Equality On Trial

30616172 Commentshttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityontrial.com%2F2014%2F06%2F13%2Feven-wisconsin-updates%2FEven+more+Wisconsin+updates..+UPDATED%3A+injunction+issued%2C+stay+granted2014-06-13+15%3A00%3A23Scottie+Thomastonhttp%3A%2F%2Fequalityontrial.com%2F%3Fp%3D30616

• 1. brandall  |  June 13, 2014 at 8:20 am

  My RSS for gay marriage has been more active in the past 5 days than ever. It is solely due to the Wisconsin ME on/off, yes/no, submit/retract, etc. Every county/regional newspaper is following this. This Wisconsin ME roller coaster takes the cake for the number of twists and turns. Maybe NOM and its' affiliates new strategy is to try and bankrupt the State of WI before the final court decisions are in.

• 2. brandall  |  June 13, 2014 at 8:26 am

  Nebraska Supreme Court dismisses appeal in divorce case involving gay couple married in Iowa
  http://www.tribtown.com/view/story/4a20366fbd494b…

  Too many states at once. I don't even remember what the issues were in Nebraska. I feel like we are playing 50+ chess games all at the same time.

  UPDATE: The case was brought by Bonnie Nichols, a Nebraska woman who got married in Iowa in 2009.

  Nichols' lawyer argued Nebraska is required to recognize legal marriages performed in other states.

  A lower court in Nebraska ruled it can not grant a divorce because the state does not recognize gay marriage.

  The judge issued an order giving Nichols 15 days to file an amended complaint, but instead she appealed.

• 3. sfbob  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:04 am

  It seems to me that, notwithstanding the continued existence of Section 2 of DOMA, a suit could be successfully filed not just using the Fourteenth Amendment but using the Comity Clause of the US Constitution:

  Article IV, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause): “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

  To me it still beggars belief that a couple could be legally married in one state and then become legal strangers when they cross a state line. There is or should be a reasonable presumption in this respect as there is in virtually all other respects that the legal, executive and judicial acts of one state will be recognized by other states.

  And if Section 2 of DOMA were to prove to be an impediment, well now would be as good a time as any to contest that as well.

• 4. SeattleRobin  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:21 am

  I was finally taking time to read the briefs linked to in the post from a few days ago about activity in the 6th Circuit. The Tennessee and Kentucky cases are specifically about states not recognizing marriages performed in other states. The one from Tennessee is especially good. I'd suggest reading it if you haven't already. The lawyer covers a lot of ground, including the free right to travel between states without your legal rights and responsibilities changing like a ping pong ball whizzing around as you cross state borders.

• 5. StraightDave  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:27 am

  I have always (perhaps naively) interpreted the Comity Clause to mean that if a citizen from Iowa walked into Nebraska they would be treated the same as all other "citizens"/residents of Nebraska, and not treated differently because they were a "foreigner".

  The alternative view, which is partly what's at issue now, would require NE to treat all visitors from IA the same way IA treats them when they are back home. I can see NE balking at being forced to "act like IA would".

  All of the above is quite independent from the equal protection argument about treating *all* visitors from IA the same way (whatever that "same way" happens to be). That's why I see the licensing and recognition issues to be fairly distinct, and could in many cases be judged separately.

• 6. DaveM_OH  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:08 am

  Dave,
  Your reading of the Comity Clause is correct.

  “It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property, and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.”
  Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (75 U.S.) 168, 180 (1869)

  Read more at http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag9_…

• 7. KarlS  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:27 am

  Somewhat tangentially, it occurs to me there are lots of examples where this is violated but no legal recourse is available…for instance, I can buy a couple ounces of cannabis in southeast Colorado and have it in my car…perfectly legal but if I drive half a mile south into Oklahoma and get 'caught' I could easily end up spending the next 5 years in prison.

• 8. DrPatrick1  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:47 am

  I think what is being pointed out here, is that this law grants you the same rights and responsibilities of State B as any other citizen of State B, even if you are a resident of State A. It does not require you to have the same rights and responsibilities of State A, when you are in State B.

  HOWEVER, it appears that related to ME, If Nebraska treats marriages from IOWA where both parties are of the same sex differently than the same marriages where each of the parties is of a different sex, then that appears to violate equal protection.

• 9. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:59 am

  Nebraska/Iowa is such a great example of this, because it's likely there are more than a few gay couples who live in Council Bluffs, Iowa that have one or both commute to Omaha for work. The legal status of these couples is in flux every single day as they move between the states.

• 10. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:05 pm

  Until Judge Jones put a stop to it, plenty of trains were temporarily divorcing some of their passengers as they crossed the Delaware River westbound, and remarrying them when they went eastbound. It was like deliberately bad science fiction.

• 11. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:12 pm

  With Illinois in the equality category now, there are many married couples commuting into Chicago from Indiana and Wisconsin (though this is obviously up in the air right now) who get unmarried again when they return home. Sickening situation.

• 12. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm

  As a native Hoosier who has since left the state, this is one of only a handful of issues where I am sympathetic to the situation NW Hoosiers have.

  Cubs v. White Sox? Blah – I've been a SF Giants fan for more than 50 years now.

  Da Bears? I've never been a Bears fan (nor the Lions, Bengals, Browns – other NFL teams closer or approximately the same distance). Besides, I'm now in the home city of the Ravens (twice winner of the Super Bowl since 2000. Have 'da Bears' even been to a single SB since 2000, let alone win one?)

  NE Indiana is on ES/D time; Illinois (and NW Indiana) is on CS/D time (an hour SLOWER).

  Etc.

• 13. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:09 pm

  Also happens in the St. Louis metro area (anyone know the status of the State case in MO?). WI is/was even worse, with people commuting between there and IL/IA/MN.

• 14. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:26 pm

  Also happens for those who live in Virginia and West Virginia (and now Ohio), and work in DC or Maryland (and now Pennsylvania).

  In fact, there are lots of people who move between any and all the jurisdictions for 'living' purposes.

• 15. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:25 pm

  Actually the science fiction is in the original decision to consider two men or two women "married" to each other, and even New Jersey would be balking at this notion but for Windsor's effect on its equal treatment requirement.

• 16. davepCA  |  June 14, 2014 at 12:08 am

  What's far more preposterous is your idea that simply preferring the kind of sex that puts you in the classification of 'breeder stock' somehow makes you entitled to "special rights", especially in light of how you have made a mockery of your "marriages" and destroyed your "families" with your tendencies for having a million abortions a year, your huge numbers of unplanned, unwanted and abandoned babies, and your unbelievably high rates of divorce. You straight breeders just can't seem to understand what your "marriages" and your "families" are supposed to be for in the first place. You're in no position to make disparaging remarks about other peoples marriages and families until you have cleaned up the filthy mess you have made of your own "marriages" and "families".

• 17. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 1:08 am

  You'll be surprised to know that I agree with much of what you say here. No doubt straight people have disrespected and denigrated the institution of marriage all on their own, and this has led us down the path to where we are now — where, what the hey, let's just redefine the whole thing to be about the desires of the people involved.

  Marriage is on the edge of the cliff the way it is. The only question is do we push it off by redefining it, or do we restore it by getting rid of such things as no-fault divorce and making marriage a true and legally enforced commitment? I'm for the latter.

  But first things first, which is to beat back the threat that the movement for redefinition poses.

  Seriously, the whole idea that there would be any state to recognize same-sex "marriage" — much less federal courts declaring it pure bigotry not to — is like something straight out of The Twilight Zone.

• 18. RnL2008  |  June 14, 2014 at 1:32 am

  Well, the problem with your whole belief system is that you keep trying to differentiate between "MARRIAGE" and this non-existence thing you call "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage, which truly DOESN'T exist…….no state has ever issued a "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage license, just like no state has EVER issued an "INTERRACIAL" or "INTERFAITH" marriage license!!!

• 19. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 2:41 am

  "this non-existence[sic] thing you call 'GAY' or 'SAME-SEX' Marriage, which truly DOESN'T exist"

  I would have put the quotes around "marriage", but otherwise, couldn't have said it better myself.

• 20. Zack12  |  June 14, 2014 at 4:57 am

  You've been reported again and you will be banned again.
  I wonder how much of a joke your life is that you have to resort to trolling certain sites again and again?

• 21. KarlS  |  June 14, 2014 at 9:08 am

  I'm trying to figure out if this person is mentally defective or just another inbred asshole. Could be both, I suppose.

• 22. Bruno71  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:47 pm

  Truth is s/he likes us. S/he really likes us.

• 23. daveinasheville  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:15 am

  I'm sure that, to a resident of his particular Twilight Zone, the notion that "the desires of the people involved" could have anything to do with marriage must look bizarre if not tragic.

