his judges on there, and until the mid 90's, there were Republican senators in California and Washington. Thus Clinton had to sometime put on judges that are NOT as liberal as he would have liked, such as Richard Tallman who is a Republican right winger to the core.
Last but not least, George Jr was able to get seven bigoted judges on there so if you want to know why they've been dragging it out, that's why.
There are bigots on there that do NOT want marriage equality and are willing to do stupid things like an En Banc hearing in order to delay it.
We will win, no matter what they do, we will win.
99. Craig | May 24, 2014 at 1:27 am

I think it is as simple as the 9th Circuit not wanting to trend set on this. They want to rule after the 10th Circuit and hopefully in the same direction. A 10th Circuit ruling would be very persuasive to my mind; and if the 10th rule against us it will in any case be going to SCOTUS who will definitively rule. I think the 9th do play it political with SCOTUS. Hence, even though overruled, they bent over backwards on giving the proponents standing (via CA SC admittedly) and served up the narrowest ruling possible (and although SCOTUS overruled them the outcome was the same – a narrow CA specific ruling). That is why the recent stay was agreed (in my view). A majority of the 9th supports marriage equality and doesn't want to do anything to jinx it on the way to SCOTUS.

I think some (not all) right wing judges are able to frame the matter not as political but as a matter of fundamental rights, a strict interpretation of the Constitution in light of binding precedents (Romer, Windsor, Lawrence) and a restraint of government power (and the tyranny of the majority) that means we might be surprised by some rulings to come and their political provenance.
100. sam | May 24, 2014 at 1:50 am

I'm curious, would the Latta case currently be set to have a different panel? if they are scheduling Sevcik at around the same time could they transfer it to the same panel as Latta?

There have been rumors that the one in Sevcik might not be favorable.
101. Matt227 | May 24, 2014 at 6:22 am

It would be a mistake for an adverse panel to rule against us. An inevitable en banc hearing would set heightened scrutiny and marriage equality in stone.
102. Sagesse | May 24, 2014 at 5:52 am

Nothing we haven't heard before, but it's not always put so well.

How Scalia Helped Legalize Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania [Reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/22/how-scalia-help…

"To answer that question, Jones turned to Scalia. "As Justice Scalia cogently remarked in his dissent," Jones wrote, "'if [Windsor] is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one.'" Then, lest anyone miss the point, Jones proceeded to adopt Scalia’s reading of Windsor: “Its discussion is manifestly not representative of deferential review.” As Scalia saw it, Windsor was an intermediate scrutiny case in all but name. Jones happily signed on to that interpretation and applied a fatal dose of heightened scrutiny to Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban."
103. Ragavendran | May 24, 2014 at 6:46 am

I love the phrase, "applied a fatal dose of heightened scrutiny" – that's genius! That should be the murder weapon of choice in this serial killer thriller we're witnessing! Shelby to Jones – all guilty as charged 🙂
104. Kyle Landry | May 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm

hahahaha this fool is writing up a Wikipedia entry every hour on here over a matter his bible thumping ilk LOST in. That's right, you last this battle and the bigger war. You're on OUR turf throwing a fit over just how badly you lost =) Pssst~ half the fun in winning all these legislative cases is knowing how miserable it makes your camp. In life, there's winners and losers…..and you all are carved in stone as LOSERS on this issue 🙂 and it's a joy to see you lose it.
105. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm

Not going to lie, the two best things about this battle are first (far and away), equal treatment under the law for LGBT couples and parents, and a significant second, the amazing Schadenfreude we'll feel when the anti-gay side inevitably goes down in flames. 🙂
106. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 3:31 pm

Good to know you're 100% in favor of same-sex marriage in Maryland, Maine, Washington, where it won at the ballot box, and all the states where it was decided legislatively! But you aren't, are you? Because gay.
107. James | May 26, 2014 at 11:06 am

Bud you can come to this web site and spew all the crap you want. But it still doesn't change the fact that these anti-gay marriage amendments are based on animus of gays. You come to this web site because you're angry that the US constitution protects gays. You know what? Why don't you focus on your own miserable life and fuck off. You have zero legit reasons why gays should be able to marry. Meaning you have no case. You all had your chance to prove yourselves in court and you are losing that battle. Last thing I'll say to your ass is that I feel sorry for you dumb ass fundies who are so focused on other peoples loves that don't even concern you. Besides maybe affecting you mentally. That is all. 😉
108. Richard Weatherwax | May 26, 2014 at 11:50 am

TKNSC: Before you call people "perverted" consider that you are the one spewing hate. Some may believe that you are the one who is perverted.
109. Ragavendran | May 24, 2014 at 7:35 am

The Ninth Circuit can get barbaric on occasion. Here's a moderately hilarious, and very informative article on "taking it to the banc". It's a fantastic read!
http://www.gmsr.com/article/Taking it to th…

Ninth Circuit Trivia: "In a recent case the parties were startled when the court on its own motion suggested that the appeal be heard en banc in the first instance. Both sides objected that en banc review was not necessary. The court voted to hear the appeal en banc anyway. The parties then settled their dispute and the appeal was dismissed. Foulon v. Klayman & Toskes, PA, 520 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2008)."
110. Retired_Lawyer | May 24, 2014 at 11:52 am

That is an interesting article, Ragavendran. I confess that at first I was suspicious, what with the author's name being "Poster."
111. Nevada Marriage Equality &hellip | May 24, 2014 at 7:59 am

[…] Equality on Trial reports: […]
112. Ragavendran | May 24, 2014 at 8:05 am

TEXAS UPDATE: At least one of the real parties of interest in A.L.F.L. v. K.L.L. (the divorce case out of Bexar County) has petitioned the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals for an en banc reconsideration of their May 15 order that held that Judge Nellermoe had failed to observe protocol and issue notice to the AG before holding hearings on and/or deciding the constitutionality of Texas laws. The Fourth Court of Appeals had given Nellermoe ten days to vacate her own order that struck down the Texas marriage ban as unconstitutional.

