Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Indiana same-sex marriage round-up

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Indiana state seal
Scroll down for latest updates

The pace of updates in the Indiana same-sex marriage case has slowed down since a federal district court struck down the state’s ban. But there have been a few developments.

– The state is asking the district court for a stay of the ruling.

– The state has also filed its notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where, presumably, the stay request would be appealed if the district court denies it.

– People are getting married in the state, and you can watch video and see photos here.

– More photos here.

Afternoon updates…

– Opposition to stay in Baskin is here.

– Opposition to stay in Fujii is here.

– State’s motion for stay in Lee is here.

– The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has consolidated the three cases and set a briefing schedule. The order is here. Briefing will be completed by September 19.

– In the challenge to Indiana’s ban still in district court, Bowling v. Pence, the plaintiffs have filed their motion for summary judgment, along with their opposition to the motion for summary judgment that was filed by the state.

UPDATE 4:35PM ET: The state has filed a request for an emergency stay in the Seventh Circuit. No action has been taken in district court yet, but the state argues that waiting on the district court to act is “impracticable”:

As of 4:00 PM EDT (1:00 PM CDT) today, June 27, 2014, nearly 48 hours after Defendants filed their emergency motions for stay, and nearly 36 hours after the Baskin Plaintiffs filed a response, the district court has not ruled on Defendants’ emergency motions or scheduled a hearing on those motions. Under these circumstances, where Defendants filed emergency motions for stay but no stays have been entered, and where chaos surrounding administration of Indiana’s marriage laws has emerged in the wake of the district court’s June 25 injunction (see Part I infra), the district court has “failed to afford the relief requested” and awaiting district court action on Defendants’ emergency motion has become “impracticable.” See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).

UPDATE 6:03PM ET: The Seventh Circuit has granted the request for an emergency stay. The order is here.

EqualityOnTrial will post updates as this story develops…

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Scottie wave a magic wand spread some fairy dust bring us positive rulings from the Virginia and Oklahoma cases for Pride weekend. 🙂 Hey thanks for keeping us all informed, EoT rocks! Oh yeah one more thing – Happy Pride to All!

  • 2. debater7474  |  June 27, 2014 at 8:28 am

    Does anyone know, under 10th circuit rules, exactly how long the state of Utah has to petition for rehearing for en banc?

  • 3. sfbob  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:19 am

    If I'm reading things correctly, requests for an en banc hearing are subject to the same rules as requests for an appeal. The time limit, if the federal government or a federal employee isn't a party to the case, is 14 days from the date a judgement is entered.

    FRAP Rule 35 covers en banc hearings; Rule 40 covers appeals.

  • 4. debater7474  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Unless I'm mistaken, though, I thought that the date a judgment is actually entered was different from the date the opinion is issued.

  • 5. sfbob  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:21 am

    Not sure if that is necessarily the case. The notice at the end of the opinion states that the judgement was entered on the date it was issued.

  • 6. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Unless stated in the opinion that the dates are different, the dates are considered to be the same.

    An example would be if the opinion says the effective date will be at some date certain in the future.

  • 7. BenG1980  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:24 am

    See sfbob's comment below. I think he's right — it's 14 days to request a rehearing en banc to the 10th Circuit, but 90 days to submit a petition for certiorari to SCOTUS.

  • 8. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:50 am

    Correct. My bad. Thank you for spotting this.

  • 9. Sagesse  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:04 am

    I read somewhere this morning… sorry, can't remember where… that they will be going direct to Scotus. Anyone?

  • 10. Bruno71  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:24 am

    I know on Wednesday the AP reported on Twitter that they would go directly to SCOTUS, but I haven't heard anything else since to corroborate.

  • 11. sfbob  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:52 am

    Utah had said when the ruling was issued that they were planning to file a request for cert but were also considering asking for an en banc review.

  • 12. EricKoszyk  |  June 27, 2014 at 8:42 am

    Here's a cool map of which counties are issuing licenses and which counties are not. Can't confirm its validity.

  • 13. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 8:46 am

    If that is accurate, then it is amazing that all counties except for seven are issuing licenses. I say amazing because a friend who lives in that state says Indiana is very conservative.

  • 14. Randolph_Finder  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Exactly matches what is saying at

    Seven left.
    Adams, Clay, Daviess, Decatur, Grant, Warren, Wells. The largest of these is Grant County at 70,000 whose county seat Marion is the home of Indiana Wesleyan University, one of the largest evangelical universities in the Midwest.

  • 15. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    As of 3:21 PM (I presume Eastern time) it's down to five:
    Adams, Grant, Clay, Daviess and Warren.

  • 16. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Yeah, it's Eastern time since it read 3:21 last hour. (3:28 Central now)

  • 17. Bruno71  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:39 am

    It may be conservative, but right now there is an order from a federal judge with no stay. It's appalling that seven counties aren't granting licenses.

  • 18. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:06 am

    WHOIS shows that website (map) owned by andymarkle he’s a contributor to bilericoproject so I would imagine it’s accurate.


  • 19. Randolph_Finder  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:07 am

    Hopefully there aren't any counties like Utah had where they weren't issuing any licenses for same sex couples because the *one* person in the county with the right to issue marriage licenses went on vacation before Kitchen v Herbert was announced. (Note, I'm still not sure that county has actually given a license to a same sex couple, but given that they average less than 20 licenses a year…)

  • 20. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:13 am

    A southwestern Indiana county clerk says she won’t issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her biblical beliefs and what she calls a lack of clear direction. “our country was founded on the biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage, and until I hear otherwise, that is what I will follow.”

  • 21. F_Young  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:44 am

    @dingomedusa “our country was founded on the biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage, and until I hear otherwise, that is what I will follow.”

    She's perfectly justified. I'm sure she is one of the clerks who swore to obey the bible, not the law. /s

  • 22. StraightDave  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:05 am

    Well, when you put your hand on the bible at your swearing-in and say "so help me, God", it does tend to confuse the issue a bit.

  • 23. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:14 am

    The amusing irony is that any American who actually lived by all the rules. regulations, perks and privileges in the 'bible' would rightfully be in prison for life.

  • 24. Eric  |  June 27, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Seriously, why is this True Christian™ woman speaking about the Bible?