  How sad to be trapped in such a thought-prison, to be so blind to that expression of love. Fortunately for the rest of us, we will prevail with or without the approval of the retrogrades…

• 24. davepCA  |  June 14, 2014 at 3:11 pm

  TK sez: "first things first, which is to beat back the threat that the movement for redefinition poses" as a way to solve the problems that are rampant in the "marriages" and "families" of opposite sex couples who won't respect marriage and fail to procreate responsibly.

  You have once again defeated yourself with the broken "logic" of that "argument". You are trying to claim that denying a civil marriage license to same sex couples would somehow cause opposite sex couples to get married, stay married, and procreate more responsibly. That is delusional and idiotic "reasoning".

  Denying a civil marriage to a same sex couple does nothing to benefit other couples.

  Granting a civil marriage to a same sex couple does nothing to negatively impact other couples.

  And since denying civil marriage to same sex couples results in a clear violation of our Constitutional mandate for Equal Protection, the bans on civil marriage for same sex couples will continue to fall.

  You. Have. No. Argument.

• 25. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 14, 2014 at 8:50 pm

  In May 2004, Massachusetts allowed the first marriages between same sex couples. Prior to that, the divorce rate in Massachusetts was THE lowest (or among the lowest) in the US. Since 2004, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has declined.

  The only thing different now and before May 2004? People of the same sex are now allowed to marry. The age of consent has not changed. The authority of a spouse to not testify at a trial is unchanged. There has been no change in inheritance law. The ONLY thing that has changed is that people of the same sex are now allowed to get married (and the divorce rate has declined from it's earlier minuscule rate).

  Looks to me like there has been no change in Massachusetts, except for people of the same sex staying married and thus encouraging straights to also stay married.

  The only way that marriage has been "redefined" is that now it is no longer restricted to heterosexual couples, and in the process reduced the divorce rate. Looks like marriage, if it has been "redefined", has been "redefined" for the better.

• 26. KarlS  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:51 am

  Of course…I was simply pointing out that laws are unfairly/unequally enacted and enforced between states. Why are people downvoting my post which simply takes note of a fact? That's pretty juvenile.

• 27. bayareajohn  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:10 pm

  GET OVER YOUR VOTEPHOBIA.
  A true but disliked fact reported in a message may well get a downvote. This likely means they agree with you that it is a bad thing.

  THERE ARE NO RULES.
  In a comment, when someone reports a loss in some case, do you upvote it in thanks for the report, but make it look like you are glad it happened, or do you downvote because it's bad news and make an oversensitive commenter feel rejected?

  It's pretty juvenile, to use your words, to expect to control how people react to what you post for them to read.

• 28. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:44 pm

  A true, but disliked, FACT is NOT a reason to downvote with NO explanation. As an example, if a court rules against you (let's say you have a tree on your property that damages the drive, fence, etc. on your neighbor's property, and a judge orders you to pay repair costs, the judge's order is a FACT. You might disagree with the judge's order, but that does NOT make it a non-FACT.

  If you dislike an opinion, do everyone a favor and explain why you dislike the opinion (the opinion which probably is based on facts). If you don't explain your vote (especially downvotes), you most likely are taking the juvenile and lazy way out, and downvoting (without explanation) just to downvote.

  There can be exceptions (TK comes to mind), but even then many people expressed WHY they were downvoting the bigot.

  And for your information, can you point out the rule that says you MUST place an upvote or downvote on every comment? Many people read the comments, but don't vote on each and every comment. I'm sure you've done exactly that in the past.

• 29. bayareajohn  |  June 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm

  For "my" information, you are telling me to point out a rule when I specifically say there are no rules. Sorry, that's irrational. And in no way can my comment be twisted into implying that I feel all comments must be voted on… rationally.

  Count the total up and down vote results in a topic, multiply by 150% to estimate the actual number of votes it took to get there, and now imagine if every one took your instructions to post an explanation, now add the votes that the explanations will get and the explanations of those…

  No, I don't like that rule. Do you even follow it yourself?

• 30. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 2:55 pm

  "No, I don't like that rule."

  First you say there are no rules, then you say there are.

  And you talk about things (or comments) being 'irrational'?

  BTW – I didn't state there are no rules. You did, and in all capital letters. And then in a later comment, you imply that there is a rule that every comment must be voted upon (a rule that you make clear you ignore).

• 31. bayareajohn  |  June 13, 2014 at 3:47 pm

  I'll promise now not to reply to you again. I'll probably break that promise when you go off on things only you see, like insults to bisons and rules I didn't make or break. But I can try.

  You gave everyone instructions to explain their votes. That's your rule. I didn't make it or like it. And again, absolutely nothing in my post implies any rule of obligation to vote. You can say otherwise, and probably will, but the rest of us can see for ourselves. You might get fewer downvotes yourself if you didn't insist that what you think someone means is more important than what they actually mean or even said. That's pedantic at best, divisive at least, and trolling at worst.

  Addendum:
  Over and above what I just posted, I do want to thank Mike for his frequent and genuine contributions of information and thoughts here. Only occasionally anymore is he off titling at imagined infractions.

• 32. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 7:46 pm

  Exactly what "infractions" have I "imagined"?

  As to bison v buffalo, usually those who are not familiar with the differences between the two animals are the ones who intermix the two terms, just like those who call all facial tissues Kleenex, machines that make copies Xerox, all cotton swabs on a stick Q-Tips, etc.

  They also are very prone to call any and all Angus Black Angus, even though there is a breed of Angus that are red in color; or they call all dairy cows Holsteins, even though there are a multitude of other breeds of dairy cows (Swiss, Jersey, Guernsey, Brahman, etc.) which do not have resemblance to Holsteins.

  From Wikipedia (apparently the sole source for all information for some people who post here):
  "The American plains bison is no longer listed as endangered, but the wood bison is on the endangered species list in Canada." (Even Wikipedia attributes those facts to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.)

  As to how I "gave everyone instructions to explain their votes", that is your words. I SUGGESTED that if someone downvotes a comment, they should be able to explain WHY they downvoted the comment. It was a suggestion I made, NOT a rule of mine.

• 33. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:25 pm

  It's no more an equal protection violation than the current situation where Nebraska denies marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but grants them to opposite-sex couples.

• 34. RnL2008  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  That's simple DISCRIMINATION and both a Due Process, as well as Equal Protection violations……..and it matters NOT what was ruled in Nebraska…..what matters is the ruling from SCOTUS in the next year or so!!!

• 35. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:40 pm

  Be that (or not) as it may, there is nothing "even more" discriminatory about Nebraska treating a same-sex "marriage" ceremony in Iowa the same as a same-sex "marriage" ceremony in Nebraska. So if in-state ceremonies can be denied recognition, then recognition can be denied to out-of-state ceremonies as well, regardless of whether the other state grants it.

• 36. StraightDave  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:56 am

  @KarlS- That's true of anyone caught in OK, regardless of whether you're a citizen of OK or CO or the moon. That's an example of the Comity Clause being applied as intended. Everybody gets equal treatment. You can't expect to get away with possession in OK just because CO doesn't care. I think you may have switched my 2 examples or misread the discussion.

• 37. KarlS  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:02 pm

  Well, I didn't mean to derail the discussion but it seems to me that "free ingress and egress" is pretty meaningless when it can be canceled because of what's in your pocket. That is all I'm going to say about it.

• 38. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:10 pm

  The flip side of the Comity Clause, of course, is that OK can't prosecute KarlS for his indulgences in CO as long as he doesn't bring home souvenirs.

• 39. StraightDave  |  June 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm

  Even though Wisc claims the right to prosecute people for marriage infractions in other states. But we "know" that's gonna expire in 12 months.

• 40. RnL2008  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:05 am

  See, this is one of my issues….this patch work of rules that DON'T apply to us because of Section 2 of DOMA, which flies in the face of the Full Faith and Credit Clause!!!

  If one has the right to marry….one should have that same right to divorce and because our marriages are NOT recognized in ALL 50 States, this crap continues to happen………I mean tell an opposite-sex couple that their marriage is NOT recognized and therefore they will NOT be allowed to divorce and see all hell break loose, yet these folks think they can do it to us…..irritating!!!

• 41. DrPatrick1  |  June 13, 2014 at 6:16 pm

  Incidentally, DOMA at worst only says a state doesn't have to recognize ME. It doesn't say they can't. Whether a state does or doesn't would seem to implicate equal protection. I think this is why we are looking for the "big win" of an equal protection ruling where we get heightened scrutiny. That would have far broader applications than all these baby step rulings.

• 42. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 8:28 pm

  But the ONLY marriages many states do not recognize are those legally entered into where ME is allowed.

  If a state didn't recognize legally performed marriages from other states (for instance, PA didn't recognize 1st cousin marriages legally performed in another state), the state might have a leg to stand on in court. Since the only marriages not recognized are those ME legally entered into in other states, the states have, in effect, shot themselves in the foot (IMO) when they allow almost all marriages, but don't allow others legally performed in another state (specifically ME).