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=04-14…

Looking at the docket information for A.L.F.L. v. K.L.L. I cannot parse the legalese enough to learn whether Judge Nellermoe has complied. Can somebody help?

http://apps.bexar.org/search/FullCase.html?id=CI0…
113. Retired_Lawyer | May 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm

I can't decipher this. Is there anyone out there familiar with practice and procedure in the State Courts of Texas?
114. Chad | May 24, 2014 at 8:30 am

Sixth Circuit argument set for Aug 6
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=18623&amp…
115. Biff | May 24, 2014 at 9:51 am

Rumor. Is it on their calendar?
116. Ragavendran | May 24, 2014 at 11:11 am

I ain't believin' nothin' until I see it on PACER or the Sixth Circuit website. And it ain't on there.
117. Matt227 | May 26, 2014 at 12:41 pm

It looks like a rumor so far. There are no confirming reports, except a single local news source in Detroit.
118. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 9:11 am

[I already posted this once to this thread, but it was removed along with the troll post I had responded to]

Scotty, would you please consider delegating moderator rights to some of the EoT regulars so we could address the troll problem. Here is a draft set of guidelines we have proposed for dealing with trolls.

What is trolling?
1. Engaging in behavior that is deliberately disruptive.
2. Consistently employing language that is demeaning to LGBT persons. This includes using scare quotes as in gay "marriage."
3. Arguing that ME is bad, as opposed to arguing whether DOMA laws are constitutional.
4. Engaging in sophistry.

What is not trolling?
1. Arguing that DOMA laws are constitutional – this should be permitted provided such arguments are grounded in legal case law, and that the poster engages in debate with pro-SSM legal arguments. A person like SHOETHROWER who throws out legal justifications against SSM but refuses to debate opposing points of view is a troll.
2. Personal disagreements and legitimate differences in perspective.
3. Flaming. Flaming is strongly discouraged but it is NOT trolling unless the intent is to demean LGBT persons.
119. Valquiria | May 24, 2014 at 9:36 am

This needs to happen. EoT has begun to attract a lot of bad-faith commenters and prank accounts.

Also, the site administrators need to close commenting on old threads. This will prevent spambots from cluttering up the site with fake messages.
120. Zack | May 24, 2014 at 12:47 pm

This site openly has an agenda of being pro-marriage equality. I don't think that necessarily means that people with a different view can't participate, but they need to IMHO be respectful of the site's foundations and not constantly try to rehash basic issues like "is marriage equality a good thing?" If people want to argue about basic issues like that, I think there are better places to go than here.
121. BillinNO | May 24, 2014 at 1:22 pm

(Like Hell, for example)
122. Lainey | May 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm

I didn't know marriage had feelings and could be demeaned unlike people which do and are. And you seem to be playing the role of marriage's martyr. If marriage can tolerate people like you, who wish to hold others back, entering into it, then it can surely handle sames-sex couples entering it. Marriage is a tough and plucky little word.

It's the people being held back that get to say they're being demeaned not the ones, like yourself, who are doing the holding back. Fortunately, courts of law are seeing that.
123. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 9:56 pm

You are batting 4 for 4, troll.
124. Sagesse | May 25, 2014 at 7:59 am

Since the days of the Prop 8 trial, I have come to this site not only for the posts, but for the intelligent discussion and information shared in the comments. The site does not stifle or delete opposing opinion, as a matter of principle, as a matter of free speech, and to differentiate itself from anti-equality sites like NOM that regularly delete and ban those who disagree or factually contradict their message. It has somehow tolerated trolls in the past, not without annoyance, but without significant disruption to the community who 'live' here.

TKNSC and his various alter egos are different. His incessant posts have a lot in common with spam. He may be free to speak his mind… but I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN. He has flooded my inbox (I keep up by subscribing for new posts as email, because it works for me) and this board with messages that I DON'T WANT TO HEAR. I clicked on a new post one day last week in the middle of the day and there were already 126 comments… no email notifications, and all threads collapsed, and I hadn't even read the post yet.

There's a lot of really interesting stuff going on, and I resent being deprived of my quiet enjoyment of the community here. There should be a way for the conduct rules for the site to keep the likes of TKNSC from turning it into his own private guerrilla-NOM playground.
125. Valquiria | May 25, 2014 at 9:04 am

Unmoderated comments = less sense of community = fewer donations. The EoT administrators should show a little pride of ownership. For starters, they could bounce TKNSC. He's too stupid to have a good time. Show him the door.
126. Dr. Z | May 25, 2014 at 9:19 am

To my knowledge there is only one administrator at this point, Scotty – and he is tied up keeping abreast of new developments. That's the problem. Scotty needs to start delegating some of these minor administrative tasks to others so that he doesn't continue to be a bottleneck.

I'm very appreciative of Scotty and have given generously to support this site. I don't mean this as a criticism of him, but something needs to be done about the trolls or you are right, it may eventually impact donations.
127. JimT | May 25, 2014 at 10:04 am

While I can understand how some people may feel about getting their inboxes flooded, it is censorship when people start rallying to ban/remove people/posts because of their incessant comments. This is something which has started recently and I can't help but wonder if the anti-gay trolls posting here are coming from NOM's followers and/or within NOM's org. I have heard from others that some right wing organizations, and left ones too, have people on their staff who troll comments on news/forum across the web.
128. Bennie | May 25, 2014 at 10:52 am

Wake up! We wouldn't know the difference if this person had never posted here. They wouldn't be "longed" for. There was no demand for that disruptive posting before it happened and no need that needed to be filled.