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. – 1 Timothy 2:12

  • 25. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Oh, well you see…that is 'different'.

  • 26. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    Exodus 31:15 Uh oh! I bet they wouldn't like that one. The bible thumpers cherry pick and twist texts that suit whatever agendas they are pushing. Right wing evangelicals in the US are becoming like the Taliban, in the end I think they will lose as most of the younger people in society will revolt as they are not going to be oppressed by religious zealots.

  • 27. RCChicago  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    I think about this a lot…the hypocrisy of this little but powerful passage and the loud voices of the female Christianists who thump the Bible and swear allegiance.

  • 28. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Oh that woman, so wretched the lions didn't want her thus she was thrown back out of the lion's pit. She really shouldn't be working in a public office where she is required to serve all people if she is going to be that way.

  • 29. jdw_karasu  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:48 am

    I missed the founding document that enshrined the biblical principle of one man and one woman.

  • 30. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:01 am

    I don't recall seeing that phrase in the Constitution…….hmmmm, she needs to find another job if she is NOT willing to perform her legal duties, even after being told by the AG to respect the Judge's ruling!!!

  • 31. palerobber  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:42 am

    the ruling is clear — it's the bible that doesn't offer any clear direction of this issue.

  • 32. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Or any other issue. For every "instruction" in that dizzyingly stupefying old collection of bronze age mythology one can find another that says the exact opposite. It's no wonder it makes people insane trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance and excuse the contradictions.

  • 33. Terence  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:34 pm

    Anyone who wants to defend "biblical marriage" as between one man and one woman, should do some serious study of what the bible really says about marriage . Alternatively, just watch Betty Bowers ("America's best Christian") explain it all,

  • 34. RnL2008  |  June 28, 2014 at 11:00 am

    That one is ALWAYS good for explaining it……lol!!

  • 35. davepCA  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    'Biblical precedent' in matters of secular civil law? What an idiot. You have no idea what the hell you are babbling about.

  • 36. Zack12  |  June 28, 2014 at 5:16 am

    Sorry, if you insist on enforcing your religious beliefs in a secular job, you deserve no respect.

  • 37. KarlS  |  June 28, 2014 at 5:39 am

    You do not get kudos for standing up for your vile idiotic beliefs, you god damned little idiot boy.

  • 38. davepCA  |  June 28, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Dude, the fact that you conflate biblical issues with matters of secular civil law in the same sentence shows that you are just another fool who doesn't understand what he is talking about.

  • 39. Corey_from_MD  |  June 28, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    davepCA, KarlS and Zack12— As mentioned before, the overwhelming majority of us know that tkinsc2 is a troll who rears its head during the weekends. "Debating" it is worthless since it is a lost cause. We are almost there with full national marriage equality and the troll – very likely a NOM official in disguise – knows it. So what's the point? As the moderator mentioned, the best course is to completely ignore it and stop feeding and baiting it

  • 40. davepCA  |  June 28, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    Oh I'm not 'debating' with it. Those responses from me are just simple verbal swats, like scolding a pet when it pees on the rug.

  • 41. KarlS  |  June 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    Oh, I understand the paradigm, I just like now and then to swat a bothersome insect with a good old fashioned "fuck you and eat shit" comment. It doesn't change the dirtbag but it gives me a little transient titillation. So sue me. 😀 After 60+ years of being insulted, attacked, excoriated and threatened by right wingnut fundie assholes, I gave up on being nice. Fuck 'em.

  • 42. Corey_from_MD  |  June 29, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    daveCa and KarlS, you know that we fully respect your passion for this issue and we respect you both. My only question is which choice is more productive: needling the troll as it is losing badly (which is tempting to kick it when its down and making it look even smaller than it is) OR taking that energy and directing it toward completing marriage equality in a way that the final objective (equality in all 50 states) is completed? Sure this is a leading question but I hope that it is food for thought. The troll is powerless even if it is a NOM extremist.

  • 43. sfbob  |  June 28, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Whether she thinks so or not, her employer is the state, not a church and her ultimate authority is civil law as interpreted by the state's administrative branch and, where necessary, the courts. If it is possible to take a principled stand for bigotry then we can give her credit for doing so but that says little or nothing to her credit.

  • 44. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Interesting that one of the named defendants is from Allen County (Fort Wayne), and licenses are being issued in Allen County (and also in Kosciusko County [Warsaw], possibly one of the most conservative counties in the nation – in 1964, a majority of the electorate voted for Goldwater, and it is now more CONservative than then).

  • 45. sfbob  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Interesting though off-topic. Back in the years prior to the Civil War, Indiana held the spot later occupied by Nevada. It was the place to go to if you needed a divorce and your home state had especially onerous rules for obtaining one.

  • 46. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:42 am

    If you get a chance…you folks should read this article about a clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses and claiming her religious beliefs:

  • 47. Jen_in_MI  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:25 am

    I have lost all patience with clerks who pull this bullshit! Resign if you cannot do YOUR CIVIL, SECULAR JOB. Pretty simple.

  • 48. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:44 am

    I am right there with ya…….this clerk has been given her instructions and still refuses to do her job…….fine her for being in contempt of a Federal Court order!!!

  • 49. Dann3377  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:26 am

    If I refused to do my duties outlined in my job description at my place of employment, I'd be fired!

  • 50. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:24 am

    Most of us would be fired for NOT doing our job and because we were fired for NOT doing our job, we'd NOT be eligible for unemployment either………these folks who use their religious beliefs to justify their discrimination is just total BS and should suffer the consequences of their actions!!!

  • 51. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:32 am

    There has to be case history and rulings on this in the years right after Loving was issued. I remember reading one of the religious objections was based on God having placed the different races on seperate continents that were never intended to intermigle. This can't be "new" territory, just a new reason.

  • 52. StraightDave  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:43 am

    It wasn't even some random bigot. It was the VA trial judge who said that, in writing no less. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents…."

    I'm continually amazed at the state of the "law" just a few short years ago when I was in high school. Also amazed at my cluelessness at the time.

  • 53. Bruno71  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:44 am

    It's ongoing. Look at the Chief Justice of the SC of Alabama, for instance.