  Even Indiana, where the creation of 'common law' marriages has been illegal since the mid-1950s, recognizes 'common law' marriages legally created in other jurisdictions, such as those 'created' in Pennsylvania until a court decision in 2003, then legislatively in 2004 (effective January 1, 2005). You'd think Indiana, since they recognize legally created 'common law' (in other states) marriages, first cousin marriage (legally created in other states), etc., would recognize all marriages. But you'd think wrong, since the state does not recognize any ME legally created in other jurisdictions.

• 43. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm

  Indiana has a specific law against recognizing same-sex "marriages". The fact that they extend comity to certain marriages that they would not have allowed in state does not mean that they don't "have a leg to stand on" when refusing to recognize others, particularly when such other "marriages" violate the very definition of the term. Common-law marriages don't violate Indiana's public policy to the extent same-sex "marriages" do.
  '

• 44. davepCA  |  June 14, 2014 at 12:20 am

  They recognize all types of legal out of state marriages that are not allowed to take place in their own state – except same sex marriages. And they do not have any rational reason for singling out this group for unequal treatment. They have no leg to stand on. And neither do you. You have never been able to answer the simple questions at the center of this issue. All you can do is tap dance around the edges and try to avoid the real issue.

  Laws that deny civil marriage to same sex couples subject the targeted group to unequal legal treatment and harm the affected group, and fail to advance any states interest in the process, or serve any purpose that a civil law ought to serve. They are nothing more than harmful discrimination for its own sake, and are blatantly unconstitutional. And you have no argument against this. Nobody does. There are none.

• 45. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 2:10 am

  "And they do not have any rational reason for singling out this group for unequal treatment."

  Yes they do: the same reason they single out the same group for unequal treatment in-state.

  "Laws that deny civil marriage to same sex couples…are blatantly unconstitutional."

  If your argument is that the Constitution requires that same-sex "marriage" be allowed in every state, why bother with the moot question about recognition?

  As to your argument, well, a couple federal courts (Jackson v. Abercrombie, Sevcik v. Sandoval), the only appeals court to rule on the matter (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning), and most likely SCOTUS (Herbert v. Kitchen) disagree with you. While the constitutional question remains unsettled, your assertion of blatancy is, well, blatantly false.

  If you care to show some proof that 3/4 of the states* have ever — much less at the time they ratified the 14th Amendment — intended the amendment to provide for a right to same-sex "marriage", you might have a case. But you can't. Because it's not true.

  (*I'll even spot you all the states of the old Confederacy, which would have likely voted for the amendment no matter what it said or implied.)

• 46. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 14, 2014 at 9:16 pm

  When SCOTUS ruled in Herbert v Kitchen, the ruling was ONLY for a stay to allow appeal. It was NOT a SCOTUS ruling on whether the law was legal or not. The other rulings you cite were not SCOTUS rulings.

  SCOTUS HAS directly ruled, though, on at least two other cases you neglected to list (it was accidental, correct?) – 'US v Windsor', and what is popularly known in the GLBT community as 'Prop H8', and both decisions didn't go the way bigots like NOM (and you?) wanted them to go (we won't mention the other SCOTUS rulings, such as 'Lawrence', the decision on Colorado's Prop 2 [popularly known as 'Romer'], etc. Might seem as if the GLBT community is piling on you by doing so, and piling on is generally frowned upon in polite society.).

• 47. davepCA  |  June 14, 2014 at 9:38 pm

  Notice how the troll continues to tap dance in an attempt to ignore the issue. He's flailing. And losing badly.

  Subjecting only this group of legally married couples to harmful denial of equal legal treatment is just as lacking a valid justification as is denying civil marriage to same sex couples within their own state.

  Laws that deny civil marriage to same sex couples subject the targeted group to unequal legal treatment and harm the affected group, and fail to advance any states interest in the process, or serve any purpose that a civil law ought to serve.

  You, and every attempted defense in over a dozen consecutive trials, have completely failed to put forth any "argument" to the contrary that survives even the slightest application of logical scrutiny. You. Have. No. Argument. There are none.

• 48. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:33 pm

  The solution is really pretty simple: if you want your "marriage" recognized, stay in the state where you got "married", or in one of the other states that go along with the pretense of your "marriage".

  OTOH, if you want a divorce, you can look on the bright side: you don't need one because you aren't married!

• 49. RnL2008  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:03 pm

  So, should the same apply to heterosexual couples who marry and then move to another state? or is this solution ONLY for legally married Gay and Lesbian couples?

  You really AREN'T very bright…….whether the State recognizes the marriage or NOT has NOTHING to do with whether the marriage is legal or NOT!!!

  You troll are on the LOSING side of history!!!

• 50. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:53 pm

  The same does apply to heterosexual couples who marry and then move to another state. They agree to abide by the other state's decision whether or not to recognize their marriage. (Lucky for them, every state has chosen to recognize actual marriages from every other state.)

  "whether the State recognizes the marriage or NOT has NOTHING to do with whether the marriage is legal or NOT"

  Not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying it's not illegal for any couple to conduct a "marriage" ceremony (and commit their eternal devotion to one another, yada yada) in any state in the country, then I agree, but hardly see that as relevant.

  If the ceremony is not one that unites a man and a woman as husband and wife, then it is not a marriage ceremony. Most states recognize this plain and simple truth, but a few are willing to pretend otherwise.

• 51. RnL2008  |  June 14, 2014 at 12:53 am

  Sorry, but a heterosexual couple married in California has NEVER had their marriage NOT be recognized in ANY of the other 49 states……..and NEITHER should my legal marriage to my wife NOT be legally recognized in ALL 50 States………that is what is being discussed here!!!

  The right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL according to SCOTUS, the gender of the couple should be IRRELEVANT!!!

  I know you want to keep marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, but that's NOT going to happen……..If my right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL, then who are you to tell me I MUST marry someone of the opposite-sex?

  Actually, it is a marriage ceremony regardless of gender make-up of the couple……..it's just that some states WON'T issue a marriage license, but that is a changing and my guess is that by the summer of 2016……SCOTUS will toss ALL state mini DOMA's as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

• 52. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 1:28 am

  "Sorry, but a heterosexual couple … has NEVER had their marriage NOT be recognized…."

  Lucky for them, eh?

  "and NEITHER should my legal marriage to my wife NOT be legally recognized in ALL 50 States…."

  Well that is up to those states. If you want your "marriage" recognized when you and your "wife" take a trip to Vegas, you should contact the Nevada legislature. Although, as you aren't a citizen of Nevada, I'm not sure why they should listen to you.

  "The right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL according to SCOTUS, the gender of the couple should be IRRELEVANT!!!"

  It's not irrelevant. It is an inherent part of what marriage is, and what makes it a fundamental right. You have the right to live as domestic partners with someone of the same sex, but not to the title nor benefits of marriage.

  "If my right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL, then who are you to tell me I MUST marry someone of the opposite-sex?"

  You don't have to get married if you don't want to. You can remain a bachelorette. But to be married, a woman needs a husband. A woman can't have a wife, by definition.

  "SCOTUS will toss ALL state mini DOMA's as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!"

  No sense going back and forth about it; time will tell. I will merely remind you that 44.4% of SCOTUS voted to uphold the big DOMA, and the remaining 55.6% acknowledged that marriage and domestic relations were the "virtually exclusive province of the states". So with all due respect, I like my odds better than yours.

• 53. RnL2008  |  June 14, 2014 at 1:47 am

  I'm a Citizen of the United States, NOT a particular State….so, I DON'T need to contact any state legislator from another State……there is this little thing known as the Full, Faith and Credit Clause that basically states that public records like marriage licenses, divorce decrees and custody papers MUST be recognized in other States…..you should try reading it sometime!!!

  There are ONLY 3 sections of DOMA, Section 1 is just the title, Section 2 is currently being challenged and Section 3 was has already been tossed by SCOTUS……..you can like your odds all ya want……..but as I see it, SCOTUS has always believed in individual rights and seeing as Marriage has been ruled a Fundamental right……..I believe that SCOTUS will NOT reverse course on that Fundamental right……..the question that SCOTUS needs to address is whether Marriage is a Fundamental right ONLY for those who marry someone of the opposite-sex or is it truly a FUNDAMENTAL right regardless of gender make-up…….and I believe they will rule on the latter!!!

  We as a Country can NOT have Fundamental rights that specifically tell someone who they can marry…..it wouldn't be a FUNDAMENTAL right then!!!

  Actually to be married does NOT require a man aka a husband because I am legally married and have been legally married for almost 6 years….NO husband then, NO husband now!!!

  Actually the title "WIFE" is specific to a woman being married…….both my wife and I are married and therefore we are both technically a "WIFE"!!!

  Now, I've given you way to much of my time…….you will NOT win the battle or the war any more than these States will prevail in the end!!!

  Have a great weekend……..I'm done with you!!!

