Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Seventh Circuit cancels oral arguments, Utah asks SCOTUS for stay

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has cancelled oral arguments to consider cases challenging Indiana and Wisconsin’s marriage equality bans, just a few days after it set those arguments for August 13.

The court gave no clear explanation for its action, issuing an order that was only one sentence long:

The court, on its own motion, ORDERS that the oral argument in this appeal, scheduled for Wednesday, August 13, 2014, is VACATED.  A new oral argument date will be set by separate court order.

We will keep an eye out for another order and update here on the site when the arguments are rescheduled.

In other appellate news, Utah has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a Tenth Circuit ruling that struck down its marriage equality ban last month.  The Tenth Circuit put its own temporary stay on its decision as long as the case is before the Supreme Court, but a separate decision issued by a district court judge in May ordered Utah to recognize the more than 1,000 marriages that were entered into in that state in December.  That judge stayed his decision only until this coming Monday.

“Both the district court and a divided 10th Circuit have denied Applicants’ requests for a full stay pending appeal, although the 10th Circuit has granted a temporary stay that will expire at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Monday,” the Utah motion filed Wednesday says.

The state’s emergency application was directed towards Justice Sonia Sotomayor, with a request that she seek the input of the full court if she chooses not to issue the stay.

Utah plans to file petition with the Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit’s order.


  • 1. SWB1987  |  July 17, 2014 at 9:16 am

    Didn't the Ninth circuit do something similar to this earlier this year and then it took them forever to reschedule oral arguments

  • 2. StraightDave  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:00 am

    Jacob –
    Can you clarify UT's emergency stay? Is it for the ME ruling in June or the recognition ruling from May? Your first sentence suggests the former, which caused my brain to squint. Now I'm not sure anymore.

    "In other appellate news, Utah has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a Tenth Circuit ruling that struck down its marriage equality ban last month. "

  • 3. ragefirewolf  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Brain squint is the worst!

  • 4. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:08 am

    Not sure if Jacob is nearby to reply. The Emergency Request is for Evans v. Herbert which is to recognize the marriages that took place prior to the SC's stay.

  • 5. DaveM_OH  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Dave, I can.

    The application for emergency stay in this case is for the district court's decision in May recognizing marriages that took place. The 10CA refused to stay this decision, only reinforcing a temporary stay until Monday, July 21. Utah is now asking SCOTUS to stay the recognition decision until heard by the 10CA as a full appeal.

    The ME ruling in June is already stayed by action of the 10CA until disposition of the certiorari petition that UT will file this fall.

  • 6. StraightDave  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Thanks. That what I originally had believed to be the case. UT has no case at all in Evans, IMO. They voluntarily forfeited their chance for an initial stay and now want to pretend like their screw-up never happened. The law was what the law was. Now we'll find out if zero probability of success is good enough for SCOTUS. These days, that's a 50/50 bet 🙁

  • 7. Jen_in_MI  |  July 17, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    This is crazy-making! This stupid Hail Mary is going to have a direct effect on all marriages performed once bans were struck down and before stays were issued. As one of those couples in MI, I'm ready to tear out my hair with all of the waiting, delays, waiting, hoping someday my validly issued license wi ever be recognized. /end rant

  • 8. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Don't feel the need to /end rant on account of us. You go right ahead and rant on as much as you need to. You've earned it. You have my sincere sympathies for your situation. It's awful and you shouldn't have to put up with it.

  • 9. RnL2008  |  July 17, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Jen, I totally agree with ya….it wasn't until just this last year that my marriage FINALLY got federal recognition……now the IRS sees me as married and so does the VA…….don't give up the fight and DON'T let anyone tell you that you aren't married because you are!!!

    Hang in there….I know it's frustrating, but it will all work out…..just probably later than sooner!

  • 10. ragefirewolf  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Is it possible that the Seventh Circuit will issue a summary judgment?

    Aside from overscheduling themselves into a corner, does anyone have speculation as to why they would vacate their own arguments schedule order to be rescheduled?

  • 11. BenG1980  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:06 am

    Not exactly sure what you mean by overscheduling themselves into a corner, but I think Indiana's and Wisconsin's pending requests for initial hearing en banc are the most likely reasons. I highly doubt the court would rule without oral argument.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:02 am

    All this time I thought en banc had already been denied to Wisconsin, but it must have been Michigan that was denied an en banc hearing, correct???