  • 54. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Is it still Roy Moore-on?

  • 55. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:53 am

    I was going to say the same thing…….the Trial Judge made that comment that is SOooooo irrelevant today…….as will much of these other hateful comments……maybe this Clerk hasn't taken notice, but using one's religious beliefs is NOT going to get her out of doing her job….just ask the photographer, baker and florist!!!

  • 56. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:47 pm

    So, how has my being married personally affected you again?

    The ONLY person making that lie is YOU!!!

  • 57. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    Again, you'd be wrong…….we had no issues getting a baker, the County Clerk was great and so was the photographer:-)

    The photographer from New Mexico, the florist from Washington and both of the bakers opted to VIOLATE State Anti-Discrimination policies and that's why they got into legal trouble…… DOESN'T have the right to inject their religious beliefs with regards to serving the PUBLIC!!!

  • 58. montezuma58  |  June 28, 2014 at 6:24 am

    I can't imagine the horror these businesses must be going through. I mean being forced to do something they would be doing anyways. And, gasp, making money doing so.

    The vendor is no more affected by the sexual orientation of some of his clients than a random person off the street that's icked out by teh ghey.

  • 59. Terence  |  June 28, 2014 at 6:53 am

    It's not gay marriage that has affected the baker, the florist and the like – just their own insistence on discrimination in practicing their business.
    This is NOT religious discrimination- there's nothing remotely religious about snapping a picture, or arranging some flowers, or baking a cake.
    If they argued that their religious beliefs were against mixed race weddings (as some used to do), that would not allow them to practice racial discrimination in offering their services, either.

  • 60. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 28, 2014 at 9:29 pm

    "(as some used to do)"

    Just a couple of years ago, the state of Louisiana had to be pressured to dismiss a JP who was very vocally against mixed race marriages.

    That the JP was against such marriages almost 50 years after the 'Loving' decision by SCOTUS is bad, but when the state itself had to be pressured to take action makes it so much worse.

  • 61. Roulette00  |  June 30, 2014 at 8:36 am

    Same-sex marriage was not even legal in Oregon when the kerfuffle there happened. The baker practiced illegal discrimination. The only crime was that gay people wanted to do business with him, and he refused.

    I can understand your having deep-seated dislike of anti-discrimination law, given your pearl-clutching, tremulous protests against the very existence of gays, but SSM law was not the motivating factor here.

  • 62. davepCA  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    Nope. Learn the law, dummy. You got nothin'.

  • 63. montezuma58  |  June 28, 2014 at 6:03 am

    Over 1200 couples married in Utah in window of just over two weeks. Hundreds of couples in other states in a matter of days.

    If you used your fingers to count the number of of "affected" wedding vendors you'd have digits left over. And that's spread over several years. The photographer case in New Mexico goes all the way back to 2006. It's always the same handful of cases that get rehashed whenever the issue is brought up.

    The only reason wedding vendors are making noise (or rather anti gay groups are making noise on their behalf) is that it's one of the few business domains where the vendor will likely know the sexual orientation of the customer unless either goes out of their way to find out or make it known. It's not like skin color where it's outwardly obvious.

    However wedding related businesses are still places of public accommodation. Having the government step in and declaring which business sectors are inherently religious and which are not for the purpose of public policy also runs afoul of the 1st amendment. The guy that works on cars is free to have the same emotional attachment to his work as the guy making the cake. It's simply not proper for the government to give legal credence to one but not the other. The anti gay groups are focusing on wedding related businesses because they know they can't get away green lighting discrimination with most other types of businesses (see Romer).

  • 64. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 10:55 am

    The irony of this!

    Harry Reid declines comment on Kate Kelly excommunication

    So, the Mormons excommunicate one of their own for wanting women to play a bigger or equal role in the church's male dominated roles and responsibilities. Reid suddenly goes silent when it comes to his own religion.

    Some of the religious and anti-ME organizations scream, howl, and kick when when the public or employees of a corporation come down heavy on a public figure who espouses anti-ME or anti-LGBT viewpoints. "It is not fair!".."You can't oust someone because of their viewpoints!"….Apparently, turnabout is not fair play.

  • 65. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:17 am

    Harry forgot to put on clean magic underwear this morning…

  • 66. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:55 am

    While we're waiting for the next ruling, this was filed by Charlie Crist who is running for FL governor.

    Putting Crists' past political positions aside, there are wo interesting observations in his amici curiae:

    * the use of the term "anti-recognition law". I don't remember seeing this phrase previously used in anything, anywhere. It's a great phrase. It strikes of Loving and anti-miscegenation instead of "extending marriage".

    * Florida enacted the prohibition of SSM in 1977. At first, I thought this was a typo. I certainly remember "orange juice bans" and Anita Bryant. But, I wonder if FL was the first to specifically mention banning SSM in a state law (it was embedded in their constitution in 2008).

  • 67. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    According to Wiki's timeline,… , Maryland was the first on January 1, 1973, three months after Baker was decided.

  • 68. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Thanks for the new bookmark to enable me to answer my own questions. 1973…I'm sure I was not aware of Baker at the time…I was just starting at BYU (yes, I have some sad stories about witch hunts and the effects on people I knew there) and oblivious to just about anything else other then the Vietnam War was over and we had a new President. When I talk to the college students and 20 somethings of today, they have an amazing awareness and are actively agitated at the lack of U.S. ME. Progress.

  • 69. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    In my case at least that's a benefit of the internet. I'm 22, and just barely remember a time before the best way to see the latest news was to fire up the computer. I'm one of the contributors to the Wiki maps and related pages, and several of the updates on the maps have come directly from this site and the commentators here.

  • 70. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    As a certified old phart with precisely 50 years on you, I occasionally rock back and ponder how the hell we ever managed to actually find information in the dark ages of the 1970s and earlier…even as I was programming "mini" computers before the PC was even a gleam in Bill's (or IBM's) eye! 😀

  • 71. StraightDave  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    We *didn't* manage to find information, which was a huge problem. A lot of bad things survived precisely because the relative communications isolation kept most of the country in the dark.

    I learned about Romer v Evans in real time only because I was in Denver on a series of business trips in the early-mid 90's and saw it on the local TV news. Otherwise, I never would have heard about it until maybe last year.