• 54. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 2:37 am

  "I'm a Citizen of the United States, NOT a particular State"

  You might want to read the 14th Amendment a little more closely.

  "there is this little thing known as the Full, Faith and Credit Clause"

  Sure. And Nevada would have to recognize you as "married" in California. Which wouldn't be of much help in Nevada.

  "We as a Country can NOT have Fundamental rights that specifically tell someone who they can marry…..it wouldn't be a FUNDAMENTAL right then!!!"

  Does this mean I can marry my sister? Or my (consenting adult) grandson?

  "Actually the title 'WIFE' is specific to a woman being married"

  You ever wonder why there are separate terms for "husband" and "wife"? I'll give you a hint: because gender matters.

  "Have a great weekend"

  Same to you!

• 55. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 14, 2014 at 9:28 pm

  Maybe it is YOU who should read Amendment XIV a bit more closely, especially the first section:

  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  And the US Constitution also guarantees that any person can move from one state to another (even multiple times) at any time and for any reason. I've lived in Indiana, Maryland and Virginia. I've been a citizen of each state (but only that state) while I resided in each of those states, but I've always been a US citizen.

• 56. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:09 pm

  In Obergefell Judge Black suggested that the right to marry necessarily implies the existence of a subsidiary right to remain married.

• 57. tknsc  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:45 pm

  And as I recall he cited as his legal authority some law review article entitled "The Right to (Keep Your) Same-Sex Marriage", and did so in a footnote. Hardly a SCOTUS precedent, but when your intent is to impose your personal belief on a state simply because you have the power, then I guess it'll do in a pinch.

• 58. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 14, 2014 at 9:37 pm

  I guess you think Judge Black's ruling means it can't be appealed? After all, when a ruling is appealed to a Federal Circuit court, there are at least three judges who hear the appeal. And the final appeal in the court system is to SCOTUS, which rarely has fewer than nine justices involved in the ruling.

  Can you tell us what types of cases cannot be appealed? You must think there are such types of cases if you think a single judge can make a ruling, and thus tell a state what to think based on that singular judge's "personal belief", and the state cannot appeal that judge's ruling.

• 59. SeattleRobin  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:28 am

  Just to be clear, the state supreme court dismissed her appeal because she appealed from a provisional order, not a final judgment, so the court lacked jurisdiction. It's a procedural thing, not a merits thing.

• 60. JayJonson  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:32 am

  It is important to note that the Nebraska Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case. They simply said that they lacked jurisdiction since the lower court had not issued a final ruling. (Sort of like the Seventh Circuit will lack jurisdiction over Wisconsin's ruling until Judge Crabb issues a final ruling.)

• 61. MichaelGrabow  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:48 am

  Or the AR Supreme Court.

  Edit: Now that I have registered, every post I make automatically comes with one upvote. Is this only visible to me?

• 62. davepCA  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:57 am

  Nope. I see your upvote. Hey look, we all get a 'free' upvote!

• 63. StraightDave  |  June 13, 2014 at 9:59 am

  It presumes you like your own comment 🙂
  I experienced the same thing, and I do see your + 1 now.
  I'll down vote it now, just as a test. Please don't take offense.

  Edit: the down vote worked. I tried to upvote my own comment and it says I already voted on it. So I guess we all get 1 free vote now.

• 64. Waxr  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:31 am

  It's not just a matter of liking your own comment. If you don't like your own comment, you can "Report" it.

• 65. StraightDave  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:04 am

  Believe it or not, I seriously considered that one time, on this site. Before I had registered, I had 2nd thoughts about one of my posts and came close to reporting myself just to get the moderators to delete it for me. I ultimately chickened out of chickening out because I would have looked doubly stupid, and let it stand. I ended up not getting arrested so it's all good.

• 66. Steve  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:07 pm

  Such a stupid legal system. Nothing should prevent the courts from recognizing a marriage for the purposes of divorce only. People still have a right to have their affairs settled by the courts.

• 67. DrPatrick1  |  June 13, 2014 at 6:47 pm

  An Unmarried couple who breaks up is likely to have tangled affairs that a "divorce" with the benefit of the rules available under law would help to put their affairs in order. Marriage is such an important right because it is like a gateway to all sorts of legal protections that are very difficult or impossible to obtain any other way.

  The "unfairness" evidenced by the consequences of couples being affected by not being able to access the same rights as others, is EXACTLY why we need ME.

  I do not use quotes to imply it might not be unfair, but unfair is not nearly strong enough! It is a complete miscarriage of justice.

• 68. BenG1980  |  June 13, 2014 at 7:02 pm

  "Such a stupid legal system."
  I disagree, but then I'm part of said system. 🙂

  "Nothing should prevent the courts from recognizing a marriage for the purposes of divorce only."
  Since marriage equality, by definition, means that all marriages (opposite-sex and same-sex) are equal, nothing should prevent the courts from recognizing a valid marriage for ANY purpose.

  "People still have a right to have their affairs settled by the courts."
  This is only true if the courts have jurisdiction to hear the cases. If states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, then their domestic relations courts usually lack jurisdiction to settle anything related to such marriages. Again, this gets back to premise behind marriage equality and the fundamental right of each person to marry the woman or man of her or his choice, regardless of gender. As soon as marriage equality is recognized nationwide, then, yes, all people will have that right. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

• 69. Steve  |  June 14, 2014 at 7:00 am

  And that's just backwards and exactly why it is a stupid legal system.

  Yes, marriage equality is important, but a properly set up society wouldn't automatically regulate so much things through marriage in the first place! There are so many things that are needlessly tied to marriage. And without any thought whatsoever. At some point marriage just became an automatism to distribute all benefits by government. That wasn't always the case and it shouldn't be. There should be some thought spend on whether a particular right or benefit should really to be tied to marriage.

  Unfortunately people just focus on marriage equality and most never spend a minute to think whether the current system is such a good idea. I'm not one of those extremists who thinks that marriage should be abolished altogether. No, it has its uses. But it needs some reform.

• 70. SeattleRobin  |  June 14, 2014 at 5:29 pm

  What would you suggest instead? I mean that honestly, it's not a sarcastic question.

  The vast majority of benefits and responsibilities that come with marriage have to do with forming a single household, creating a family of individuals who are legally related to each other, and being able to operate as an economic unit.

  People who are not involved in a long-term romantic relationship usually do not have the same needs, and usually have relationships that are not as stable or long lasting. Best friends living together could certainly benefit, but those arrangements in most cases are more temporary. And for roommates even more so, since there is usually less of a personal connection.

  There are always exceptions, people who marry in haste or for wrong reasons, oe best friends who spend many years together. But in the main, the generalizations I made are true. And even in cases of long-term roommates or friends, it's rare that the people involved want to legally and economically entwine their affairs.

  So I wonder what people who do not wish to marry feel they are being cheated out of. (For the record I never want to marry.)

  Also with same-sex marriage allowed, friends and roommates can get married to gain benefits, they don't have to be in love or have sex. Some straight people already do that.

• 71. Steve  |  June 15, 2014 at 4:07 am

  Much of the big stuff can be tied to marriage, yes. But think of smaller things. Doesn't strike it you as insane that there are over a thousand federal benefits to marriage? It's about a lot more than just the usual stuff like healthcare (though that needs to divorced from employment) and taxes.

  There are other ways to establish and prove a close relationship. For example domestic partnerships sometimes require showing a combined household through things like joint bank accounts, joint bills or joint ownership of the home. The same could be done for certain benefits that are then open to any relationship.

  Or take something like hospital visitation, which has been frequently an issue for gay couples. Why the hell is this so closely connected to marriage? Medical decision making is one thing (though medical powers of attorney clearly aren't as respected as the should be). Why is it such an issue to just visit someone in the hospital when you aren't related to them? Somehow you mostly hear such stories from the US.

• 72. SeattleRobin  |  June 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm

  Yeah, there are hundreds or thousands of laws and regulations, but most of them are details concerning the big item areas.

  I'm not sure what you mean in the part about domestic partnerships. You explained how a joint household can be proved, but you didn't say what benefits you want by doing so. That's what I'm trying to understand.

  I totally agree with you on the hospital thing. Some hospitals have adopted a policy of letting the patient designate who can visit them, which is as it should be. There needs to be a concerted effort to get all hospitals to adopt that policy. But it's not a marriage issue, it's a holdover from an older era when family is considered supreme without regard to the importance of other significant people in a person's life.

• 73. bayareajohn  |  June 18, 2014 at 4:48 pm

  There's the little matter of privacy and liability, and when the patient can't or won't talk, legal relationship is required for anyone to act, visit, even know any details of the patient condition. Look up HIPAA. It's a "protection" law.

• 74. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 12:30 am

  "Nothing should prevent the courts from recognizing a marriage for the purposes of divorce only."

  That reminds me of one time when a pizza shop issued coupons that were "valid only at competitors who accept competitors' coupons".

