Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Equality news round-up: Colorado marriage equality news, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Colorado state seal

– Colorado officials are now agreeing in a federal district court filing that because of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Kitchen v. Herbert, a preliminary injunction should be issued against enforcing Colorado’s same-sex marriage ban. They are requesting a stay along with the injunction, though, meaning that the case would be on hold until after the Tenth Circuit issues its mandate. That wouldn’t happen until either the time runs out to ask the Supreme Court to hear the Utah case, or the Supreme Court denies review because of the stay in the Utah case. The motion for a preliminary injunction is here. The stay motion (and non-opposition notice) from the Governor, Attorney General, and the Jefferson County Clerk is here. The Clerk for the City and County of Denver joins in the motions but has filed her own brief.

– Florida’s same-sex marriage ban was challenged in a hearing in state court today.

– The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) filed a motion for summary judgment in a challenge to Wyoming’s same-sex marriage ban filed in state court. More here.

– After the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, religious groups are asking President Obama for an exemption to his forthcoming executive order banning discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

– President Obama has also announced an executive order protecting transgender federal employees from discrimination.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings

61 Comments

  • 1. DoctorHeimlich  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:01 am

    I suppose the insanity of the Colorado situation shouldn't surprise me, when you look at how insane the arguments from the anti-equality side have been. But still, even Lewis Carroll couldn't come up with something so ridiculous. Suthers is basically saying, "we give up, but you should issue a stay." Yet doesn't giving up by definition include giving up the right to appeal? And if you're not going to appeal, then what's the stay for?

  • 2. StraightDave  |  July 3, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    If it wasn't so stupid to not be worth responding to, I'd think he's trying to have it both ways:
    – Make it look like he's on our side and trying do something
    – Make sure what he does has no real effect
    – Stop people from bugging him

    OK, so it's all 3 ways.
    Sorry, that's the best I could come up with.

    I thought I had seen enough dumb & weird in the past 2 years to last a lifetime, but it seems to be a bottomless well. When all the dust finally settles, we'll probably end up discovering there are 50 different ways to get from here to "done". I mean look at CA, the "easy" state. And even when they were finally dead, they still couldn't manage to lie down peacefully. They should all be like Delaware, totally unnoticable.

  • 3. SFExPat  |  July 3, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    I think it is a way to reign in the Boulder clerk who is basically saying "Make me!" and continues to issue marriage licenses. She is making things uncomfortable for everyone (good!) and both the gov (who's really on our side) and the AG (who is really NOT) seem to be trying to make this go away.

  • 4. Bruno71  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Suthers seems to be panicking here. The action seems tailored to stopping the Boulder marriages at all costs immediately. This is starting to make the Wisconsin situation look not so strange.

  • 5. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:22 am

    I guess the administrators DON'T want me to post my thoughts of the Hobby Lobby ruling because EVERY time I do, they delete the comment just after I hit the button……so, I guess I won't try again!!!

    Here are my thoughts and opinions specifically regarding the Hobby Lobby ruling:

  • 6. Japrisot  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:30 am

    Have you tried logging out of your account and logging in again?

  • 7. sfbob  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:33 am

    That usually works for me.

  • 8. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:36 am

    I just did……also changed my pic!!!

    I'll try again:-)

  • 9. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Testing:

    TOBIAS WOLFF: ‘HOBBY LOBBY DECISION SUPPORTS THE ENFORCEABILITY OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS’
    http://www.towleroad.com/2014/07/tobias-wolff-hob

  • 10. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:02 am

    Thank you brandall for the article……..it has some good points, but also some that clearly could be looked at as "FLUFF"……..I guess this is a wait and see ruling!!!

  • 11. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:24 am

    I was "testing" the use of the word Hobby Lobby since RnL2008 was having some posting problems. I just grabbed the first article I could find. I actually did not read it. Toweleroad is not my first choice of sites for intuitive, insightful legal analysis.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:38 am

    Still I appreciate your effort…….whatever I was trying to say obviously wasn't important enough to get through the filters…….no worries, life will go on!

  • 13. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:37 am

    The NSA did not appreciate what you said.

  • 14. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:43 am

    Really……and how would they know what I said before it was posted? No foul language was even used…….seems a bit fishy.

  • 15. sfbob  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Clearly they read your mind. You may not have believed what you were going to say was subversive but they knew better.

  • 16. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Probably………the mind patrol……..lol!!!