Don't overthink it. Don't be "nice", and assist them to drive the knife in your back. It's time for them to go. It's simple really.
129. Valquiria | May 25, 2014 at 11:21 am

Um, no, Jim. It isn't censorship for a website to curate comments and maintain a certain level of discourse. Nobody has an inalienable right to have their graffiti published by a third party. If I mail my stool sample to Random House and they decline to publish it, that isn't censorship.
130. Lynn E | May 25, 2014 at 12:05 pm

There is a difference between censorship and enforcing the site's TOS. You might want to review the posted rules for use of the site, specifically numbers 4, 7, and 8 (especially the explanation at number 8). We encourage dialogue and dissenting points of view, and may give legal points to ponder in response, but the performance of this site degrades when there are over a certain number of comments. The TOS differentiates between comments that further discussion and those that do not serve that purpose.
131. JimT | May 25, 2014 at 12:34 pm

I don't see a link for Terms (and Priacy for that matter) on this page. Most sites usually have a link posted on the bottom. EOT should consider putting up a link on this page.
132. Lynn E | May 25, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Look under Guidelines on the "About" tab.
133. JimT | May 25, 2014 at 12:17 pm

Not sure why my comment got down voted by 5 people for making a non-demeaning opinion.
134. JimT | May 25, 2014 at 12:44 pm

Must be the trolls down voting me that last comment I made was not offensive or demeaning either. I'm not competing in a popularity contest or trying to make friends so I won't lose sleep over it.
135. Lynn E | May 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm

I hate the up and down votes myself. I will up vote if a poster "took the words right out of my mouth," but the down vote is useless unless explained.
136. Mike in Baltimore | May 25, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Jim,

Some find it easier to just down vote than to explain the reason for the down vote. I guess some think they were somehow 'dissed', so no need to explain?

People – if you down vote a post, maybe you should consider posting a reason for that down vote (the 'TKs' and whatever other 'handles' they post under the exception).

(And because I responded to you JimT, I fully expect several down votes, and NO explanation for the down vote.)
137. JimT | May 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm

Thank you Mike and Lynn. At times I have difficulty communicating at times due to health related issues but I do my best.
138. Lynn E | May 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm

You do very well, actually. Just remember that some people down vote anything that doesn't match their opinion. The "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" symbols don't come from Caesar, and we aren't in a life/death struggle. Adults can disagree civilly.
139. Two Dads | May 25, 2014 at 1:02 pm

I'll actually stop visiting this site if trolls are allowed to post and moderators overlook it. It's the exact reason towleroad lost ALL of it's regular viewers, because the site administrators welcomed trolling for page hits, and then the site got hit after the fantastic contributors and visitors all ditched it for a more pleasant environment.
140. Pat | May 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Yeah, it's become very annoying. But not that if nobody replied to the troll(s) and we didn't keep discussing how bad the situation has become, the comment thread would be much easier to navigate.
Imagine if all the comments by TK get ZERO replies, then it becomes so easy to skip these comments! Since it's obvious that the EoT team will not take much action about the issue, maybe can we all finally agree to totally ignore these comments??
Another commenter mentioned the other day that he would now systematically downvote anyone who bothers replying to TK or other trolls. I guess I'll do that too. It's beyond me why some people keep trying to engage with these people whose goal is only to derail the thread.
141. Pat | May 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm

typo: But *note* that …
142. SoCal_Dave | May 26, 2014 at 11:22 am

Agree, Pat. I will admit that I got sucked into responding a few times. It's hard to leave misinformation out there uncorrected. But when one refutes it, it only seems to encourage more. So I encourage everyone to join you in not responding, and to join me in using the "Report" button when there is a violation of EOT guidelines, particularly #7, which I have copied in a post, below.
I understand that EOT staff is super busy with all the recent developments, but the reporting of events is getting lost in this sea of anti-gay spew. It's ONE person causing all this drama, it can't take that much effort to toss him out. If this isn't grounds for removal, then there are no valid grounds, no rules enforced, chaos.
143. Valquiria | May 26, 2014 at 7:54 pm

i.e. JoeMyGod. Now there's a website I'd gladly donate to. Moderated and everything. It's almost as if they give a shit.
144. Junior | May 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm

You're losing this battle. Throw a fit all you want, your KLAN lost. Salt with that crow?
145. Biff | May 24, 2014 at 9:52 am

OMG, a post was removed? I've never seen that here. Is that new?
146. Pat | May 24, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Yeah, really? Hard to imagine that any post was removed, considering all the abusive posts that were kept here for so long…
147. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm

For posts that are reported and removed, unfortunately all replies are removed as well. (Includng mine.)
148. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 10:00 pm

It's since been restored.
149. Joseph | May 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Please block that troll or delete their comments from the site. It's not adding anything but trouble and derailment of the discussion.
150. Hall_Monitor | May 24, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Ok folks, we're approaching 100 comments on this thread which mean all the comments will collapse and be a bitch to sort through. Please move comments to the previous two posts which are well below 100. Don't post on this one just because it's the first post. It's at capacity. Thanks.
151. Mike in Baltimore | May 25, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Hall Monitor?

Comments are at capacity? Funny how additional comments have been added, and the thread is now approaching 200.