• 75. Waxr  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:24 am

  I cannot imagine county clerks being prosecuted for not enforcing a law which the district court has said is unconstitutional, however, can the AG be prosecuted for using threats to compel county clerks to enforce an unconstitutional law?

• 76. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:14 am

  I don't know, but it probably wouldn't apply in this case. He didn't say HE would prosecute them, just that they might get prosecuted by DA's. Sure, it's a veiled threat, but not one in which he himself is wielding the sword. At least on the surface.

• 77. cpnlsn88  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:50 am

  Quite. And it's telling that there has been no prosecution after approx 1 week of such marriages. It seems that this particular law is not really for this situation. People did not issue these licences until the law was found to be unconstitutional. In addition the people who got married could have crossed the state line and married in Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa and marry. Yes there is a legal question if the appeal gets heard where the district court ruling might be upheld, overruled or stayed. But surely no place for prosecution in a case like this.

  Fundamentally however the AG cannot bring himself to decisively act in this matter. I think there is a view that same sex marriage should be legalised but with the AG giving the impression of fighting it every step of the way.

• 78. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:10 pm

  Still doesn't make sense unless they plan on dropping the appeal at some point. And that won't happen if the AG stays true to his rhetoric. It does seem to me that he's taking on the brunt of the fight while Walker tries to steer clear. But I think the inanity of the AG's actions can only be ascribed to poor calculation at this point.

• 79. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm

  Van Hollen may not be all too happy about Walker designating him as the simultaneous hatchet man and fall guy in this case. His petitions to courts that can't possibly have jurisdiction look like classic passive-aggressive behavior. Also see my remarks in other threads about the corner he's backed himself into with his response brief against the injunction.

• 80. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 3:29 pm

  More passive-aggressive behavior from Van Hollen: http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/pat_sc…

  In an email to DAs provided to the Cap Times, Van Hollen said he did not suggest or recommend that county clerks by criminally charged.

  “During a half-hour interview in which the Journal Sentinel asked if clerks could be charged I acknowledged they could, and further stated it would be very fact specific and up to individual District Attorneys. The opposite answer would have been untruthful.

  "I would certainly not encourage any prosecutor to do so and even suggested at the conclusion of the interview that the reporter should not print on that subject as it would be fear mongering,” Van Hollen wrote.

  Ah, yes, deliberately making a provocative statement that you know in advance is likely to be misunderstood. Maybe if none of the right-wing think-tanks want to hire him once his term is over he can find a thriving career as a radio shock jock.

• 81. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:39 pm

  Yep. the mark of a truly cowardly bully is that he threatens people with other people's actions. In this case he almost certainly didn't check with those other people before making the proxy threat; as of the wee hours of this morning, the DAs that the news media had contacted (albeit mostly ones who are vying for the Democratic nomination for AG this fall) were not entirely successful in refraining from laughter when asked about the possibility.

  A Marquette law professor who's a retired WI Supreme Court justice also pointed out that in most counties the DA and the clerk and all the local judges would know each other personally, so any prosecution would require bringing in a special prosecutor and an outside judge.

  Van Hollen had to make his threat by proxy because he's materially represented to the court that he has no authority over licensing (and thus the injunction should not enjoin him), so a direct threat would open him up to perjury charges.

• 82. MichaelGrabow  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:21 pm

  Any news from the 1pm hearing today?

• 83. cpnlsn88  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:32 pm

  I managed to come across this which sort of indicates that a stay may be coming.
  http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federa…

• 84. MichaelGrabow  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm

  Thanks.

  Crabb indicated she believed she was obligated to stay any injunction she issues, which would halt same-sex marriages until higher courts rule on the issue. She noted stays have been issued in all other same-sex marriage cases around the country.

  "As you know, the system, federal system, is one in which district courts must follow the rulings of the (U.S.) Supreme Court, and so far what the Supreme Court has done is indicate it will enter stays if the district court doesn't," she said. "I'm just at the bottom level of the system."

• 85. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:58 pm

  "She noted stays have been issued in all other same-sex marriage cases around the country. " Not in Oregon, not in Pennsylvania…

• 86. Fledge01  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:06 pm

  A stay is only issued pending an appeal when there is an appeal. Pennsylvania was not appealed and Oregon NOM didn't have standing to appeal.

• 87. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 13, 2014 at 2:36 pm

  A Federal District court (and just about any other court, state or Federal) issues a stay until an appeal is made. If no appeal will be forthcoming, the stay disappears, or the court issuing the stay dissolves the stay. After SCOTUS ruled on Prop H8, the 9th Circuit dissolved it's stay early – otherwise ME would have arrived (again) in CA several weeks later than June 28, 2013, most likely in mid- to late-July.

  In Pennsylvania, the state early on stated it would not appeal. Since Judge Jones didn't issue a stay on his decision, there was no stay to dissolve.

  In Oregon, the Governor and AG made it very clear several months before the decision that they would not appeal if the decision came down for ME as expected. NOM tried to intervene, but got shot down at the Federal District court level. It still is appealing that decision at the 9th Circuit, but if it wins, it still must prove that it has standing to appeal the ME ruling. As of now, it doesn't appear it does have, or can prove, standing.

  And in most stays, a stay is in place until a few days after final disposition of the case, be it at a state or Federal level.

• 88. KarlS  |  June 13, 2014 at 5:16 pm

  Or until Simon Says it is…

  Bah. I don't think any of these legal beagles have the sense god gave a garden slug.

• 89. KarlS  |  June 13, 2014 at 5:18 pm

  Or when the judge is afraid there WILL BE an appeal, right?
  Like in this one.

• 90. ebohlman  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:46 am

  Er, "this one" is a case where the defendants quite publicly announced their intention to appeal.

• 91. sfbob  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:27 pm

  I would however not overlook the very last sentence in Judge Crabb's decision:

  "I will address defendants’ pending motion to stay the injunction after the parties have had an opportunity to file materials related to the proposed injunction. If the parties wish, they may have until June 16, 2014, to supplement their materials related to that motion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber not to grant a stay in that case."

• 92. sfbob  |  June 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm

  Well evidently I shouldn't have read too much into that statement. Live and learn.

• 93. KarlS  |  June 13, 2014 at 5:14 pm

  Sorry to say, this judge is an idiot.

• 94. JayJonson  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:56 am

  No. Judge Crabb is anything but an idiot. She is brilliant.

• 95. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:33 pm

  I don't see how a stay would stop clerks who are currently issuing licenses from continuing to do so; it would just mean that a) the few remaining clerks who aren't issuing licenses aren't required to start and b) administrative recognition of licenses (for things like benefits for spouses of state employees) would remain on the honor system, with no penalties for noncompliance..

  It's still unknown who, if anyone, in the state government has the authority to stop clerks from issuing licenses. It appears to be hidden behind a SEP field.

• 96. StraightDave  |  June 13, 2014 at 2:25 pm

  It appears that nobody wants to own up to such responsibility, probably because people would start yelling at them regardless of what they did or didn't do. Cowards, all of them. Which means, IMO, the marriages may well continue next week.

  Can one of you legal eagles clarify that such a stay only prevents the enforcement of the injunction, as opposed to "staying the judgement" (if there is such a thing) that the laws are unconstitutional? If that judgement is still hanging up on the wall as the last decision of a court, then it seems to give free reign to clerks to decide for themselves. A court has spoken clearly, but there seems to be no legal force in either direction. The state could presumably throw their weight around, but has shown no inclination to do so. Could we possibly be in this de facto no-rules zone for the next 12 months? I actually hope so. Isn't that where NM was for a couple months?

• 97. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 8:24 am

  The injunction is what effectively strikes down the law, as it gives the clerks protection from prosecution for breaking it. There never having been an unstayed injunction, the clerks are criminally liable for all illegally-issued licenses, and the judge's mere declaration is not a defense. I doubt they will be prosecuted (think 6th grade: "If everybody does it, nobody gets in trouble"), but as a legal matter they can be.

  But in any case, the "marriages" entered into pursuant to those illegally-issued licenses are invalid.

• 98. FredDorner  |  June 15, 2014 at 8:57 am

  False on all points. The marriages were lawful when granted because the ban and all related statutes had been found unconstitutional, so those marriages will remain.

  In addition, Wisconsin explicitly recognizes declaratory judgements as binding.

• 99. Alan948  |  June 13, 2014 at 3:25 pm

  That Journal-Sentinal article says "Whatever order she issues, Crabb made clear she will likely immediately suspend it, which would halt same-sex marriages until higher courts rule on the issue."

  That's pretty clearly wrong though, because later in the same article it says "Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, said after Friday's hearing that he would continue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless ordered not to do so."

  I'm guessing that by the end of the day, the injunction will have issued and been stayed, the initial appeal and motion for stay will have been dismissed and denied, Dane County (and probably others) will still be issuing licenses, and it will at last start to dawn on the AG that to stop the marriages he needs to stop wasting his time in federal courts and go get a state court to explicitly order the clerks to go back to following state law, as written, until a federal court orders them not to.

