Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Another Florida marriage hearing, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

California state seal– Governor Brown in California signed a bill into law that will remove anti-gay statutory language that referenced the legality of only opposite-sex marriages.

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

– The Supreme Court has a docket number for the Pennsylvania clerk’s request for a stay. As of this writing, there has been no new action; the Court has not even called for responses yet. EqualityOnTrial is monitoring the situation.

Vet Sues After Burial With Gay Partner Is Denied


  • 1. brandall  |  July 8, 2014 at 10:22 am

    Will some court, somewhere in the U.S., please release a ruling today….

    My ME news feeds are deadly boring when the only two repeating articles today are Gov. Walker saying "He doesn't need my blessing to do anything he does" for his son attending a SSM and a Newtownabbey, Ireland bakery refusing to bake a cake with Bert and Ernie on it citing religious reasons.

  • 2. SWB1987  |  July 8, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Ya it has been pretty slow. I was actually wondering how many rulings could we be given at any time. I know there are a couple of Florida cases that were recently argued and there is a case from Colorado that's been argued but are there any more? Besides the fourth circuit obviously lol

  • 3. RCChicago  |  July 8, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    I share your reality, brandall. Fourth Circuit, something from the Tenth on Oklahoma, looming deadlines for WI… Am also hoping for particulars about yesterday's hearing in Key West and hope to find a transcript/archived video of last week's Miami-Dade hearing. I think we've been spoiled and/or conditioned by the frequent and swift events of the last few months to expect regular "Breaking!" announcements.

  • 4. RobW303  |  July 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    So are Bert and Ernie Jewish or Pastafarian?

  • 5. Randolph_Finder  |  July 9, 2014 at 8:26 am

    (For the Sesame Street muppets)
    Elmo isn't Jewish, since there is an episode where he learns about Hannukah <a href="http://(” target=”_blank”>(
    And Bert played Joseph in the Nativity Pageant in Elmo's World: Happy Holidays… . Whether or not that means he is a Christian, dummo.

    beyond that, you got me.

  • 6. KarlS  |  July 8, 2014 at 10:52 am

    Funny the courts don't seem to realize they're creating cruel and unusual punishment! (sort of a double entendre, only half joking)

  • 7. brandall  |  July 8, 2014 at 10:56 am

    Which half are you joking about, the CRUEL or the UNUSUAL?

  • 8. KarlS  |  July 8, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    The "realize" half.

    I never claimed to be a humor expert.

  • 9. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 8, 2014 at 11:55 am

    In other news:

    The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is withdrawing support for ENDA after the Hobby Lobby ruling.
    (… )

  • 10. F_Young  |  July 8, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    I agree. I think it would be more productive to shift from ENDA to litigation extending "sex" and "sexual harassment" in the Civil Rights Act, to lobbying and litigation against religious special rights, and to campaigning for politicians who support continuing the latest federal contractor executive orders beyond the next term.

  • 11. Christian0811  |  July 8, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    I'm actually really excited about SB 1306 being signed because I remember the moral panic even from when I was very little about gay civil rights. They even named Prop 22 "The California Defense of Marriage Act".

    I read up on the story behind it's passage and it was quite tragic, I felt bad for the "No on Knight" Campaign because they had 0 chance of defeating the measure and yes it was still hard fought.

    Well no more, the polls have flipped in our favour and equality won! It's high time a great state like California repeal these kinds of laws and I'm proud we've done so!

  • 12. sfbob  |  July 8, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    To the surprise of absolutely nobody, the usual hysterical right wing voices are claiming that SB 1306 "abolishes" "traditional" marriage or, if you will "maleness" and "femaleness." As though gender neutrality in civil code was some sort of arcane plot.

  • 13. SeattleRobin  |  July 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    I don't have words for how incredibly idiotic those two statements from Perkins are.

  • 14. Roulette00  |  July 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    "The liberals are dangerously abolishing the words husband and wife, without which biological reproduction is doomed! How will the stork know which spouse to deliver the baby to? The very future of humanity hangs in the … hang on, my wife is telling me … oh? Because … well, I was always taught that … but doesn't the … you don't say? … right out of your, your, uh … oh. All right, I'm back. Okay, never mind about the stork thing. But we are still doomed for reasons I will clarify, uh, at a later time."

  • 15. davepCA  |  July 8, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    I was going to post a funny reply to sfbob's comment, but I defer to this one from Roulette00. Well done! : )

  • 16. brandall  |  July 8, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    The storks are part of the problem! They started the trouble as early as 2006.

    "Gay and lesbian storks become parents in the Netherlands."