Maybe you should look up the definition of 'capacity'? To me, it doesn't appear to apply to this discussion and comments.
152. Christian0811 | May 24, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Petition to create a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to repeal Prop 8! The goal is 15000 signatures (admittedly wildly optimistic, but still) Every signature counts!

You do not have to be Californian to sign.

https://www.change.org/petitions/state-sen-marty-…
153. Quest | May 24, 2014 at 6:34 pm

How much money is this disgusting organization earning from voting on our rights?
154. Christian0811 | May 24, 2014 at 6:44 pm

What organization? The senate?

No organization is behind the petition, it's just an independent citizen petition. What gave you the impression some organization is voting on our rights?
155. Fluffyskunk | May 24, 2014 at 11:06 pm

FYI, Quest/Guest is really TKNSC pretending to be a Christian-hating strawman hommerseckshooal. Please ignore it.
156. Quest | May 24, 2014 at 11:35 pm

I am not a Christian redneck from South Carolina, you absurd, know-it-all fool. Christianity sucks and there is plenty of evidence to show why.
157. Christian0811 | May 25, 2014 at 12:53 am

That makes sense! Hence why I stopped replying a bit ago. Wish the admins would crack down. Oh well, I reported it anyhow.

But for the record, my username is actually my given name, the fact it corresponds to the fact I'm episcopalian is coincidental.
158. Quest | May 25, 2014 at 8:42 am

That is a shallow thing to say, and it has a typical whiff of Christian stench. Your morals are not superior, and in fact, I think they're warped because you are a Christian. The court grants our rights, not the voters. They had their chance and failed, big time.

Moreover, you're the one who created the post, and then you cry when someone criticizes what you're advocating for, which is another opportunity for the California voters to express their opinions of gay marriage? Get real. Our rights are not for grabs, Episcopalian.
159. Mike in Baltimore | May 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm

My given name is Michael, the nickname of which is usually Mike.

And I actually live in the City of Baltimore, MD.

Thus my screen name (Mike in Baltimore) is VERY accurate, unlike some who use other names, such as 'Quest', 'Hall Monitor' or 'TK'.
160. ragefirewolf | May 25, 2014 at 9:17 pm

Right, like in mine… "wolf" is actually part of my real name
161. Dr. Z | May 26, 2014 at 8:27 am

In the early days of the Prop8TrialTracker I used to post as "DrBrentZenobia" but I got lazy about having to type that every time. So now it's just Dr. Z.
162. davep | May 26, 2014 at 11:15 am

I like the name "Dr. Z". It has a wonderfully theatrical mad scientist 'ring' to it. : )
163. Quest | May 24, 2014 at 11:33 pm

Hmmm. I don't know much about it. However, I'm strongly against anyone putting this up for a vote and the reason is too complex to unpack. It is wrong for anyone to take charge of our rights, and give the ignorant voting public an opportunity to express how much they dislike us at the voting booth. Not that I care about the opinions of anyone, but because it's simply unjust. We don't get to vote on anyone's rights, and the gesture to erase proposition 8 is shallow. The damage was done. It can't be erased.
164. Rik | May 26, 2014 at 6:09 pm

I understand the aversion to voting on our rights, but I would really like to see that ugly language stricken from our constitution for good. Don't we have a democratic super majority now? Can't they just do it?
165. Bruno71 | May 26, 2014 at 6:16 pm

No they can't, since it's in the California Constitution now. The only ways to amend the constitution are through a referendum or a constitutional convention.

Personally I'd like to see this done at a time when LGBT rights are ingrained in the popular psyche and we would see an easy majority (over 70%) voting in favor of striking the language. I don't want any more controversy than we need to have, nor any money poured into advertisements. This should be a technicality at a time when the actual question is a non-issue for most.
166. Guest | May 24, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Christian0811
YOU have been operating in the shadows far too long.
We Are All Anonymous!
Together We Are Legion!
We Do Not Forgive!
We Do Not Forget!
United As One!
Divided By Zero!
Led By None!
Expect Everyone!
167. Christian0811 | May 24, 2014 at 7:04 pm

????
168. Dr. Z | May 24, 2014 at 7:11 pm

Well meaning but too soon. Wait a few years until ME is legal everywhere and polling for ME approval is above 65%. Then the repeal campaign can remind voters what they once put us through.
169. Christian0811 | May 24, 2014 at 8:20 pm

We're polling at 61% support with only 37% opposed and 5% undecided. (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_913MBS.pdf and http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads…

I absolutely respect your opinion and I understand why you think that way, but we're not exactly at plurality. We have a very comfortable margin, even if those undecided voted no on repeal, as these polls have shown.
170. Dr. Z | May 25, 2014 at 9:06 am

Why the rush to do this now? We are still in the middle of a fight and could use the resources elsewhere. Polling notwithstanding, we will not get this passed without a fight at this point. And even when we win we will have gained no new ground. I agree that the text shoild be removed, but that is true around the country – over 30 states have statutes or constitutional amendments that will eventually need to be cleaned up.

I don't question your goals. I question your timing.
171. Christian0811 | May 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Well, due to polling, the fight will not nearly be what we've seen in the past.

Maggie Gallagher and the conservatives in Oregon have themselves admitted that marriage is a lost cause for them and they'll now resort to "religious freedom" initiatives.

They're in FAR more of a financial pinch than we are! To that end, EQCA and the HRC regional division have pretty much gotten every imaginable gay-related civil right in California secured.Repealed the sodomy law years ago, DP's (which need to be extended to straight couples), Marriage, robust anti-bullying laws, strong state-wide anti discrimination laws, banned SOCE, and now we're working on repealing the old statutory marriage bans (including CA DOMA).