    I never had a clue about the WW2 Nazi concentration camps until I visited a preserved one in Dachau, Germany in 1973. I was interested in history and had HS courses in both US and World History. But that part apparently had been scrubbed clean. It took years to get over the horror, my own blindness, and my resentment about that. Worse, my dad had served in WW2 and was part of the post-war occupation of Germany. He never talked about any of it to me.

    The generation change is beyond enormous. We are no longer subject to the whims of the official information filters. Within minutes, we are seeing videos of random strangers getting married in some rural Arkansas county! And most importantly, this is being done by ordinary people with their own 2 hands. We don't have to wait to be fed anymore. That difference should not be underestimated.

    And not least, I was watching, live, the NZ parliament sing that Maori love song after they voted YES. Seriously! That rocked, for many reasons.

  • 72. F_Young  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    DACiowan: "I'm one of the contributors to the Wiki maps and related pages, and several of the updates on the maps have come directly from this site and the commentators here."

    Thanks, guys, for keeping the Wikipedia articles and maps current. They are a priceless resource.

    As a former contributor (I'm the one who retitled nearly all the articles from "Gay rights in …" to "LGBT rights in…" years ago), are the revert wars still being fought as ferociously?

  • 73. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    They're better, although I had quite the dust up over the map that shows marriage cases by state over whether Kansas' tax case counted as a challenge of the state's marriage ban and thus all 50 states really did have cases filed.

    Maintaining the main map is more like an ever shifting discussion on what to stripe and what distinctions get colored. Enjoy:

  • 74. Randolph_Finder  |  June 27, 2014 at 5:45 pm

    Yes, but it at least it *tends* to be a friendly discussion. Which is fortunate because I'm not sure many images on Wikipedia go through as many revisions as the map does. Mostly caused by changes in the information that makes up the page (laws passed or overturned) rather than changes to coloring. I don't think anyone imagined that there would be that many different situations for states to be in…

  • 75. F_Young  |  June 28, 2014 at 3:50 am

    Speaking of Wikipedia maps, I am disappointed that Greenland is still not navy on the world map:

    I see that "The bill to extend Danish 2012 marriage law to the territory would be considered by the Greenlandic parliament in the autumn of 2014."

    But, I thought that it was expected that the change would be done by July. Greenland would make a nice huge splash of navy on the map.

    So far, I am disappointed with progress toward marriage equality outside the US in 2014. There has been only Luxembourg and Scotland so far. I was expecting Australia, Finland and Columbia, and more states in Mexico.

  • 76. DACiowan  |  June 28, 2014 at 8:44 am

    I'm hopeful the German Bundestag passes a same-sex marriage bill so we get the most populous Western European country on board, but Chancellor Merkel is still set against it, and she'll probably be in power through at least 2017.

  • 77. Steve  |  June 28, 2014 at 11:40 am

    Never going to happen with the conservatives in power. They are extremely homophobic.

  • 78. cpnlsn88  |  June 28, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Merkel's party won't do it so would need a different political majority but there is at least an outside chance that this might come from the German constitutional court, which, though very incrementalist, is not immune to striking down laws and has done so on matters affecting same sex couple's rights.

  • 79. davepCA  |  June 28, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    It seems that there is an assumption that ME in Germany can only be achieved through the legislature. Why not the courts? I'm only just slightly familiar with the Constitution of Germany, but at first glance it appears that there are multiple provisions which would support a court challenge to overturn bans on equal civil marriage rights for same sex couples, and I don't see anything in there that would oppose or prevent such a court challenge… Anybody with knowledge of German constitutional court processes have any insight on this?

  • 80. Ragavendran  |  June 28, 2014 at 10:37 pm

    At least in recent years, rights for same sex couples in Germany have been granted in small, incremental pieces only because the (largely supportive) Constitutional Court ordered the government to do so. Here is a February article I unearthed that has a little history about it.

  • 81. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 28, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    The SC of Mexico has just this week overturned the ban on same sex marriages in Baja California.
    (… )

    This makes two (or is it three?) states in Mexico to have their bans on ME overturned. Does it take four to make it nationwide in Mexico? I believe that is what was stated here at EoT earlier this year.

  • 82. F_Young  |  June 29, 2014 at 3:25 am

    I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that legally valid same-sex marriages can still only be performed in Mexico City and the state of Quintana Roo without having to sue in court to validate the marriage. However, marriages performed in Mexico City (and Quintana Roo?) are supposedly recognized everywhere in Mexico.

    The Baja case and the various court decisions in other states over the years only affect the parties to each case. In the Mexican legal system, a single case cannot set a constitutional precedent that is binding on others. Under the writ of recurso amparo, five similar consecutive decisions would be needed in Baja to bind everyone in Baja.

    For same-sex marriage to to be extended to all Mexico through jurisprudence, the five similar consecutive case requirement would have to be met in each state of Mexico. So far, this requirement has not been met in any Mexican state.

    Mexico City got same-sex marriage by amending its statute law, not through jurisprudence.

    Quintano Roo is a unique case. Its marriage statute did not need to be amended since it did not state that the two people had to be opposite genders (this is also true in the US state of New Mexico).

    "To qualify as a jurisprudencia definida, the legal principle set forth in a case must interpret Mexican law under a Writ of Amparo, which is a summary proceeding that serves to guarantee constitutional rights. This relevant legal issue must also be decided the same way in 5 consecutive cases by majority vote of the judges and without and [sic] inconsistent ruling by the deciding court of the Supreme Court. Such rulings are binding only on equal or lower courts and administrative courts, not on executive administrative agencies."

    The writ of amparo was invented in Mexico and has been adopted in the Philippines and much of the Spanish speaking world:

  • 83. SoCal_Dave  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Just have to give you a quick shout-out, Brandall. I also started at BYU in 1973.
    But I was under the mormon spell and in deep denial and had no clue about what was going on right under my nose on that campus (or in the world).