  • 17. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:45 am

    The Benham brothers are VGL twins who had a potential homeshow deal with HGTV, but it was cancelled when their rabid public statements on ME were revealed. They claimed to have another deal with another network, but that seems to have vaporized. So, they only way they are getting their "15 minutes of fame" is to make the follow statement:

    "Benham Brothers Say Christians ‘Must Be Willing to Die’ to Stop Gay Marriage"

    What really bothers me is statements like these lead to some "believer" taking other innocent LGBT folks with them as they exit the earth. As we accumulate this amazing, winning momentum in the courts, we do increase the anger of those who believe they have God on their side and this is the end of the earth.
    http://www.thewrap.com/hgtvs-booted-benham-brothe

  • 18. Japrisot  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:51 am

    VGL indeed. But yeah, you are absolutely right. This rhetoric inflames the unstable and leads to acts of incredible carnage given the availability of powerful automatic weaponry. I fear another Las Vegas style rampage based on extremist anti-LGBT views.

  • 19. davepCA  |  July 3, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Okay, I'm a bit OT and shallow, but 'VGL'? Meh. Their time slot on HGTV is put to far better use by more episodes of 'Cousins Undercover', IMO. Oh yeah.

  • 20. Japrisot  |  July 3, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    Maybe the CU faces on Benham Bros bodies. Yes.

  • 21. Eric  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:06 am

    If Christians want to bring back martyrdom theology, so be it. It's a better theology than some of the garbage they have come up with over the past few centuries.

  • 22. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    Wisconsin: ACLU filed a motion Thursday asking Crabb to lift the stay

    Van Hollen has had 17 days to appeal but has done nothing in hopes of delaying a ruling as long as possible.

    Van Hollen has until July 21 to file under court rules.

    Read more: http://www.wiba.com/articles/madison-news-118857/

  • 23. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    While we're in the WI thread….I would have loved to be in the same room when this conversation happened.

    Like father, not like son:

    Governor Walker's son was official witness to same-sex wedding
    http://www.wbay.com/story/25937940/2014/07/03/gov

  • 24. ebohlman  |  July 4, 2014 at 7:42 am

    Most significant aspect of this is that one of the parties to the marriage was Governor Walker's wife's cousin, meaning he's been throwing his own family under the bus for political gain by supporting the ban.

  • 25. DACiowan  |  July 3, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Here's hoping this forces the situation to actually do something. I'm across the river in Iowa, and would love to see the whole Upper Mississippi Valley blue.

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    I grew up in NE Indiana, and now live in Maryland (one of the two newest entrants in the Big Ten).

    I'd love all the states represented by the Big Ten have ME (of 11 states, only OH, IN, MI, WI and NE do not allow ME, and several of them are under court order [stayed] to allow it). Some of the others are by legislative action, and some also directly by the electorate (MD and MN especially).

    Even better will be every state (and thus every conference) having ME.

  • 27. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Colorado Attorney General John Suthers filed a state district court [Boulder} lawsuit Thursday against Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall.

    He filed in both the 10th and the state courts?
    http://www.9news.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/

  • 28. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    EoT'er's (sp?) have been debating the Boulder clerks motives and outcomes for days. Finally, someone in the press is trying to figure this out also. Everyone debating the clerk will have more to comment on now.
    http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equalit

  • 29. Japrisot  |  July 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    Every moment the clerk remains willing to issue licenses is a moment that gay Coloradans can feel their rights have been vindicated. This is a net positive and I hope it continues.

  • 30. brandall  |  July 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Colorado update

    State Court Hearing on the case is set for July 9 in Boulder County District Court. Note: there is a parallel 10th Circuit filing, but no dates have been announced.

    In the meantime, Boulder will continue to issues licenses. Over 100 have been issued to date.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/usa-gay

  • 31. Ragavendran  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    What is this parallel 10th Circuit filing? I can find no information on that anywhere.

  • 32. brandall  |  July 4, 2014 at 9:53 am

    Since it was the 10th Circuit's Kitchen ruling that prompted Hall to start issuing licenses, I incorrectly assumed Suthers would go back to the 10th Circuit to stop her. I decided to take a personal interest in the Miami case history yesterday and did not pay enough attention to all the swirling parts in CO between Tuesday and Thursday. Not to mention the number of Boulder comments on EoT became a bit overwhelming to follow.

    I caught up on all the CO cases today and you are correct (as usual) that Suthers filed a motion in the Federal District Court of CO to Burns v. Hickenlooper.

    Wiki is out of date for the CO ME cases. Here are the cases/motions in order of the date filed:

    Adams County District Court, Brinkman v. Long, filed October 20, 2013 – lesbian couple denied a marriage license

    Denver County District Court, McDaniel-Miccio v. Hickenlooper, filed February 18, 2014 -constitutional right to SSM violates Windsor. This case was combined into Brinkman v. Long on May 7, 2014.