All our bases have been covered and we have a legislature packed with allies, with a Supreme Court that require strict scrutiny for sexual orientation when it comes to state laws and so we're perfectly secure.

That's why it'd be best to pursue a repeal effort starting now so by 2016 it'll be on the ballot with the best turn out since it will be a presidential election.

Yes we'll have to raise some money for tv and radio ads. But at this point it'd just be an informal measure so that people know the issue would be on the ballot. In fact, by pursuing a legislatively referred C.A. We save potentially millions of dollars because we won't have to campaign or hire
signature gatherers.

That will leave any money we have to spend on TV ads free for use.

And furthermore, you said earlier that you would like the majority of at least 65% before it went about, that should be achievable considering that marriage equality gains 5% in support roughly every year. And as the polls I showed you above demonstrate, that should be about where California is at by the time prop 8 returns to the ballot.

In all, the repeal campaign should be cost-effective and easily passed. It's not the kind of campaign that FreedomOhio is looking at fighting.
172. F_Young | May 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm

@ Christian0811 "…marriage equality gains 5% in support roughly every year…."

What I've seen is more like 1 to 2% per year. Can you provide a reference for 5%?

Last year, Nate Silver said it has been 1.5% per year nationally and he projected 60% support in California in 2016:

"I assume that support for same-sex marriage will continue to increase by one and a half percentage points nationally per year, which reflects the recent historical trend from both polling and ballot-initiative data." http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/…

There is also the Bradley effect to consider, where social desirability bias may result in inflated opinion poll results compared to actual votes; it was a big factor in the Prop 8 loss.
173. Christian0811 | May 25, 2014 at 2:10 pm

My bad, I was looking at a series of polls by Gallup and I only considered some of the more recent polls where there had been gains of between 3 to 4%. I see now that's not uniform across the board, but in any case we're still making significant progress. Even now, with 61% to 63% support that's bound to grow to between 63% to 65% in 2016.

And you're right about the Bradley effect, however I would argue that with such a wide margin as 30% or more (just what we're seeing in California) between for and against same-sex marriage that we're still destined to win. Even if that margin is somewhat less than 30%.

Considering the most optimistic polls in 2008, we still only lost by 3% of that (most positive pole I recall seeing put the no-side at 50% support).

Hard to imagine too much of the 28% of our lead going to the conservatives!
174. Dr. Z | May 25, 2014 at 7:53 pm

All your bases are covered? Have you forgotten what might happen if the Republicans win control of the Senate?

This initiative will draw off resources from state and national races. I'm all in favor of removing this language in about four years – after SCOTUS strikes down DOMAs nationally, in June 2015. But time is on our side, and there is no urgency to do this at present.
175. Christian0811 | May 25, 2014 at 11:07 pm

You're right, that's why this petition is NOT for a measure in 2014. If you're gonna criticize the petition you ought to read it first. The petition is aimed at the *2016* ballot. 2 years from now, when we will have the best possible turn out and the most state-wide attention.
176. Guest | May 26, 2014 at 12:06 am

As Dr. Z was patiently trying to explain, starting this in 4 years (2018) and voing on it in 2020 or even later is good enough and will ensure that we dont need to spend much for communication.
The idea is fine, but we have bigger fish to fry right now, so we dont need to waste another dime on California.
177. Christian0811 | May 26, 2014 at 1:40 am

Is there some sound justification for not doing it in 2016? The midterms will be done, we'll augmented public support, it's a high turnout year for liberals, and we won't have to waste time on signature gathering.

Certainly won't cost the $45m it did in 2008. With any luck we may not have to spend more than $8-10m (if Prop 22 is any indication of the needed spending in this area when it comes to these kinds of poling margins). Perhaps even less. In any case, I imagine it'd only be state-wide rights groups at this point. Probably less considering we wouldn't need to pursue signature gathering.

And EQCA and whatever other groups that'd take charge wouldn't force anyone to donate to the cause.

Anyways look at SB 1306, it's going to repeal Prop 22 and only a handful of anti-groups are even half-heatedly printing articles against it where as in 2008 or 2010 that'd be the subject of endless litigation, a ballot initiative and an ugly campaign. The tide has fundamentally turned, in our favor and 2016 is the earliest best opportunity to get rid of Prop 8.

However, in all honesty, I do think a package constitutional-reform package would be ideal (like Prop 7 in 1974, which repealed prop 14), even wrote a letter advocating such an approach. That would camouflage it as a boring book keeping measure and likely require much less media attention.

But for the purposes of the petition, a repeal effort of a much hated constitutional amendment is more likely to garner more public support.
178. Pat | May 26, 2014 at 4:32 am

Like Dr.Z and Guest above said, there is no need to rush, as it wouldn't change anything concretely for Californians.
And $8-10M could be much better used for actually useful things! (elect pro-gay legislators, etc.)
179. Christian0811 | May 26, 2014 at 11:44 am

California has no shortage of pro-gay democrats, the fear that we'd suddenly lose our footing overnight seems unfounded.

I totally get what your saying, but I think a repeal effort would move society on as whole and would solidify our place in society.

Also I did some research here, and it doesn't look like any notable amount of money was spent in support of Amendment 2 in Alabama and it still passed with a hefty amount of votes in favor. Same with Prop 7. There's precedent here's saying that, if NOM is as much in shambles as I suspect it will be by 2016, it may be even less costly (even free) to repeal.
180. Quest | May 26, 2014 at 8:34 am

According to your uncritical world view, our rights to you are nothing more than a commodity. If that is true, then it is okay to vote on Christianity. It would be okay to vote whether or not to ban it. If you sincerely believe it's okay to vote on the rights of the gays, then it must be okay to vote whether or not Christianity should be banned in California. Would you like that? Fair is fair.