  • 13. ragefirewolf  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:20 am

    Wisconsin only got denied the motion to join Indiana's en banc hearing request, which the Seventh Circuit said was because they needed "to move the court on their own" or something to that effect.

    Michigan's was denied, yes. They're in a different appeals circuit though, which you might've already known. 🙂

  • 14. RnL2008  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Thanks….just wanted to make sure my facts were correct……..all of these cases and all of these stays are getting confusing………why do the anti-gay folks think they have a chance to win with arguments they know have already failed???

  • 15. StraightDave  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Why? They're usually suffering from

  • 16. JamesInCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Too many of their jobs are at stake to just pick up and go home.

    Also, I think some of them actually do believe this tripe.

  • 17. RnL2008  |  July 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    Well, I would have to agree with ya that they have to much animus at stake just to go home……..they will fight this long after they have lost!!!

  • 18. Deeelaaach  |  July 18, 2014 at 12:11 am

    Having grown up in one of those households, I can say that some really do believe this. My family still believes it to this day.

  • 19. ragefirewolf  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:10 am

    I mean their docket may have gotten too full and they needed to reschedule for that reason. I don't know if it ever actually happens like that or can happen.

  • 20. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:11 am

    Reposting here (concurring with BenG above): Looking at both the WI and IN dockets, here's the timing of the events, which could tell us something about why this strange sua sponte decision came about:

    (1) Indiana files a petition for initial en banc hearing on 7/11
    (2) Court consolidates Indiana and Wisconsin cases on 7/11
    (3) Wisconsin tries to join Indiana's motion on 7/14
    (4) Court sets Aug 13 argument date for both cases on 7/14
    (5) Court denies Wisconsin's try to piggyback on Indiana's en banc motion on 7/15
    (6) Wisconsin files a petition for initial en banc on 7/16
    (7) Court removes both cases from their Aug 13 calendar on 7/16

    Looking at this sequence, it seems that because the Court needs time to consider and schedule the en banc hearing if granted, the appeals have been removed from the August 13 calendar. It seems likely they'll be moved to the Court's regular September session which will probably have some empty en banc slots, should the Court decide to hear them en banc.

  • 21. DaveM_OH  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:17 am


    Had the 7CA ruled yet on whether to grant IN's en banc motion?
    If not, now that there is a correct procedural motion in place from WI, it would seem possible that both cases would be considered en banc and on the same day, perhaps consolidated, perhaps not.

  • 22. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Further supporting the guess that the initial en banc hearing request is the reason for the oral argument cancellation, today the Seventh Circuit asked the Appellees in both WI and IN appeals to file their response to the en banc request (not to exceed 15 pages) by July 23. The two cases remain consolidated. They haven't been officially decoupled.

  • 23. ragefirewolf  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Ah, Ragavendran – I so appreciate your explanations. You're the best. 🙂

    It seems to interesting to me that it seems like they basically shot down the WI piggyback motion almost on etiquette. What do you think?

  • 24. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:17 am

    You're welcome! And yeah, I couldn't have framed it better – proper etiquette requires filing your own motions 🙂

  • 25. ragefirewolf  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Lazy Wisconsin!

    I KID. I love…cheese?

  • 26. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:14 am

    Here's the docket for Utah's SCOTUS application for emergency stay:

  • 27. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:16 am

    Plaintiff's attorneys have stated they will submit the Response to Application by the end of today. That should be interesting reading. I hope they rip the factually wrong AG's complaint to shreds.

  • 28. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:18 am

    FLORIDA: Keys judge: Gay couples can marry, but not before Tuesday

    Read more here:

  • 29. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:25 am

    If you live in Florida, you might want to join one of the cities holding a celebration tonight.

  • 30. DaveM_OH  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:31 am

    A great decision.
    "Whether it's the NRA…Nazi supremacists…a black woman want[ing] to marry a white man…the Constitution guarantees and protects ALL of its citizens[.]"

    Too bad it's only a county circuit judge, and that his ruling was narrow enough to only apply to the county.

  • 31. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:34 am

    Excellent news! But – it's rather difficult to parse the non-legal language in that article, like the first part:
    "Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia overturned Florida’s 2008 constitutional gay-marriage ban on Thursday, and ordered that two Key West bartenders be allowed to wed but not before Tuesday."