  • 84. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    Now you have piqued my interest. I will backdoor to you through intenseDebate. Here is what was going at BYU:

    In 1974, I founded "For Students, By Students" at BYU. I found funding and space for the musical, "The Fantastics" using Student Union (ASBYU) monies (bear with me everyone, there IS a point to this story). I did this because students were not allow to direct, nor have any major lead roles in any major BYU production. The head of the Arts Department went ballistic that I was "competing with the Arts Department" and reported me to the President of BYU. I was in the school daily paper routinely as the drama played out. There is a lot more to the story, but it was my first activism.

    Unfortunately, at the same time in the Fall of 1974, two male students were caught together in a restroom late at night in the same Student Union building. The witch hunt was initiated. The two were hauled in and given two options: 1) tell us who else is homosexual and we just will just expel you for the rest of the semester, or 2) don't tell us and we will permanently expel you, call your family, report you to your home Ward President and you will be excommunicated for life in the town ward you came from. I was in the closet trying to pray my way to being straight, so I was safe. But, because I was involved in the Arts Department and had gained a lot of notoriety that semester from "The Fantastics", I was no stranger to who was what (I grew up in Hollywood).

    The circle of good men hauled in grew rapidly and I knew many of them. It exceeded 50 men at one point. Most went for option 1 and did not finish the semester. But, a few denied everything. One of these was a very handsome, masculine and kind 27 year-old. He was raised in the church, went on a 2 year mission, joined the Navy and then returned to get his degree at BYU. I have no idea of his orientation, but they hauled him and gave him a choice. He hanged himself that night.

    A few weeks later as the semester came to a close, I decided I did not want to be a part of this anymore. I never went to church again. That 27 year-old remains in my thoughts to this day. There are lots of great Mormons who are my friends, but the church as an organization, much like parts of our government has a long ways to go.

  • 85. SoCal_Dave  |  June 27, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    Amazing and sad story, Brandall. I was totally unaware that this (or anything like it) was going on at the time.
    btw, not sure how to connect via intense debate, so I put my email in my intense debate pubic profile temporarily. View my profile and look under "Description"
    (replace at and dots)
    thanks everybody else for allowing this little detour.

  • 86. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    That's horrible, but your story helps to make the point that not only have many gay young people decided suicide as the only way out of what seems to be an intractable situation, even many who were only "SUSPECTED" (what an awful word, in this context) have come to the same conclusion…and conclusion. The bible beaters will not ever accept responsibility for these violations against humanity, they just keep on perpetuating the hate and bigotry and use religion as a shield against what really amounts to homicide.

  • 87. Steve  |  June 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    No option 3? Be sent to the electroshock torture chamber in the basement.

  • 88. brandall  |  June 27, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    This is my last post on this topic since I prefer to work for the future with all of you. Steve, to answer your question, I did a search and found:

    I was not aware there is now documented history on the "Purge of '75" to which I wrote as well as ongoing purges after that. The sourced lecture states counseling included "electric aversive conditioning and assertion training" in 1976.

    Back to the future and the release of more rulings next week!

  • 89. ebohlman  |  June 29, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    While we're at it, wasn't the 10th Circuit decision the first decision to use the phrase "marriage equality"?

  • 90. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Anyone read numbers of how many couples have been married so far?

  • 91. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Haven't found state-wide numbers, but the Indy Star has metro numbers:

    "The Central Indiana counties all were issuing licenses. The Marion County clerk's office issued 424 total marriage licenses in the two-day span. Typically it issues 25 to 30 licenses a day.

    Other Central Indiana counties had fewer applications to track, so these two-day totals are just for same-sex couples: Boone (12), Hancock (10), Hamilton (46) Hendricks (26), Johnson (21), Shelby (9)."

    Marion County (Indy) probably had the majority of marriage licenses in the state, so maybe 700 for a ballpark number? Lake County (Gary and Chicago suburbs) is a good bet for number two.

  • 92. JayJonson  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    I am surprised that there are not figures from Monroe County, where Bloomington and Indiana U are located.

  • 93. DACiowan  |  June 29, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Monroe County had at least 19 couples on Wednesday alone:

  • 94. OctaA  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Marion county had issued almost 500 licenses Friday morning according to this article.

  • 95. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 29, 2014 at 1:56 am

    I tried to find, or at least try to figure out how many licenses were issued in Allen County (Fort Wayne), the third largest (by population) county in Indiana, through reports in the two main newspapers of Fort Wayne. (Fort Wayne is the 2nd largest city, by population, in Indiana, and the county is largest [by square miles] in the state.)

    Mostly the coverage in both newspapers was about the stay being put in place, with no discussion of even how busy (or not) the clerk's office in Allen County was from the handing down of the original ruling to the issuance of the stay.

    (I have special interest in what is going on in and around Fort Wayne, since until I moved to the Baltimore/DC area at age 22, I lived within 35 or fewer miles from FW – mostly within 25 or fewer miles.)

    And you are correct that Lake County is the 2nd most populous county in Indiana, and thus a good bet for 2nd place for ME licenses (although many from Lake County possibly got married in Chicago). Metro Indy is about 1.85 million, Lake County has a bit under 500,000, and the population of Allen County was estimated at just under 365,000 in 2013.

  • 96. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2014 at 6:46 am

    Is this what you were looking for :)?

    Local voices on same-sex marriage []

  • 97. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 29, 2014 at 11:46 am

    Yes, I was looking for an article that had that kind of information, but I was looking for it on Saturday, and this article was published on Sunday.

    That is an indication that the information was available, just not published in the newspapers at the time I was searching them for the info.

    The Fort Wayne newspapers (Journal-Gazette and News-Sentinel) are not that careful to publish the article on-line near the time the reporter time stamps it, so something handed in at 2:00 AM might not get posted to the web site until several hours later.

  • 98. Roulette00  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    '[T]he district court has “failed to afford the relief requested” and awaiting district court action on Defendants’ emergency motion has become “impracticable.”'

    Translation: our plan was to pretend to review the court order and stall until the stay, so we could avoid actually complying with the injunction. We just can't stall for two whole days. You gotta help us out with a stay!

  • 99. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    Kagan probably will wait until after all the clerk offices close for the weekend before she grants a "stay the gay" I can't help but wonder if these delays are to allow some time for same sex couples to get licenses and get married just to perc things up a bit more. I betcha the bigot heads are spinning and spitting vinegar.