Alternatively, your interests in the commodification of our rights aligns with the interests of the NOM and every other nasty Christian industry. They would agree with you, to vote on such a thing. I sincerely think you have no truth, whatsoever, and do nothing to make your lousy religion better. We clean up after fools like you.
181. davep | May 26, 2014 at 9:25 am

I think you misunderstand the issue. When a state amendment (like Prop 8) gets ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable, it doesn't automatically remove the wording of the measure from the state's Constitution. The wording is still there, even though it can't do anything any more. And in California, the only way to get that old wording out of the state Constitution is by ANOTHER ballot measure and ANOTHER vote, just like how it got in there in the first place.

So there's no question about HOW to get this toothless but distasteful wording out of the state Constitution, the only question is WHEN we should try to do it. Some people think it should be done on the 2016 ballot, others think it's better to leave it alone and spend the money elsewhere until we have more victories in additional states.
182. Dr. Z | May 26, 2014 at 8:20 am

2016, as a presidential election year, will be an even tougher and higher stakes fight than 2014.

I don't mean to be dismissive, what you are advocating is exactly the right thing to do. In a few years, after the fight for ME is over and we have won. I think it is quite likely that we will win, but fate can still intervene. We could still could lose at SCOTUS (for example: the Fifth Circuit rules against us, causing a circuit split; SCOTUS grants cert, but before they could rule, one of the sympathetic justices dies; the Fifth Circuit ruling is affirmed in a 4-4 tie.)

We are still in the midst of a fight. Many important legal protections still need to be enacted by Congress. In most of the Red states getting married could result in an automatic firing as the teachers at Catholic schools have learned. We got where we did by not losing sight of our end goal of equality.

These antiquated constitional amendments and statutes can wait a few years. They can't hurt us anymore and we can address them at our leisure.
183. F_Young | May 26, 2014 at 8:50 am

@Dr Z "2016, as a presidential election year, will be an even tougher and higher stakes fight than 2014."

This is true for American LGBTs generally, because of the risk of a Republican President, but not for LGBT Californians in relation to Prop 8 repeal.

Mid-terms such as 2014 are always more risky for LGBT voter initiatives because fewer pro-gays turn out to vote in mid-terms while anti-gay seniors turn out more consistently.
184. Steve | May 26, 2014 at 11:57 am

What is clear is that the SCOTUS case will be high-stakes, and all or nothing. There really is no way to split the baby. Either we win, in which case we get marriage equality in Alabama and Texas. Or we lose, in which case every state which got marriage equality based on a contrary interpretation of the US Constitution – which would include PA, OR, CA, and the various other states in which there were pro-equality rulings this year – will revert to their previous status. And yes, CA is included, because if we lose at SCOTUS, that would undermine the legal basis for Judge Walker's injunction and it would be only a matter of time before it was undone and Prop 8 came back to life.

Whether we win or lose, I want it to happen in 2015, not 2016. If we win, then it is better to have it all happen in 2015 so it doesn't create a red state backlash for the election. If we lose, it is also better to happen in 2015, so we have time to make 2016 into a mammoth electoral effort to pass SSM in Colorado, Ohio, Oregon, and California. The worst scenario would be to lose in June 2016, at which point it would be too late to try to win any states in November.
185. Christian0811 | May 26, 2014 at 12:11 pm

I understand and respect where you're coming from, but there's more to this than I think you are considering.

By November of 2016, we'll almost certainly have had the court victory you speak of. Unless there's some kind of massive delay in all the circuits at once, we can expect the court to have heard and read it's opinion by then.

And this freak-scenario where the fifth, which will likely rule against use like you said, then that's all the more reason to strike Prop 8 from the books sooner than later.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe bills like then SNDA and ENDA need urgent passage. But we all know Congress, even with both Houses controlled democrat, works painfully slow if at all. Basically Congress' greatest achievement in recent memory is NOT passing the FMA. Haha

But if what we are talking about is a *strictly* local effort! then California is on perfect timing for a 2016 effort.

This isn't about voting on our rights. Not at all! This isn't about detracting valuable resources and diverting them to a bureaucratic measure.

This is about letting Californians, as a society, to demonstrate that we've moved on from 2008. I guess the reason this is so important to me is that the California I knew my whole life broke my heart on November 4th 2008. That is NOT the California I know, and I know for fact we are better than that.

Californians deserve the chance to redeem our most important legal document as providing equality and rule of law, not tyranny of the majority and discrimination.
186. Rose | May 26, 2014 at 11:20 am

Prop 8 is ALREADY gone, we simply DON'T need to put it on the ballot in ANY year just to repeal the language……..it's a waste of time, in my opinion….there are bigger issues to deal with.

Oh and before ANYONE jumps on me…..my wife and I are part of the 18,000 couples who were married prior to the passage of Prop 8!!!