    It figures it would be the Dutch storks. Don't the storks have a choice? They could not possibly be born this way. I could find no articles on the responses from the conservative faction of the Dutch Reformed Church.

    As everyone knows, gays and lesbians come from LGBT storks although there are not documented cases of transgender storks…yet.

  • 17. Roulette00  |  July 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    On the right quack baby,
    I was hatched this way.

  • 18. bayareajohn  |  July 8, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Doom details to follow, along with why we are suing the president. Give us a minute… we're thinking…

  • 19. Bruno71  |  July 8, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    Illinois ME law not quite equal yet:

  • 20. sfbob  |  July 8, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Not the first time such a thing has come up. It had an impact in Massachusetts, whose response was eventually to repeal a similar law. It's also come up in Wisconsin where it is a felony to go out of state to obtain a marriage you would not be able to obtain in-state. Presumably the law was originally passed so underage couples wouldn't go to states where the legal age for marriage is lower. Delaware also has a law like that, though it's a misdemeanor there, rather than a felony. I believe that either the governor or the attorney general of Wisconsin stated publicly that gay and lesbian couples would NOT be prosecuted under that state's law.

    I wouldn't be surprised if such laws also were originally instituted to keep peace with states that had anti-miscegenation laws, back before Loving vs Virginia invalidated all such laws. It would have been particularly significant in a state like Illinois which borders on Southern states.

  • 21. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 8, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Massachusetts also had a law that prohibited out of state residents from marrying in Massachusetts. The legislature had to wait until Romney was out of the Governor's office before the law was changed. As far as anyone can tell, the law was originally enacted to prevent mixed-race couples (especially from the South) from going to Massachusetts to get married.

    In Pennsylvania, first cousin marriages are not allowed, but they are in Maryland, New Jersey and New York. Couples cross the state line, get married, then go back to PA as spouses, and the marriage is recognized in PA. I don't think there has ever been a war between PA and NY or NJ, and the last time PA and MD went to war was in the 1730s (Cresap's War), several years prior to the American Revolutionary War.

    So there is lots of disparity in the laws in the states, and how such laws have been enforced in the past.

  • 22. sfbob  |  July 9, 2014 at 8:58 am

    The law didn't prohibit out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts unless they couldn't get married in their home state. It was apparently not that unusual for states to have such laws at one time and some still do. And you're right, the state legislature just waited for Romney to go away, then they abolished it.

  • 23. RQO  |  July 8, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    New tit for tat in Colorado. AG John Suthers (R) goes to state district court in Boulder County tomorrow seeking to halt clerk from issuing more SS marriage licenses and INVALIDATE the ones issued to date. This afternoon attorney David Lane of the recently filed federal ME case (sort of a local Gloria Allred, very clever)rounded up a couple of those recently married and filed suit in the same court that the AG is attempting to invalidate marriages WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE to the couples involved, which is – get this – "antithetical to family values and the sanctity of marriage". I hope Brian Brown reads this.

  • 24. Zack12  |  July 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Sad to say but I have a feeling the marriages WILL be invalidated.
    Like it or not, the 10th circuit's ruling striking down the bans was stayed so gay marriage is still banned in CO.
    I like where the clerk's heart is but the fact is she has no right to do what she did here then a bigoted clerk who refuses to issue licenses due to religious beliefs does in refusing to issue licenses.
    I'm hoping Judge Crabtree will issue his ruling so she can issue valid ones.

  • 25. Bruno71  |  July 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    Let's see what the state district court has to say. Hall seems to believe she's on tenable ground with her actions. If not, then not. But there's no doubt that her interpretation of the US Constitution is the correct one in the long run, it's more a matter of does she have the power to interpret it.

  • 26. Dann3377  |  July 8, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Also, if that hateful clerk in Pennsylvania ends up having the power to halt marriages in that state then so too shall this clerk in Colorado have the power to issue licenses.

  • 27. RnL2008  |  July 8, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    I agree, but if the Clerk in PA is given Standing……it will make the State look a bit hypocritical after fighting with the Clerk from Montgomery County late last year.

    In my opinion a County Clerk should be following the laws of the State, even if the law still prevents the right to marry for Same-Sex couples…………though I do appreciate the one's who stand by their convictions!!!

  • 28. DocZenobia  |  July 9, 2014 at 7:39 am

    Not necessarily. The legal authority of county clerks varies from state to state. You can't automatically extrapolate from PA to CO.

  • 29. Fledge01  |  July 9, 2014 at 7:39 am

    A judge can't invalidate a marriage without having a trial with the couple whose marriage is to be invalidated as a defendant. Either, the state can act as if the marriages are invalid and the couples can sue the state, or the state can sue the couples for fraud for acting as if they are married.