    Did the judge put a temporary stay in place until Tuesday, perhaps to give the defendants time to request a further stay?

    Anybody got a link to the actual ruling?

  • 32. DaveM_OH  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

  • 33. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Thanks! Reading it now…. looking good !

  • 34. Rik_SD  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:59 am

    nice! He finds that the ban is motivated by animus. Most other decisions have avoided that, right?

  • 35. Rik_SD  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:59 am

    page 9, towards the bottom

  • 36. debater7474  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:43 am

    The ruling doesn't go into effect until July 22nd, which is a shame because I would assume by that point some higher court will enter a stay.

  • 37. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:10 am

    We need to hold our breath on this one. This could be a state where the Gov and AG don't appeal. AG Bondi is up for reelection and was burned at the stake in the media for statements in their late-filed brief. Crist and Scott are neck and neck in the polls. A huge number of FL mayors/city councils have signed on to ME and all the tourist boards are saying dollars are being lost due to no ME. We'll know the answer really fast.

  • 38. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:32 am

    You could knock me over with a feather if Rick Scott doesn't appeal this.

  • 39. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:47 am

    This only rules on NEW marriages in Monroe. It does not rule on out-of-state marriages. That motion was denied because the plaintiff's record is void of any facts. Page 12.

    Miami-Dade (Pareto v Rubin) is also just for Plaintiff's currently residing in Florida. So, no ruling on out-of-state is before these courts. There is a third case in Federal District court, but a positive ruling on that one is bound to be stayed by the Court of Appeals.

  • 40. Zack12  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:04 am

    I would assume that if the Florida Supreme Court strikes down the ban, it will take care of that as well.

  • 41. Chuck_in_PA  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    It will be interesting to see what happens if it eventually is appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. 3 Democratic appointees (L. Childes, Govenor), 4 Republican appointees (C. Christ, Govenor). All 3 Democratic appointees and 1 Republican appointees face mandatory retirement, so they need not fear the next election. My bet is ME would win in the Florida Supreme Court. But it would have to get through the Appeals Court first.

  • 42. sfbob  |  July 17, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    It would be odd if the state Supreme Court to rule that the law was unconstitutional only as applied to marriages taking place in the state but still valid with respect to out-of-state marriages. That would be a rather unprecedented situation, wouldn't it?

  • 43. RobW303  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    Not so odd; the out-of-state issue didn't apply to the plaintiffs, so they had no standing to ask that that part of the ban be struck. That was why there were "no facts" in that part of the case. It's similar to how SCOTUS only struck section 3 of DOMA because Windsor was only impacted by that section. But I'm guessing that the Florida Supreme Court will elect to hear the appeal of the other state case first—a class action suit involving both in-state couples seeking to marry and couples who married out of state—or it will consolidate the two cases or hear them in tandem.

    AG Pam Bondi has already filed an appeal.

  • 44. sfbob  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:05 am

    What I meant to say was that it would be odd, if not unprecedented, if a state were to solemnize marriages but not to recognize identical marriages solemnized elsewhere. Tough to see how that could possibly be justified.

  • 45. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:07 am

    We've already seen two state court systems put stays on lower court rulings in our favor (Arkansas and Colorado). I venture to say, unfortunately, that "gay means stay" has a good chance of being applied to the Florida state court cases as well.

  • 46. debater7474  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:09 am

    It depends on the specific court system. You will remember that the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to enter a stay of a lower court decision, after which Christie threw up his hands and gave up. In Arkansas, obviously, you are dealing with judges who are up for election and will be tossed out of office if they are seen being pro-marriage equality.

  • 47. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Agreed, definitely. But in New Jersey the case headed to their Supreme Court wasn't exactly the same…it dealt with the state complying with the 2006 ruling demanding equal treatment of gay couples, whereas in Arkansas and Colorado it's about initially establishing that equal treatment through jurisprudence. Also, the New Jersey SC decision on the stay pre-dated the "gay means stay" issue in Kitchen by a few months.

  • 48. sfbob  |  July 17, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    I believe that the New Jersey Supreme Court decision was based on the state constitution rather than the US constitution.