  • 100. dingomanusa  |  June 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Coming from the Appellate court and just like clockwork, after the clerk offices closed.

    "UPDATE 6:03PM ET: The Seventh Circuit has granted the request for an emergency stay. We will have the document soon."

  • 101. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Here's the document:

  • 102. Ragavendran  |  June 27, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    It seems like the same motions panel that responded to Wisconsin's request for an emergency stay. This time, however, it looks like they were waiting for Indiana to ask them and immediately granted the request without any briefing. Earlier circuits have at least permitted time for the motion to be fully briefed. What a shame!

  • 103. KarlS  |  June 27, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    I would absolutely not be surprised if they had written the appeal motion FOR them, emailed it to the AG and said "file this immediately".

  • 104. bayareajohn  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    So NOM's Brown and company make a tidy living being hateful jerks. Do you do it for free or do they pay you too? What's the going rate for soulless antagonism?

  • 105. davepCA  |  June 27, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    waaaa! How you liking those sour grapes?

  • 106. Terence  |  June 28, 2014 at 7:09 am

    And if the same principle applied to appellants against these rulings who had their appeals turned down, there'd have been fewer no hope challenges to ME

  • 107. Ragavendran  |  June 28, 2014 at 8:37 am

    Good one. And how about a $1000 fine for every net negative point you get on your comments, as a donation to EoT? I bet that would make you think twice before engaging in the thoughtlessness we've seen from you over the past few months. And if not, there won't ever be a need for a fundraising campaign here for eons to come, thanks to you. (Sorry guys, I just couldn't resist posting this response.)

  • 108. davepCA  |  June 28, 2014 at 9:56 am

    I think it's an idea worth considering. In the past, our opponent's own actions have been used to trigger and fuel pro-equality fund raising activities, with people committing to make donations to our cause to correspond with the actions of the anti-equality opponents.

  • 109. eizverson22  |  June 27, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    Oh i don't very happy to hear this news.<img src=>

  • 110. Zack12  |  June 28, 2014 at 2:46 am

    I remember this troll from Towleroad (who has let their comment section go to the gutter) listing all the reasons the Supreme Court was going to uphold DOMA.
    No difference here. This is a bigoted troll and nothing more.

  • 111. EricKoszyk  |  June 28, 2014 at 6:46 am

    So the troll is back, under a new but similar name. PLEASE DON"T engage with him (don't even down vote him, he likes that). It's Saturday and he is yet again trying to take over this site, as he does on weekends.

    Instead please report every single post of his as trolling and being inappropriate. Also, please email the site managers and let them know that you want him banned immediately and you want all of his posts deleted.

    He has already referred to AIDS, "abnormal sexual proclivities" and gay "marriage". He's done!

    This is the ONLY way we can get rid of him and take back our site

  • 112. brandall  |  June 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm


  • 113. JayJonson  |  June 28, 2014 at 7:20 am

    "Today, the “injustice that [we] had not earlier known or understood” ends.
    Translation: "It's an injustice because I say so, and it ends because I say so, because I'm Dictator of Indiana and what I say goes!" "

    No, it ends because the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence (from which the quote comes) said so.

  • 114. DACiowan  |  June 28, 2014 at 9:33 am

    Today is the 45th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots (and the 100th anniversary of Franz Ferdinand's assassination to spark World War I). Hopefully we'll have national marriage equality by the 46th anniversary. Keep pushing your case, Utah!

  • 115. brandall  |  June 28, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Washington state to convert most domestic partnerships to marriages on Monday

    What is interesting is it only applies to DP's if you are under 62. You can't obtain a new DP unless you are over 62. The article does not go into the reasoning behind this. But, the State of WA does not want 2 classes of relationships.

  • 116. DrPatrick1  |  June 28, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    The 62 year old thing has to do with social security benefits. By remaining Unmarried, you can get around losing your former spouses benefits. Thus, this is an attempt to get around ss rules.

  • 117. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2014 at 6:39 am

    Statistics – one of my favourite kinds of facts:

    5 charts and maps that show the state of the LGBT community [Chicago Sun Times]

  • 118. Fledge01  |  June 29, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    The last chart on demographics is telling. Gay households are more likely to include a bachelors degree. Gay household income is higher. Yet they are less likely to won a home… and the reason for that, I would propose, is because they can't get married and that makes it harder to do and can not benefit the same from taxes savings as straight households.

  • 119. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2014 at 9:21 am

    A thoughtful piece from Jonathan Rauch on 'religious freedom':

    The Great Secession [The Atlantic]

  • 120. SeattleRobin  |  June 29, 2014 at 9:51 am

    You linked to this post, not the article.

  • 121. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Ooops. Thanks for the correction.

  • 122. F_Young  |  June 29, 2014 at 10:33 am

    This is the correct link to the article in the Atlantic:

  • 123. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Sorry, but I think Jonathan Rauch is an idiot. He urges Christian vendors opposed to gay marriage not to discriminate but to evangelize: "There is, of course, a very different Christian tradition: a missionary tradition of engagement and education, of resolutely and even cheerfully going out into an often uncomprehending world, rather than staying home with the shutters closed. In this alternative tradition, a Christian photographer might see a same-sex wedding as an opportunity to engage and interact: a chance, perhaps, to explain why the service will be provided, but with a moral caveat or a prayer. Not every gay customer would welcome such a conversation, but it sure beats having the door slammed in your face."

    Yeah, all we need is to have our wedding photographer to charge us an arm and a leg and also condemn us to hell.

    Just tell them to follow the law.

  • 124. Steve  |  June 29, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Yeah, definitely a gigantic idiotic.

  • 125. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Not a fan of Jonathan Rauch myself. There is an 'Uncle Tom' quality to his quest for detente with those who disapprove of LGBT people. (It seems to have worked with David Blankenhorn, though.)

    However, as a straight person and a Canadian, I admit I don't understand the First Amendment; just this week, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that it permits anyone to accost people on the street to lecture them about their personal healthcare choices. I am ill-equiped to judge how the LGBT community chooses to engage with the 'religious liberty' crowd.