    The judge can't put a stay on the marriages because the judge hasn't made any ruling that can be stayed.

    The judge could place an injunction on the clerk but only if the AG can show that the clerk has little chance of winning in court. This is not the legal equivalent of a stay. SCOTUS has only set a legal precedent for stays of rulings, not for preliminary injunctions.

    As far as the clerk being ministerial and not being able to interpret the law. I don't think relying on an appeals court's ruling is that hypothetical of an interpretation of the law as to look like the clerk is going rogue in Colorado

  • 30. JayJonson  |  July 9, 2014 at 8:42 am

    The 2004 marriages in California and Oregon were invalidated without a trial in which the married couples were defendants. I think the defendant in the California case concerning the 2004 marriages was then-Mayor Gavin Newsom. In San Francisco, about 4,000 couples were issued marriage licenses before the weddings were halted by the California Supreme Court. The City of San Francisco was sued by the Attorney General of California (and, I think, the Alliance Defense Fund). In August, the California Supreme Court voided all of the licenses. The individual couples were not defendants in the trial.

    I am not sure how the 1700 Oregon licenses issued to same-sex couples were handled, but iirc the Oregon Supreme Court ultimately ruled that they were void when issued. I doubt that the individual couples were named as defendants in a trial.

    The San Francisco litigation led to the In re Marriage case that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in California in 2008 and to Prop 8. The Oregon marriages led to the adoption of the state's marriage ban in 2004.

  • 31. brandall  |  July 8, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    The judge for tomorrow's Denver hearing is the Hon. Andrew Hartman. He was appointed last year by Gov. Hickenlooper. Prior to this he was an attorney concentrating on trademarks, privacy and publicity.

    Other than being from Michigan and playing water polo in college, there is surprisingly no information on his current personal life mentioned anywhere.

    Here is a brief YouTube of his presentation on privacy:

  • 32. eizverson22  |  July 8, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    It's a stage victory!<img src=>

  • 33. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 8, 2014 at 11:08 pm


    Is that you?

    It's not the eve of a weekend or holiday, so if it is you, why are you posting?

    Oh, and what do you mean when you state "It's a stage victory!"? And what (or who) had the victory?

  • 34. DaveM_OH  |  July 9, 2014 at 9:04 am

    From what I can see of eizverson22's previous posts, I would conclude that hir primary language is not English, and that ze's comprehension of all the legal process underway is maybe a step behind due to the language issue. Let's not be too quick to condemn.

    Eizverson, if you are reading here, please comment with your nationality and/or preferred language, and we here will attempt to unravel any questions you may have.

  • 35. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 9, 2014 at 10:42 am

    Apparently, you have not read any of eizverson22's previous posts.

    For instance, on July 8 (the same day the above comment was posted), the same poster posted "I heard that in 2016 the country will pass this bill.", followed up by KarlS with "???" and no response by eizverson22.

    Care to help KarlS and many of us out, and interpret what was stated in the post by eizverson22? Or maybe eizverson22 can help us out?

    Who told eizverson22 that some bill would be passed? Is eizverson22 aware that in the US, marriage is defined in the states (as long as the definition is not in violation of the US Constitution), not the Federal government? Yes, there is an election in 2016, but the national office candidates elected in 2016 will not take office until January 2017. And, maybe most importantly, WHAT BILL?

  • 36. DaveM_OH  |  July 9, 2014 at 12:41 pm


    I appreciate the passion in your response.
    To take the charitable side, I would read "It's a stage victory!" as
    "This is one stage in our inevitable victory!"
    Similarly, I would read "pass this bill" broadly for a non-English speaker unfamiliar with the US federal system and jurisprudence, and construe it to mean "SCOTUS establish a national right to marriage equality".

    Seriously, go back and look at ze's comment history. The comments do not demonstrate a clear and unambiguous facility with written English; and to my reading suggest an outsider who supports equality. I would ask you to refrain from characterizing eizverson as a sockpuppet of TK.

    "I hope that marriage equality can emulate some Western countries."
    "Oh i don't very happy to hear this news."
    "Colorado State fantastic, there's people can free love married."

  • 37. constant ringing in ears&hellip  |  July 8, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    constant ringing in ears

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 38. brandall  |  July 9, 2014 at 7:16 am

    Over 30% of all global ME news articles in the last 24 hours are about the Bert & Ernie cake controversy in Ireland. Now, there is a call for a "conscience clause" which is just a wolf in sheep's clothing for a religious exemption. The Prime Minister is now commenting against the bakery.

    <img src=""&gt;

  • 39. weights&hellip  |  July 9, 2014 at 11:23 pm


    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

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