• 100. Alan948  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:06 pm

  Judge Crabb issued her injunction and stay at 5:20 PM CDT. Some quotes:

  "the June 6 order … does not address the question whether county clerks were entitled under state law to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the absence of an injunction." (p. 8)

  "Although I remain dubious that it is necessary to “stay” declaratory relief, I understand that there has been much confusion among county clerks regarding the legal effect of the declaration. To avoid further confusion among the clerks, I will issue a stay of all relief." (p. 12)

  "IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay all relief in this case, dkt. #114, is GRANTED. The injunction and the declaration shall take effect after the conclusion of any appeals or after the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal, whichever is later." (p. 13-14)

  I'm guessing McDonell will stick to his statement and keep issuing licenses until he is "ordered not to do so".

• 101. Alan948  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:57 pm

  I guessed wrong. "Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said based on the decision he will stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses immediately."
  http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-polit…

• 102. FredDorner  |  June 13, 2014 at 6:58 pm

  That makes sense since the declaratory ruling has been stayed. At least the marriages which were granted will remain in effect.

• 103. ebohlman  |  June 14, 2014 at 7:05 am

  The latter still has to be litigated. At first glance, it might appear that they're no different from the 2004 SF and Portland marriages (except for the much larger number of counties involved) and aren't comparable to the UT, MI, or AR marriages.

  However, it came out yesterday that there's a very old (late nineteenth century) precedent in WI state law that says that a declaratory judgment that a law is unconstitutional is binding on State officials even in the absence of an injunction. If that's applicable in this case, it would explain why a) almost all the clerks jumped on the bandwagon, along with the Office of Vital Records and b) Van Hollen wrote what looked like gibberish about the declaratory judgment "having the effect of an order" (or something like that) in his motions for emergency stays (it doesn't explain why Van Hollen couldn't just come out and say that there's such a precedent; maybe he didn't want to alert the clerks who were still holding out to its existence).

  So the issue of whether the licenses were issued pursuant to a valid Federal court order is still a live one.

  It's still unclear whether it's possible to actually stay a declaratory judgment, but at least we know that Judge Crabb did not intend for her ruling to be immediately binding. I assume the clerks will simply follow McDonnell's lead and honor her intention.

• 104. FredDorner  |  June 15, 2014 at 8:45 am

  The difference is that the SF marriages in 2004 were issued contrary to the law at that moment in time. The marriages in Wisconsin were issued when the ban was unconstitutional, and thus they were and are entirely lawful.

• 105. Margo Schulter  |  June 13, 2014 at 12:29 pm

  On the District Court hearing in Wisconsin before Judge Grabb, the latest news I’ve seen is that she has postponed her decision on an injunction, possibly until later today.

• 106. sfbob  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:03 pm

  Slightly off-topic at this point I know but since I was off the net when Judge Crabb issued her decision (and for a couple of days afterwards as well, I didn't have time to read it. As usual in these rulings her decision is notable not only because it is breathtakingly well-written but because it continues to build on prior favorable decisions. There are many things to like but thus far (I haven't quite finished the entire decision) the best one is this with respect to her dismantling of the "responsible procreation" argument:

  "Treating such a fundamental right as just another government benefit that can be offered or withheld at the whim of the state is an indicator either that defendants fail to appreciate the implications for equal citizenship that the right to marry has or that they do not see same-sex couples as equal citizens."

  This statement by itself is a powerful indictment of the anti-marriage crowd and I have not read in other decisions such a pointed observation as to how the right to marry is implicated in what it means to be a full citizen.

  I note as well that, like Utah, Wisconsin is one of those states where first-cousin marriage is permitted as long as female cousin is over 55 or as long as they provide documentation that one or both cousins is infertile. In other words, the entire argument is bogus because the state's own current marriage laws already refute the claim.

  And finally there's this one:

  "Marriage applicants in Wisconsin do not have to make any showing that they will make good parents or that they have the financial means to raise a child. A felon, an alcoholic or even a person with a history of child abuse may obtain a marriage license. Again, the state’s singular focus on banning same-sex marriage as a method of promoting good parenting calls into question the sincerity of this asserted interest."

  I have always wondered why other sets of plaintiffs in other marriage equality cases have not made precisely this sort of argument in their legal submissions.

• 107. SeattleRobin  |  June 13, 2014 at 8:05 pm

  Another thing I really liked in her decision was her coverage of Baker. She went into a lot more detail than I've seen anyone else do, and provided historical context. She discussed how SCOTUS was required to take all appeals from state supreme courts and thus they had eventually become flooded with too many cases to adequately handle.

  The frequent use of summary affirmations and dismissals was basically a housekeeping measure so they could continue to do their jobs on other cases that they thought were important enough to be fully briefed, etc. While Crabb did not explicitly state this, the implication was clear that this historical context means that Baker has even less precedential value than generally understood, even without doctrinal developments.

• 108. Fledge01  |  June 13, 2014 at 1:15 pm

  It would be interesting to see if Crab makes any ruling regarding the non-named county clerks. It seems they might be able to continue to issue marriage licenses if they aren't implicated by Crabbs ruling. Same sex marriage will still be the law in Wisconsin no matter if its stayed or not. The only thing that Crabb can do now is to either give the defendants permission to continue breaking the law pending appeal or to force people to comply with the old interpretation of the law. Laws never change unless a legislative body changes them. Judges just interpret laws and place temporary restrictions on people's actions. Then if they continue the action, its not that they are breaking the disputed law, they are only guilty of contempt of court. Crabb already said that counties breaking state laws, absent an order on them from her, are a state court problem, not a federal court problem.

• 109. Margo Schulter  |  June 13, 2014 at 2:01 pm

  sfbob, maybe Judge Crabb is inclined to interpret what has become a kind of virtual maxim, “Gay means stay,” rather like this:

  Gay means stay, if the case is in Federal District Court, and there is an intent to appeal by a party with Article III standing — as opposed to no such intent on the part of a relevant party (not counting a would-be intervenor clearly not meeting the test of Hollingsworth v. Perry).

• 110. Ragavendran  |  June 13, 2014 at 3:30 pm

  Why is it that denials of stay get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, but granting of stays are NEVER appealed? With no exceptions so far! If the Plaintiffs disagree that the Supreme Court's stay in Kitchen no longer controls because of the sweeping change in the legal landscape, then why don't they appeal stay orders all the way to the Supreme Court again and see if they've really changed their mind?

• 111. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:03 pm

  I've always wondered that myself. Similarly, I wondered why the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth didn't appeal to SCOTUS the 9th's decision that the intervenors had standing. In retrospect, it may have shortened the lifespan of the case considerably.

• 112. Japrisot  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:17 pm

  If you're Ted Olsen, you're hoping for a nation-wide victory that wouldn't be possible unless you have a party sitting on the other side of the lectern.

• 113. Bruno71  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:28 pm

  I recall Olsen & Boies touting the strong likelihood the intervenors couldn't appeal for lack of standing, after the district court verdict. It was probably just to give SCOTUS an off-ramp, but they could've had that question resolved sooner.

• 114. JayJonson  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:46 am

  Olson and Boies had dual obligations. One to their particular plaintiffs, the two couples, and another to AFER. The plaintiffs were asking for the right to get married; AFER was asking for a declaration from the Supreme Court that the fundamental right to marry applied to gay couples as well as straight couples. Hence, on the one hand, Olson & Boies had to argue that the intervenors lacked standing, and they did so. However, they were surely relieved when the California Supreme Court ruled that the intervenors had standing. They had to do a similar dance at SCOTUS, and they were surely disappointed when SCOTUS ruled that the intervenors lacked standing, though that ruling did benefit their plaintiffs and same-sex couples in California.

  Roberta Kaplan had a similar dilemma in the Windsor case. On the one hand, she was obligated to seek justice for Edie Windsor, though of course she also hoped to get a much broader ruling. IIRC, one point in the oral arguments, she had to say that she would accept a "small get" if necessary. Indeed, Roberts in dissent said that the whole Windsor case should have been settled administratively. However, Kaplan got both the "small get" she asked for–Edie Windsor's refund–and the "big get" she and Olson and Boies all hoped for–a ruling that went way beyond a tax question and that could be used to undermine all the same-sex marriage bans, state as well as federal.

• 115. ebohlman  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:33 pm

  The Ninth's determination that the intervenors had standing didn't occur until their final ruling, so there really wasn't any window for an interlocutory appeal. After the final ruling, the plaintiffs couldn't appeal anything because they had prevailed on the merits.

• 116. JamesInCA  |  June 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm

  Kitchen is barely six months old; the Supreme Court doesn't change its mind that quickly, certainly not on fundamental matters of process (e.g. the criteria for a stay).