  • 126. SeattleRobin  |  June 30, 2014 at 6:25 am

    As a US citizen I understand the First Amendment, but not that decision by the Supreme Court. It makes me so furious I can't see straight. Making people stand back from a health clinic entrance doesn't make their signs any less legible or their shouting any less audible. As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show, the Supreme Court itself gets a HUGE protest free buffer zone, but that's somehow okay for them and not for ordinary citizens.

    As for the idea that it's acceptable to preach to your clients, who only expect a cake or flowers, not personal opinions, well… it sounds like a good way of asking to have that three-tiered cake smashed in your face.

    (I thought it was a pretty good article, but that was a terrible suggestion.)

  • 127. DACiowan  |  June 29, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Something about Wisconsin's case I wanted to ask: The ACLU sent a letter to the state AG (Here) reminding him that he has thirty days to appeal the marriage ruling. The letter dates this period from the judgement "of June 19," yet checking the case pages on here and Wiki, the judgement is dated June 13. Did something happen on the 19th that I'm missing, or is the ACLU six days off on their counting?

    Either way, unless the AG files that appeal next month Wisconsin could go back to marriage.

  • 128. KarlS  |  June 29, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    Does anybody have a theory on the nature of the strange mental derangement of this tkinsc2 person? I wonder if he is actually insane enough to imagine he's going to change any minds…what kind of pathology covers a need to constantly lie, express such corrosive hate and issue vicarious threats and insipid criticisms of people he doesn't even know? There is probably a psychiatric explanation for this bizarre behavior but it's a bit outside my own discipline…can anybody proffer an explanation for such irrational activities? It's just so weird that someone actually has the time or motivation to bother with such a fool's errand.

  • 129. Steve  |  June 29, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    I believe it's called "fundamentalist religion"

  • 130. KarlS  |  June 29, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    That must be it. I hope I live long enough to see the discovery of whether religion causes insanity or if it's the other way around…sigh.

  • 131. Roulette00  |  June 29, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Cassandra syndrome: named for the prophet who was doomed by Apollo to be disbelieved, the deluded victim of this disorder perceives moral decay around him and proclaims endlessly that failure to heed his pronouncements will lead to the destruction of society. Classically, the delusional figure is ignored, disbelieved, but compelled to log on and rant about his usual dribble.

  • 132. Zack12  |  June 30, 2014 at 2:14 am

    I think he's a self-loather or a paid troll.
    His Disquis profile (I saw it on JOe My God before he was banned) shows him/her to be someone who goes to sites such as this and JMG and spews the same garbage again and again.
    Towleroad is the only one that hasn't banned him/her.

  • 133. Steve  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:46 am

    Towleroad is mostly idiots and trolls. There is zero moderation there.

  • 134. OctaA  |  June 29, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    I believe June 19th was the date that Judge Crabb had originally scheduled a hearing on the injunction but ultimately it was held earlier and the injunction was adopted June 13th.

  • 135. ebohlman  |  June 29, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Yes, she had originally given the plaintiffs until June 16th to submit their proposed injunction, but they submitted it on June 9 and the defendants had their reply ready, so the hearing was moved up.

  • 136. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Therese Stewart has been nominated by Governor Brown to serve on the First District Court of Appeals. If confirmed, she will be the first openly lesbian justice on a California appellate court. She represented San Francisco in the in re Marriage cases and in the Prop 8 cases, at both the state and federal courts. See more here.

  • 137. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    Can't make this stuff up. Happy Pride everyone!

    Rainbow fills Toronto sky in fitting close to World Pride [Toronto Star]

  • 138. F_Young  |  June 30, 2014 at 3:10 am

    Sagesse: "Rainbow fills Toronto sky in fitting close to World Pride [Toronto Star] "

    Brings to mind the Gay Games in Vancouver in 1990.

    I had bought a stylish light jacket for the Games because Vancouver is notorious for rain. Yet, it was sunny for the whole Games, except for one time..

    There was a shower while I was indoors at the bodybuilding contest, but it conveniently ended just as we were leaving after the main event. We were greeted with a glorious rainbow as we left the venue.

  • 139. JayJonson  |  June 30, 2014 at 7:04 am

    Brings to mind June 26, 2013, when SCOTUS handed down Hollingsworth and Windsor. (My (now) husband and I were in Provincetown, where we got married on June 27.) The afternoon of June 26, a huge double rainbow appeared. We all took it as a sign of God's blessing on gay marriage.

  • 140. Ragavendran  |  June 29, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    The Ninth follows the lead of the Sixth and schedules all pending gay marriage appeals to be heard in the same session. Jackson, Sevcik, and Latta will be heard on September 8 at 9:30am. Really now, if SCOTUS doesn't take up a marriage appeal this Fall (from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia), then there will be a host of appeals at its door for its subsequent term from the Sixth and Ninth, and possibly the Fifth and Seventh. Evans, the case that sued Utah to recognize as legal the marriages performed before a stay was issued, is now at the Tenth Circuit (which is taking its sweet time in deciding Utah's stay request) and that case will also reach SCOTUS in time for its Fall 2015 term. Even if the Court punts on all the marriage equality appeals, it should take up Evans and settle the question of legal validity of marriages performed before stays were issued.

  • 141. davepCA  |  June 29, 2014 at 8:50 pm

    FINALLY, a hearing date for Sevcik!!!

  • 142. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2014 at 10:17 pm

    Progress is on the move!!!

  • 143. davepCA  |  June 29, 2014 at 10:54 pm

    There is another big domino tipping towards Nevada, Alaska, Montana, Arizona and Idaho…

  • 144. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    I would tend to agree with you………it will be simply amazing the day that this issue ISN'T an issue any longer!!!

    I was given some great news today that some folks I have known for almost 6 years FINALLY got married in Indiana before the Stay was put into place…….to me that is something that should be worth celebrating instead of fighting over!!!

    By the way…..I do enjoy reading your comments……..we are also both from California!!!

  • 145. Bruno71  |  June 30, 2014 at 9:34 am

    What is the status of Jackson? Are they waiting for that nutbag Hawaii legislator to drop his efforts to repeal the marriage law?

  • 146. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 9:51 am

    The Ninth Circuit, in March, refused to accord this appeal a summary disposition, reasoning that the mootness issue was still unresolved. As a result, simultaneous supplementary briefing was ordered on all remaining issues, including whether the passage of the Marriage Equality Act moots the appeal or not. This briefing was just completed three days ago. I don't have access to these briefs – perhaps it is time EoT posts an article about them with a summary of pending issues and which side wants what.