DP's in my opinion DON'T need to be extended to opposite-sex couples as they are NOT a marriage, nor treated as such…….and they work fine for those over 61!!!
187. Christian0811 | May 26, 2014 at 11:47 am

The reason I said DPs should be extended is based of the French model of PACS and Marriage. Where PACS, civil unions, are for people who don't want to get married or just want to ensure their significant other gets certain benefits without the deeper social meaning of becoming married.
188. Biff | May 24, 2014 at 10:08 pm

SCOTUS didn't uphold the lower courts ruling of Prop 8. They dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. I suggest you correct your lame petition.
189. Rose | May 26, 2014 at 11:22 am

SCOTUS basically tossed the ruling handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by denying Article 3 Standing to the proponents of Prop 8 essentially upholding Judge Walker's ruling from 2010!!!
190. Christian0811 | May 26, 2014 at 11:48 am

I am aware. But I didn't want to do a full case brief on the petition description, just something short and to the point.
191. SoCal_Dave | May 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm

About Equality on Trial:
"Equality on Trial (formerly Prop 8 Trial Tracker) is a project of the Courage Campaign Institute, which is a part of the Courage Campaign’s online organizing network of more than 900,000 supporters in California and across the country."
About Courage Campaign:
"Courage Campaign Institute is the educational arm of the Courage Campaign family of organizations. Our mission is to defend and extend human rights through innovative leadership-development training, strategic research and public-education."
192. SoCal_Dave | May 24, 2014 at 6:40 pm

EOT's Guideline #7:
7. You may not post or transmit any message which is harmful, threatening, abusive, hateful, or defamatory (defamatory anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, and anti-transgender language will include, but not be limited to, the language identified as defamatory within the current online version of the GLAAD Media Guide).
193. Mike in Baltimore | May 25, 2014 at 1:01 am

In other news, within six to eight weeks North Dakota will have a lawsuit against the state's ban on ME.
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/north-dako… )

No word on whether it will be a state or Federal lawsuit, but the article is written in such a manner that one is led to believe it will be Federal.
194. Loren | May 25, 2014 at 10:58 am

Kind, empathetic "Christian" words. What else are you selling that you can make unappealing to buy?

You're a lost sole.
195. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Now, now – his side just lost Oregon and Pennsylvania in the same week, making it a clean sweep of the Northeast and the West Coast for our side. That's gotta sting and make him unusually grumpy.
196. Mike in Baltimore | May 25, 2014 at 4:38 pm

And with South Carolina in the 4th District Circuit Court of Appeals, the bigots gotta be nervous about the ruling that will come out of Richmond in the near future.

(I presume the 'SC' in the screen name refers to South Carolina. If it doesn't, I'm not sure what it might refer to.)
197. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 5:08 pm

I'm really curious to see how that will turn out. Would the ruling just apply to Virginia, or would it also apply to West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina? Even if it's only Virginia, that's a major coup. 8 and a quarter million more people, bumping us to 46% of the U.S. population. And there's something about hitting 20 states that's especially satisfying.
198. Zack12 | May 25, 2014 at 5:24 pm

From my understanding, a positive ruling would cover the entire 4th circuit so not only would Virginia's ban go but so would the ones in the Carolinas and West Virginia as well.
199. DrPatrick1 | May 25, 2014 at 5:39 pm

A ruling is limited to the case at hand. However, it would be a precedent throughout the circuit, so follow up lawsuits will be necessary, but should be much faster with no stays and no successful appeals. The only way around that is for each state to decide not to dispute it and willingly offer equality.
200. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 5:42 pm

As much as I would like to see it all done in one go, this makes sense to me as far as courts only interpreting the matter at hand. Of course, cases have already been filed in all other states in the district (and Maryland is already in the equality column).
201. Straight Ally #3008 | May 25, 2014 at 5:44 pm

The other issue is whether an appeal would be made and whether SCOTUS would agree to hear it. While I would like to see Bostic be the case to reach SCOTUS due to Olson and Boies being the legal team, hopefully the best path for success will be charted among all the various legal teams.
202. DrPatrick1 | May 25, 2014 at 7:23 pm

I think a full-throated appeal, as in UT or OK, will be more likely candidates, me thinks.
203. Joseph | May 25, 2014 at 6:07 pm

SC isn't in the 4th.
204. Mr. E | May 25, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Yes it is, Joseph! The 4th Circuit includes Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia! 🙂
205. Joseph | May 25, 2014 at 6:59 pm

My apologies I misread I stand corrected.
206. Loren | May 25, 2014 at 11:03 pm

You do know. Or maybe you don't since you're a lonely person hanging out on a site where your anti-equality message will have zero chance of finding an audience who will embrace and further it. It's futile. So your not self-aware. Is that how you get through life? People have to hold mirrors up to you so you can see what you're doing since you can't see that what you're doing makes no sense.

A sad and lost person you are. Your being here is a mental perversion.
207. KarlS | May 26, 2014 at 6:23 am

I know I shouldn't respond to depraved trolls, but I can't help mentioning that you really need to hope and pray you never meet me, you miserable sonofabitch.
208. Loren | May 26, 2014 at 9:37 am

You often don't answer questions and use silly deflection as you did here further making others points. You missed the bulk of the comment. I will hold the mirror up for you and ask you directly.

– Why do you visit/post on Equality on Trial?
– Are you lonely?
– If you're not lonely, what other hobbies do you have?
– What fulfills you?

I will not ask about you're being here being a mental perversion as you did admit it is in your futile deflection.

Looking forward to your response to each question.
209. Guest | May 26, 2014 at 10:35 am

COME ON, CAN'T YOU GUYS IGNORE THE TROLL??! Enough!
210. Tayler_Richardsmith | May 26, 2014 at 10:46 am

Mommie, resist the urge to scold especially in all caps. It's unbecoming of you. Take a chill pill and move on. Asking the same stupid question about commenting to certain people is futile.

Why do you desire to control what others do? That is the effect of what you're trying to do.

I'm interested in its response.
211. Straight Ally #3008 | May 26, 2014 at 9:17 am

"Lost" means the gay people you despise can now legally marry in Oregon and Pennsylvania, and you can't do a damned thing about it.