    U.S. District Court of Colorado, Burns v. Hickenlooper, filed July 1, 2014 – violates 14th amendment citing Kitchen, Loving, et al

    U.S. District Court of Colorado, Burns v. Hickenlooper, filed July 2, 2014 – CO Motion to to halt proceedings in the case until a higher court rules on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision

    Boulder District Court, Colorado v. Hall, filed July 3, 2014 – CO seeks an order to stop issuing the licenses by Hall

    The Federal District Court Motion you were asking about is hot linked (2nd from the bottom).

    I'm assuming by your late night comments you are now in India and enjoying your time there?

  • 33. Ragavendran  |  July 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Ah that's comprehensive! I'm now in Michigan visiting my brother and his family, on my way to India. I'm staying up late here. I'll be leaving to India on Sunday and won't be back for a month (at least, depending on my visa progress).

  • 34. davepCA  |  July 4, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    We will surely miss you, Ragavendran. Hurry back!!

  • 35. bayareajohn  |  July 4, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Surely there is internet in India.
    I mean, if they have it in Michigan….

  • 36. davepCA  |  July 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Hey, yeah. I go off on adventures in far away countries every year and I often stay off the internet while I'm gone, except in rare cases like an emergency, and I guess I was assuming that others do the same… So we expect to hear from you regularly while you're in India, Ragavendran! No excuses! : )

  • 37. Ragavendran  |  July 4, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    He he ๐Ÿ™‚ Sure. I will check in now and then, but will be more distant (physically and online) during this time. The long flight from Detroit to Chennai will hopefully give me enough time to finish my Bostic transcript. (I've been too busy with work so far to finish it.) That ruling could come down any day now!

  • 38. brandall  |  July 4, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    I for one, will go through withdrawals without your daily presence. I sure wish we could get you to join davepCA and us for the 9th Circuit on 9/8/14.

  • 39. Ragavendran  |  July 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    Aw, thanks – that is still a possibility. I will return mid-August if all goes well and I'd love to join you guys for the hearing.

  • 40. CowboyPhD  |  July 6, 2014 at 7:23 am

    I will welcome your return. I appreciate your thoughtful and through analysis.

  • 41. JayJonson  |  July 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Good luck and best wishes. Looking forward to your safe return.

  • 42. Ragavendran  |  July 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you, Jay!

  • 43. RQO  |  July 4, 2014 at 5:44 am

    There are 2 separate issues. The Boulder court hearing on the 9th is a plain and simple attempt to stop the Boulder County Clerk, Hilary Hall, from issuing marriage licenses. This is the suit we expected the Republican AG Suthers would have filed sooner. (IMO, the Clerk will lose.)The reference to the 10th Circuit regards Suthers' (and D. Gov. Hickenlooper's) rather odd request to BOTH the federal and state courts handling ME cases to admit the state's marriage discrimination amendment is, or is probably, or kinda sorta unconstitutional but get a stay on any state action allowing SS licenses until the US Supreme Court disposes of the issue (gay means stay, esp. in an election year).
    The problem is the state court case(s) are much further along – a favorable lower court ruling is (was? before this monkey wrench) expected any day, and as Ralph Ogden, plaintiff's attorney immediately pointed out, we could very likely achieve ME through the state Supreme Court SOONER than waiting on the US. I.E. – Hickenlooper threw us under the bus and according to the folks I called yesterday, DID NOT even give the gay rights community a heads up, let alone ask their advice).
    Fortunately, Debrah Johnson, Denver County Clerk and one of the state defendents, reportedly says she agrees to this deal in the federal case only, not the state one. Your opinions awaited on whether the state district judge will consider this motion when the plaintiffs and one of the defendents object.
    This all seems to be an attempt by the political bigwigs to tidy up the delightful chaos and bury the issue for the fall campaigns for both parties, and the Denver Post thinks it's a grand idea. You can bet no one involved in this grand bargain is anxiously awaiting their own right to marry – or divorce. A pox on all their houses.

  • 44. Ragavendran  |  July 4, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Then the reference should be to the federal district court for the district of Colorado, not the Tenth Circuit ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 45. RQO  |  July 4, 2014 at 8:41 am

    Thanks, R.

  • 46. RQO  |  July 4, 2014 at 8:50 am

    Also meant to mention the public statements of Colorado politicians have been relatively few and largely restricted to criticizing the Boulder clerk's actions. The silence on the underlying issue of ME has been remarkable. No sign of NOM, or even Focus on the Family.