  Plus, if you're a plaintiff, you probably don't want to look like a sore winner.

• 117. Ragavendran  |  June 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm

  Perhaps, but that's what the Plaintiffs adamantly argue in every single brief they file in opposition to any motion to stay. If they truly believe that, they should appeal it.

  And this, despite some cases being markedly different from others. Take Tennessee for example – it was a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment; it applied just to three Plaintiff couples, not to the entire state; and it only asked the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages, not perform in-state marriages. Three significant differences. The district court correctly recognized that this is so very different from the circumstances of the Kitchen stay that is not controlling. Still, the Sixth Circuit, in the dumbest and most ill-reasoned opinion I've read so far from an appellate court, granted that stay. I was actually expecting the Tanco Plaintiffs to appeal it to SCOTUS, but they didn't. Beats me. A child was born to one of those couples after the preliminary injunction was issued. Both plaintiffs were named as parents of the child upon birth. And then, along comes the Sixth Circuit, staying the injunction, instantly depriving the child of that relationship. If that stay had been appealed, I don't think SCOTUS would have affirmed. There was at least a fighting chance that the Windsor majority would have reversed it.

• 118. Jen_in_MI  |  June 13, 2014 at 8:40 pm

  Holy wah that is a stupid opinion out of the 6th! Despite the thoroughness of Friedman's trial record in DeBoer, I am not optimistic about the legal acumen of judges who would grant a stay so speciously.

• 119. Zack12  |  June 13, 2014 at 11:50 pm

  Sad to say but George W was able to put seven far right conservatives on there so it's not a suprise they would rule against us.
  Next to the 5th circuit, the 6th circuit is the one we are most likely to lose in out of all the circuits that have cases pending.

• 120. ebohlman  |  June 14, 2014 at 7:15 am

  I'm concerned about the 6th too, but not primarily because of the party ID of the Presidents who appointed the judges. Al Gerhardstein, the attorney pursuing the Obergefell and Henry challenges, has said on multiple occasions that he deliberately chose to pursue a "small ball", incremental strategy to try to chip away the bans. Reading between the lines, he seems to think the 6th is going to be a tough nut to crack and moving too fast will just lead to pushback.

  It should be noted that in recent years the 6th has become the most-overturned circuit, taking the spot previously held by the 9th.

• 121. Margo Schulter  |  June 13, 2014 at 3:35 pm

  There is at least one report on Twitter of a decision by Judge Crabb evidently including a stay.

• 122. MichaelGrabow  |  June 13, 2014 at 5:04 pm

  In response to the story about Judge Crabb stopping the marriages in WI, someone commented "All marriages or just the LGBT ones?"

  Could you imagine…

• 123. BenG1980  |  June 13, 2014 at 6:18 pm

  If only that were the case! Walker and Van Hollen would be under some serious pressure from brides, grooms, parents, etc. with long-standing and very expensive wedding plans in Wisconsin. lol

• 124. Waxr  |  June 13, 2014 at 7:18 pm

  This is disappointing. I was hoping that the circus would continue for another week or two.

• 125. eizverson22  |  June 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm

  I’m in doubt what to do and what to say.That is rather disappointing.<img src=http://ladyoffice.com/nesti/cyy.jpg>

• 126. JayJonson  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:53 am

  I am disappointed that Judge Crabb issued the stay as well, but I must say that Judge Crabb is a joy to read, even on something as technical and boring as an argument about the exact language of an injunction. Her conclusion, in which she feels obligated to issue the stay, is rather moving. It is very clear that she is disappointed that she is constrained by the stay in Kitchen. It is clear that were she to balance the traditional four considerations for issuing a stay, she would deny the request in a New York minute. However, in the absence of any explanation from SCOTUS, she feels that a district court judge must follow the precedent.

• 127. tknsc  |  June 14, 2014 at 8:14 am

  ""I'm just at the bottom level of the system."

  Hear, hear. We need more district judges like this.

• 128. SeattleRobin  |  June 14, 2014 at 5:47 pm

  Yeah, I had the same reaction to her conclusion. After all the dry legalese, logic, and facts, when she discussed the joy on the faces of the recently married it really killed me. It was quite a contrast with the rest of what she'd written. It poured off the page that everything in her didn't want to issue a stay, but that she felt bound.

  I was really glad to see her spell it out for all to see too. In most or all cases so far, the courts have at most said they feel bound by the SCOTUS stay in Kitchen, but don't say whether they feel a stay is actually appropriate based on just the facts of the case before them.

• 129. SPQRobin  |  June 14, 2014 at 7:52 am

  International news from Finland: Alexander Stubb (member of the liberal-conservative National Coalition Party) becomes the new leader of his party and the new Prime Minister of Finland, succeeding Jyrki Katainen in both positions.

  The good news is that he's a major supporter of gay rights, which will hopefully speed up the legalization of same-sex marriage. He was one of the leading proponents of the bill that failed last year. See also this old article: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/04/03/finland-appo…

• 130. Margo Schulter  |  June 14, 2014 at 7:53 am

  Judge Crabb indeed faced a daunting dilemma, and may have leaned over backward a bit by staying her declaratory judgment as well as the injunction itself. The latter, it seems to me as a layperson, was in keeping with Kitchen v. Herbert and what has become the prevailing practice in other circuits.

  Staying the declaratory judgment itself was evidently her attempt to compensate for any “misunderstanding” that her previous procedure of issuing her decision separately from an immediate injunction may have caused. I understand how she may have perceived that it would serve the same interests many have read into the stay of Kitchen: a desire to avoid “opening the floodgates” on marriages before, at least, decisions at the circuit court level have been reached.

  One question, suggested by her own order as well as in discussions here, is whether a declaratory judgment can validly be stayed. Another is whether, as understandable as her action is on the part of a brilliant jurist seeking also to restore a more “predictable” process that she could have felt she had unwittingly permitted to go off-track, she might have stayed only the injunction.

  That, in a sense, might have been the higher act of federalism, leaving the officials of Wisconsin to interpret the consequences of a declaratory judgment coupled with a stayed injunction. It might be true poetic justice if the Seventh Circuit ruled that a declaratory judgment cannot be stayed.

• 131. Sagesse  |  June 14, 2014 at 7:56 am

  Next week's entertainment (or the 10th Circuit could release their ruling, and we could just ignore them):

  Facing uphill battle, gay marriage opponents to rally in Washington [Washington Post]

  "Planners of the second annual March for Marriage on Thursday (June 19), led by the National Organization for Marriage, hope to bring thousands of supporters to march from the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court. Speakers include two former Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the Catholic bishops’ point man against same-sex marriage."
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/f…

• 132. dingomanusa  |  June 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm

  The Catholic church is spending money to bus anti-gay attendees to that rally and NOM probably will do the same so they have a decent crowd of protesters for the new cameras. I suspect if those people had to pay their own way most would stay at home.

  from the news story: “The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is sending buses of marchers to Washington…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/f…

• 133. BenG1980  |  June 14, 2014 at 4:26 pm

  I work on Capitol Hill, so I'm hoping to be able to walk around during lunch and assess the crowd in person. I don't see how they could attract that many people at this point, but we shall see.

• 134. Sagesse  |  June 15, 2014 at 6:05 am

  This is amusing. Sen Reuben Diaz is recruiting people to take a free bus tour and see the sights of Washington DC… or something.

  Ruben Diaz is Busing People to NOM's Anti-Gay Marriage March But Not Telling Them [Towleroad]
  http://www.towleroad.com/2014/06/diaz.html

• 135. Waxr  |  June 15, 2014 at 7:17 am

  If I was there I would take the bus ride myself just to see the sights, and maybe do a little counter-demonstrating.

• 136. scream4ever  |  June 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm

  We will also also have the hearing for summary judgement in Colorado on Monday. It's in state court so there's a good chance there will be no stay (and possibly no appeal either).

• 137. Zack12  |  June 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm

  Does that mean the ruling on the ban will come down Monday?

• 138. scream4ever  |  June 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm

  Unlikely, but likely it'll come down by the end of the month (quite possibly around Pride weekend!).

• 139. BenG1980  |  June 14, 2014 at 4:21 pm

  Denver Pride is next weekend, so the judge would have rule pretty fast to coincide with that. I agree, though, that it should only take a couple weeks — especially since writing the opinion could practically be a copy and paste exercise at this point.

• 140. Zack12  |  June 14, 2014 at 4:23 pm

  Works for me. I will make one note on a positive ruling for us. The AG is Republican and given his statements on same sex marriage and his actions (filing briefs in other states on their bans), there will almost certainly be a request for a stay while he appeals it.
  Let's hope a request for a stay is denied if we get a positive ruling. I'm tired of gay means stay.

• 141. scream4ever  |  June 14, 2014 at 5:14 pm

  The Colorado Supreme Court is 5-2 Democratic appointments.