Did I clear that up for you?
212. Straight Ally #3008 | May 27, 2014 at 11:52 am

Just a friendly tip, I think you're looking for a word other than "vacuous." Here, I'll use it in a sentence: the "gays can marry people of the opposite sex" argument is vacuous. They're gay, they don't want to marry people of the opposite sex. I know it kills you that they're marrying all over the place, but again, you can't do a damned thing about it.

"Cesspools of perversion." Yeah, you don't despise gay people at all. Just a shining star of tolerance, aren't ya? You keep on keepin' on, you're very amusing! It makes the Schadenfreude of your inevitable loss all the sweeter. Enjoy!
213. Pat | May 26, 2014 at 9:10 am

Argh, since today is a holiday in the US, there won't be any new development… and we are stuck with this thread for another day…
214. Helper | May 26, 2014 at 12:52 pm

It's okay Pat. You'll make it. There are two before this with plenty of room. How about posting there and seeing if others follow? You could've posted this there.
215. Steve | May 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm

Not sure that any of the 215 comments has really explained what is going on here. One person claims "sabotage" by a hostile judge or group of judges. But no single judge, nor a conservative bloc of judges, sets the argument schedule for a panel. The 3 judges on the panel set their schedule. The only other possible actor in this saga would be the Chief Judge. No other judge would have any say in the matter.

By delaying until September, the 9th is probably taking off the table the possibility that Sandoval could be appealed and decided by SCOTUS by June 2015. Right now, the 10th Circuit cases are on track for a June 2015 resolution by SCOTUS, and the 4th and 6th Circuit cases are on track as well so long as a decision is rendered promptly after argument. Even cases from the 7th, 8th, and 11th Circuits could make it on the same track. But if the 9th doesn't even hear arguments until September, then it would seem Sandoval could get to SCOTUS on the same track, and we could not get a SCOTUS decision any earlier than January 2016..
216. Loren | May 26, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Appreciate your attempt to clarify especially your 1st paragraph. But I'm confused by your 2nd paragraph. Are you suggesting that that cases in the 7th, 8th and 11th could be heard and decided at the circuit level before Sevcik is heard in September? If so, that doesn't see likely (the 7th most likely but still not very likely.
217. bythesea | May 26, 2014 at 2:23 pm

If SCOTUS rules for ME on the cases in the 10th and 6th (etc) next year wouldn't that moot Sandoval wherever it is in the appeals process? Or do I misunderstand your point?
218. Retired_Lawyer | May 26, 2014 at 3:09 pm

Sevcik v. Sandoval has a weird appellate posture. The briefs supporting the State defendants were withdrawn by the Governor and the Attorney General after a panel of Ninth Circuit Judges in another case announced a heightened scrutiny test for cases involving discrimination against gays. That case, SmithKline Beecham v. Abbot Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) is at this moment in a kind of limbo because of a rehearing en banc effort undertaken by one or more of the Ninth Circuit Judges (a "sua sponte" motion). Assuming that SmithKLine is not reheard, and heightened scrutiny remains the standard within the Ninth Circuit, then in all likelihood the plaintiffs will be awarded judgment (the Ninth Circuit will review the District Court's decision de novo), and that will be the end of the case. The Governor (who is a former Federal Judge) and the Attorney General are still in the case, so it is "live" from an Article 3 "case or controversy" standpoint, but it is difficult to imagine them taking it any further inasmuch as they are not actively defending it now. Their position is that the State action cannot meet a heightened scrutiny test. Sevcik v. Sandoval will probably be decided by the Ninth Circuit before the Supreme Court decides the merits of any marriage equality case, BUT the scheduling of the Ninth Circuit has been unpredictable–to use a polite term.
219. Bruno71 | May 26, 2014 at 3:45 pm

A SCOTUS ruling next summer would surely moot Sevcik. I think his theory is that the 9th doesn't want this case (or perhaps any case in its circuit) to be the one that SCOTUS decides.
220. david | May 29, 2014 at 11:24 am

Breaking…. Gov Snyder wants this done…..MI May Become an Entire state that will protect LGBT from employment and housing discrimination.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140529/NEW…
221. skip hire London | May 30, 2014 at 1:32 am

Superb, what a website it is! This web site provides helpful
information to us, keep it up.

Here is my weblog: skip hire London
222. Business Engagement | June 25, 2014 at 7:41 am

I absolutely love your blog and fihd most of your post’s to be just what I’m looking for.
Do youu offwr guest writers to write content for yourself?
I wouldn’t mind composing a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write with regards to here.
Again, aweome web log!

Here is my web blog; Business Engagement
223. Novella | July 10, 2014 at 11:29 pm

Oh my goodness! Awesome article dude! Thanks, However I am going through
issues with your RSS. I don’t understand why I am unable to subscribe to it.

Is there anybody having similar RSS problems? Anyone that knows the answer can you kindly respond?
Thanks!!
224. Equality On TrialNinth Ci&hellip | August 7, 2014 at 1:54 am

[…] will be argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September. Previously, the appeals court had filed orders indicating that the Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, would be argued “in September” […]
225. site de sondages&hellip | August 14, 2014 at 5:08 am

site de sondages

Equality On TrialNevada marriage equality case to be argued at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September » Equality On Trial
226. métiers qui paye bien&hellip | August 30, 2014 at 2:39 pm

métiers qui paye bien

Equality On TrialNevada marriage equality case to be argued at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September » Equality On Trial
227. offres d emploi domicile&hellip | September 17, 2014 at 4:28 pm

offres d emploi domicile

Equality On TrialNevada marriage equality case to be argued at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September » Equality On Trial
228. gagner argent internet&hellip | September 30, 2014 at 8:53 am

gagner argent internet

Equality On TrialNevada marriage equality case to be argued at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September » Equality On Trial