  • 47. Zack12  |  July 4, 2014 at 8:59 am

    I suspect that's because Republicans have a chance to pick up a governor's seat and a senate seat and do NOT want to bring out Democratic voters in a (sadly) off year for them by saying anti-gay comments.

  • 48. DoctorHeimlich  |  July 4, 2014 at 10:26 am

    That's exactly it. Months ago, Governor Hickenlooper (the Democrat incumbent) had a very comfortable lead over a hypothetical Republican challenger. But then, in June, he got into hot water over some comments he made about gun control measures. (You'd think after the Columbine and Aurora theater shootings, sensible gun control legislation wouldn't be as controversial here. You'd be wrong.) As a result, Hickenlooper is now running neck-and-neck with the Republican candidate who won the nomination, Bob Beauprez.

    Yes, the Republicans have a real chance at taking this one. But we have four long months until the election, and surely plenty more bumps in the road before then. (For example, a recording recently emerged of Beauprez making "lazy 47%" remarks, similar to the ones that sunk Romney — years BEFORE Romney.)

    You'd better believe both candidates are going to be VERY rehearsed in all their comments on marriage equality.

  • 49. Zack12  |  July 4, 2014 at 10:44 am

    IMO, Hickenlooper is on our side but the state and federal lawsuits and the one clerk issuing licenses on her own (something I oppose no matter how noble her intentions are) has created a mess.
    It would be nice if the one judge issued his ruling before the hearing on the 9th.

  • 50. scream4ever  |  July 4, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Hopefully Crabtree issues his ruling next week, the Colorado Supreme Court denies a stay, and it gets dropped. Remember too that federal circuit and appeals courts can't overrule state courts (only the US Supreme Court can do that).

  • 51. matt87  |  July 6, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Correct, only the US Supreme Court can overrule state courts on stays and appeals of federal question. On questions of state law, however, no federal court can intervene, not even SCOTUS. Because Colorado has an amendment, it is presumed that Crabtree's ruling will cite the US Constitution, thus the request for a stay must also follow an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

  • 52. Ragavendran  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:48 pm

    Even Breyer abandons the women, who boldly stand alone: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sotomayor-blistering-d

    (To be clear, we don't necessarily know that Breyer voted in favor of the emergency injunction, only that he did not join Sotomayor's dissent or write a separate dissent.)

    The Opinion and Dissent: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a128

    The Docket: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=

  • 53. Ragavendran  |  July 3, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    For those (like me) interested in speculating about whether the Supreme Court would entertain a marriage appeal during its forthcoming term, here is an excerpt:

    Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari

    Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

    (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
    (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
    (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

    A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10

  • 54. RnL2008  |  July 3, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    My guess is that SCOTUS might take at least one case in their next term because there is currently a conflict. There is the ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals(pre-Windsor) and currently the ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to Kitchen out of Utah.

    The question that NEEDS to be asked of SCOTUS is this, "Is marriage a Fundamental Right regardless of gender make-up?" This to me is the MILLION dollar question and one that SCOTUS is going to find hard to deny.

    Remember that if marriage is ONLY a fundamental right for those who wish to marry someone of the opposite-sex, then it CAN'T be considered a Fundamental right in my opinion because it would violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Acts.

    I still believe that when the next ME case gets to SCOTUS, it will be in our favor and toss the remaining bans….but that is just my opinion!!!

    I have been following this issue since becoming a part of those 18,000 legal marriages done in 2008……have read a lot of briefs and still have faith that SCOTUS will make the right ruling and be on the right side of history.

  • 55. brandall  |  July 4, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    We were also one of the 18,000. Where are the other 17,998? Why aren't they on EoT following what is happening in the remaining non-ME states?

  • 56. Bruno71  |  July 4, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    I'm another one in that group ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • 57. RnL2008  |  July 4, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Congratulations to you brandall and Bruno……….I know several are on other sites fighting the good fight, some have passed away….leaving widowers, but all are fighting for the common good!!!

  • 58. weight loss diets&hellip  |  July 4, 2014 at 12:43 am

    weight loss diets

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial ยป

  • 59. home remedies for acne&hellip  |  July 8, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    home remedies for acne

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial ยป

  • 60. Equality On TrialFlorida &hellip  |  July 25, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    […] case was argued earlier this […]

  • 61. Equality On TrialEquality&hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:23 am

    […] Florida’s same-sex marriage ban saw another hearing in state court yesterday. As we noted, one state court judge heard a challenge last […]

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