• 142. Zack12  |  June 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm

  Sounds good to me. As long as there are no blue dogs, we'll be in good shape.

• 143. ebohlman  |  June 15, 2014 at 4:30 pm

  The CO Supreme Court is considered the 16th most liberal in the country, comparable to NY, CA, and HI: http://judgepedia.org/Political_outlook_of_State_…

• 144. BenG1980  |  June 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm

  Although SCOTUS could still have the final say if the decision is based solely on the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS grants cert.

• 145. Zack12  |  June 15, 2014 at 5:50 pm

  Very true, let's hope they decide to just let it stay in the state.

• 146. scream4ever  |  June 15, 2014 at 9:34 pm

  Regardless, litigation in the state courts in Arkansas, Colorado, and Florida will likely end by the end of the year with favorable rulings.

• 147. Zack12  |  June 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm

  Arkansas makes me nervous due to the judges being elected.
  From what I've read, one of the judges whom is likely to win is going to vote against us.
  Let's hope there are enough yes votes to counter that.

• 148. scream4ever  |  June 15, 2014 at 10:34 pm

  Just 3 years ago the court unanimously struck down the state's adoption ban. I think we're in good hands 🙂

  Also, the ruling from them will likely be issued during the lame duck period.

• 149. Zack12  |  June 15, 2014 at 10:57 pm

  It has changed since then. Not a lot but there will propbably be a no vote or two.
  I do think it will rule in our favor though.

• 150. scream4ever  |  June 16, 2014 at 12:28 am

  I will be shocked if they don't rule in our favor, considering they are the 8th most liberal state Supreme Court, according to the ranking posted.

• 151. Zack12  |  June 16, 2014 at 2:27 am

  We'll have to wait and see. One of the judges that ruled in our favor is going to be gone though, and the judge replacing him (she's running unopposed) has made it clear she will rule against us.
  I still think they will rule in our favor but it'll be too close for comfort IMO.

• 152. scream4ever  |  June 16, 2014 at 5:43 am

  Source? And as I mentioned before they likely will rule before she takes the bench.

• 153. Zack12  |  June 16, 2014 at 6:25 am

  It was an article on the Arkansas Times.
  I don't know if you can still get to it or not.

• 154. scream4ever  |  June 15, 2014 at 9:28 pm

  They've been really backing away from getting involved in state litigation, even if state courts invoke the U.S. Constitution.

• 155. Waxr  |  June 15, 2014 at 2:22 am

  They plan to march from the the U. S. Capitol to the Supreme Court. The Capitol is logical because members of Congress are worried about re-election and must listen to public opinion. But marching to the Supreme Court could backfire for them. The Court claims to be immune from public opinion. Their job is to interpret the law and to protect the Constitution. Public opinion pulls means nothing to them. If this is interpreted as an attempt to influence the Court, it could anger Court members into voting against them.

• 156. Lynn_E  |  June 15, 2014 at 2:34 am

  The Supreme Court is directly across the street from the Capitol, so it won't be a long walk.

• 157. Waxr  |  June 15, 2014 at 3:58 am

  Good. I wouldn't want any of them to get lost on the way.

• 158. BenG1980  |  June 15, 2014 at 6:00 am

  Haha. I looked at their map. They're starting at the west front of the Capitol, so it's about a six-block march. Of course, given the demographics of the anti-ME crowd, the organizers probably don't want to risk a much longer route. By way of contrast, the 2009 National Equality March, which drew hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and backgrounds, started by the White House and ended at the west front of the Capitol.

  As far as protests in front of the Supreme Court backfiring, there are hundreds of protests there every year that run the gamut of the political spectrum. Assuming they're even aware of what's going on in front of the building at any given time, the justices are quite used to it. I think they're probably more concerned with finishing the final opinions of the 2013 term and starting the summer recess.

• 159. Japrisot  |  June 14, 2014 at 3:11 pm

  Stupid troll
  http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/troll-toll

• 160. Jen_in_MI  |  June 14, 2014 at 6:45 pm

  DISGUSTING. I'm missing why we should care though. Please bring me up to speed?

• 161. Ragavendran  |  June 14, 2014 at 9:52 pm

  A Baker-era debate that happened 40 years ago. Minute 6 to 16 is a must-watch.
  [youtube JjHtS7T4ZyM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjHtS7T4ZyM youtube]
  When this was recorded, over 40 of the states still had laws on books criminalizing gay sex. Only five years had passed since the Stonewall riots, and the highly visible San Francisco activist Harvey Milk hadn’t been elected yet. It was only the year before when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Nobody had yet heard of HIV or AIDS.

  http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/03/3443356/…

• 162. BenG1980  |  June 15, 2014 at 4:08 pm

  Interestingly, the fourth witness, Dr. Charles Socarides, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who was an outspoken critic of the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, is the father of Richard Socarides, an openly gay Senior Advisor for Public Liaison for gay and lesbian issues in the Clinton administration. In 1992 the elder Socarides co-founded the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), in response to the American Psychoanalytic Association's 1992 decision to change its position on homosexuality. He also was married four times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides

• 163. ebohlman  |  June 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm

  The elder Socarides used to be a big exponent of the (then common) view that homosexuality was caused by an overly involved mother and an overly distant father. When his son came out, he modified his position to state that it was just the overly-involved mother, and shortly afterwards divorced his son's mother.

• 164. SeattleRobin  |  June 15, 2014 at 5:20 pm

  Thanks for posting that link, it was a fascinating video to watch, both in terms of historical context, and as a demonstration of how many things are still the same today. (I was also interested to see the teaser at the end for an upcoming episode on the question of whether big investment institutions were ruining the stock market. Dunno how that was answered back then, but we know the answer now!)

• 165. Ragavendran  |  June 15, 2014 at 9:11 pm

  This report predicts that Indiana will be the next domino to fall (at a trial court level). And I think I agree. So far, no district court has taken this long (5 weeks and counting) to rule on a request to stay their ruling. Judge Aleta Trauger, who issued a similar narrow preliminary injunction in Tennessee, took less than a week to deny the stay. (But on appeal, the Sixth Circuit took about 5 weeks to grant one.) I think Judge Young is being strategic here – he certainly doesn't want to grant the stay, but if he denies it, then the Seventh will almost certainly grant it on appeal. So he is simply sitting on it, while secretly working to complete his opinion on the pending summary judgment motion before him, which would moot the preliminary injunction he issued in the first place, and along with it, the motion to stay. Watch out for this one, folks!

  http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/i…

  Can someone with legal background help confirm my educated guess above that legally, a summary judgment moots any preliminary injunction issued earlier, and would also moot the appeal of the preliminary injunction that is now before the Seventh?

  Also, a peculiar filing in the PACER record for the Baskin case caught my eye. Mid-April, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to consolidate briefing and oral argument on the then-pending preliminary injunction and summary judgment motions. Without issuing a formal order granting this motion, Judge Young held a hearing on May 2, whose PACER entry is titled "Minute Entry for hearing on Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment oral argument". And then, lo and behold, just a few days ago, on June 11, Judge Young has entered an order granting that motion, ordering that the consolidated response and reply briefs are due on April 22 and 27 respectively – which doesn't make any sense. There is no nunc pro tunc language in it whatsoever. I don't know what to make of this – an absentminded judge?

• 166. scream4ever  |  June 15, 2014 at 9:50 pm

  I agree completely. It would be great if Indiana could get a flood of marriages in even just for a little while, considering the pending amendment (which will never pass anyways but still).

• 167. bayareajohn  |  June 15, 2014 at 10:18 pm

  A judgement ends the current level of litigation. Preliminary injunctions are to hold or create a situation during the current proceedings, and expire upon the issuance of a judgement (not technically mooted, they end). Similarly, appeals regarding the preliminary injunction do become moot when the injunction expires.

  Another request, for a stay or another preliminary injunction pending an appeal would need to be made after the judgement if a party desired it. The old one does not "roll over" as the argument changes once there is a judgement.

• 168. Ragavendran  |  June 16, 2014 at 7:57 am

  Thank you – that makes sense!

• 169. Sagesse  |  June 16, 2014 at 3:32 am

  From the New York Times Vows [Video]

  Yale University professors George Chauncey and Ronald Gregg have been together 20 years, but they did not decide to marry until after Mr. Chauncey testified in two high-profile Supreme Court cases.
  http://www.nytimes.com/video/fashion/100000002940…

• 170. boringtutor7925.blog.com  |  June 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm

  Un poste vraiment plein de v

• 171. Equality On TrialWisconsi&hellip  |  July 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

  […] were questions over the timing of the possible appeal, because the injunction and stay were entered weeks ago. The same-sex couples who are plaintiffs in the case had asked the judge to […]

• 172. Equality On TrialSame-sex&hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:30 am

  […] couples in Wisconsin had been getting married until a stay was issued in the case. The stay, which was entered on June 13 along with the injunction, is set to […]