  • 147. Bruno71  |  June 30, 2014 at 10:05 am

    Thanks. The 9th is so frigging slow at everything, aren't they?

  • 148. Zack12  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:27 am

    One thing to keep in mind, the reason for the delay in the 9th circuit was because Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain asked for an En Banc hearing in SmithKline, the case that gave us heightened scrunity in the 9th circuit, thus the cases being heard got delayed.
    And that I suspect was the whole point.
    O'Scannlain knew he wouldn't get it overturned but did it anyway out of spite.
    There are very few judges that are more homophobic then Scalia is but O'Scannlain is one of them.
    The only "good" thing about him is he is on a court where his bigotry can be easily overruled.

  • 149. adorable anxiety disorder&hellip  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:40 am

    adorable anxiety disorder

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 150. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 9:42 am

    The terminally ill couple in Baskin is fighting back the stay granted by the Seventh. They've filed an emergency request to lift the stay just for the two of them. I particularly like the part where they clearly chide the court for its reckless behavior, noting that the court did not give the Plaintiffs an opportunity to file a response:

    "This Court granted the State’s motion for a stay pending appeal on Friday afternoon, June 27, at 5:00 p.m., less than two hours after it was filed, and before Plaintiffs Amy and Niki were able to submit their opposition brief describing the unique harm that such a stay imposes upon the couple and their children."

    I admire them for being the first couple to stand up against the parade of unanimous "gay means stay" decisions from the courts of appeal. They should appeal to SCOTUS if the Seventh denies this motion.

  • 151. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    The Seventh has ordered a response from Indiana by noon tomorrow, and on its own motion, has expedited the appeal, ordering a new, swift briefing schedule (July 15, July 29, August 5). Here is the order, thanks to Kathleen.

    Thank you, Seventh Circuit, for making it perfectly clear your double standards. When the state asks for an emergency stay, it takes less than two hours to grant it, but when a plaintiff files an emergency motion, you allow the state to respond before deciding. What exemplary behavior!

  • 152. sfbob  |  June 30, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Reading Niki's and Amy's brief is heartbreaking to me. My sister passed away from ovarian cancer almost five years ago, seven years after her diagnosis. With all due respect to my late sister and my former brother-in-law and my adult nephew, although they had their hands full over the course of my sister's illness, one thing they did not have to worry about was the possibility that the state would consider my sister and her husband to be legal strangers to each other or that her estate would need to enter probate after her death because of that. She wasn't faced with having to travel to another state to obtain medical treatment because her own state and her employer wouldn't recognize her relationship with her spouse. As painful as the entire process was for our entire family at least we didn't have a court battle to wage at the same time. I cannot imagine what it must be like for Niki and Amy and their kids to be subjected to the sort of treatment they've been receiving from the State of Indiana and even from the federal court system.

  • 153. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    Wow, I'm so sorry to hear about your sister. Couples like Niki and Amy are why this patchwork of laws needs to change. How can such heartless monsters sit in the motions panel of the Seventh Circuit?

  • 154. sfbob  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Thank you Ragavendran, I certainly appreciate that. I hesitated to throw what is essentially my own personal story in here. However I've become aware over the years that, simply by virtue of personal identification, a story might take on a resonance otherwise lacking.

    I am struck in particular that there is more than a little bit of a "how would you feel if you were in this situation" aspect to so many court cases, particularly where things are judged in a tone-deaf way. I am thinking of course of this particular one but also in general of those judges who find it not at all problematic to stay a decision with potentially life-and-death consequences and, perhaps more globally, to the utterly tone-deaf decision issued today by in Hobby Lobby. One thing which is patently obvious is that the justices who ruled in the majority are never going to find themselves in need of reproductive health services. It is no accident that three of the four dissenters were women for whom the issue is or could have been real, at least at one or another point in their lives. It's foolish to think that empathy should play no part in interpreting the law.

  • 155. Margo Schulter  |  June 30, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Ragavendran, as you may know, the mootness issue in Hawai`i seems to center on what seems to me a rather frivolous claim that the state constitutional amendment giving the Legislature the “power” to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples somehow prohibits marriage legislation including same-sex couples! The Ninth Circuit has the briefs through May 27, which may be found under the “Gay Marriage Cases” menu item on their site.

    An intervenor called the Hawaii Family Forum is arguing that this challenge has an appreciable chance of succeeding, and so mootness should apply under a decision by a lower state court rejecting it (following the plain wording of the amendment) is reviewed by higher state courts. This organization is concerned that otherwise, if the current Hawai`i law is found to violate their (very strange) construction of the amendment, finding mootness and vacating the Federal District Court decision (pre-Windsor) would give marriage equality an unfair advantage in future litigation, requiring defenders of a possible marriage ban to win their case anew at the District Court level.

    All in all, it maybe almost makes NOM in Oregon look comparatively nonfrivolous.

  • 156. buy capsiplex in singapor&hellip  |  July 1, 2014 at 8:56 am

    buy capsiplex in singapore

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 157. rehab retreat&hellip  |  July 1, 2014 at 10:52 am

    rehab retreat

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 158. disorder anxiety disorder&hellip  |  July 1, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    disorder anxiety disorder

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 159. Butterfly Pictures  |  July 1, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my
    own weblog and was curious what all is required to
    get set up? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?
    I’m not very internet savvy so I’m not 100% sure. Any tips
    or advice would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

  • 160.  |  July 2, 2014 at 1:17 am

    This design is steller! You definitely know how to keep a
    reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my
    own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Great job.

    I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that,
    how you presented it. Too cool!

  • 161. film semi full  |  August 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    An intriguing discussion is worth comment. I do believe that you should write more on this subject, it may not be a taboo matter but generally people do not talk about these issues.
    To the next! Best wishes!!

  • 162. Equality On TrialSeventh &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:22 am

    […] court judge requiring recognition, but after the district court struck down the ban entirely, the state sought and received a stay in the Seventh Circuit. That stay didn’t carve out any exceptions, so the […]

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