    The state Supreme Court had already ruled (in 2006) that the state constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples but left it to the state legislature how to comply. Since the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages at the time, civil unions were (supposedly) sufficient to provide that equal treatment at the state level. Once DOMA was overturned, civil unions created a manifest disparity–even on the state level–between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. That disparate treatment could only be resolved by granting full marriage equality.

  • 49. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, that's important to emphasize, that NJ's case relied solely on matters of state, not federal law. SCOTUS' imposition of the stay for Utah could be having an affect on the state court systems that are overturning their bans based on federal, in addition to state, constitutional grounds.

  • 50. scream4ever  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:31 am

    There's been no stay by the Colorado Supreme Court as of yet.

  • 51. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:36 am

    The deadline is this afternoon for response briefs to be filed. The Court won't rule until then.

  • 52. scream4ever  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:44 am

    In fact since they did not initially stay the marriages, that's a great sign.

  • 53. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:46 am

    The stay was issued by the county court judge. That's why I said "two state court systems" rather than "two state Supreme Courts."

  • 54. remc_in_chicago  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:24 am

    The Federal Court case is in Tallahassee and includes two lawsuits that were combined to reflect both issues—in-state denial of licenses and non-recognition of out-of-state marriages (includes friends who were the first I knew to be married in Iowa). All the briefs were filed by the end of May, I believ. We are waiting on Judge Hinkle to rule on the request for a preliminary injunction.

  • 55. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:29 am

    You are 100% correct. I was just revising that 4th case. It covers both.

  • 56. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Ah yes, that's right. Good!

  • 57. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Dang…Bondi Appealed…that was fast

    July 17, 2014
    Media Contact: Jenn Meale
    Phone: (850) 245-0150
    Print Icon Print Version

    Memo: Attorney General’s Office Files Notice of Appeal in Huntsman v. Heavilin, Case No. 2014-CA-0305-K (16th Judicial Circuit, Monroe County)

    To: Interested media

    From: Jenn Meale, Communications Director for the Attorney General’s Office

    Re: Notice of Appeal in Huntsman v. Heavilin, Case No. 2014-CA-0305-K (16th
    Judicial Circuit, Monroe County)

    The Office of the Attorney General today filed a notice of appeal in one challenge to the voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage, Huntsman v. Heavilin, Case No. 2014-CA-0305-K (16th Judicial Circuit, Monroe County). With many similar cases pending throughout the entire country, finality on this constitutional issue must come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

    To view the notice of appeal, please click on the following hyperlink:

  • 58. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    State of FL is appealing to the District Court…I'm reading this becomes an automatic stay in FL.

  • 59. DaveM_OH  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Per Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(b)(2), such a notice of appeal (filed by a public official in official capacity) shall effect an immediate stay of the lower court's decision. So no marriages in the near future.

    However, either party or the 3d District Appeals Court could move that the FL SC resolve this issue promptly, as it is "of great public importance or have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state[,]" bypassing the appellate level. (Fla R. App. P. 9.125(a)) The parties have 10 days to make this motion.

  • 60. remc_in_chicago  |  July 17, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    I imagine they were ready.

  • 61. JayJonson  |  July 17, 2014 at 10:55 am

    Love how the judge uses the hateful amicae briefs to demonstrate animus and turns their arguments against them.

  • 62. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:02 am

    Yup. I think it's better to win without getting into the animus issue if possible, but hey, the opposition brought it up by saying there was no animus. Good for the judge for pointing out how hypocritical that was, when the briefs themselves were swimming in anti-gay rhetoric.

  • 63. Zack12  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:02 am

    The thing is in their eyes it isn't hateful to refer to us a sin and all the other garbage they have refered to us as.
    That is why they keep losing in court. THey simply can't accept the fact their prejudices aren't a valid reason for a ban.

  • 64. Jen_in_MI  |  July 17, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    Very eloquently stated. These people inhabit a different reality, and the cognitive dissonance they suffer renders them incapable of seeing as as equal human beings. Hence, retreads of the same sad, irrational, bigoted arguments in case after losing case. If I were the type to celebrate sour grapes, I might be inclined to laugh at their futility, but too many people are suffering concrete and ongoing harms for it to be any fun.

  • 65. debater7474  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:00 am

    I wanted to make a side point unrelated to Florida: it's interesting to those who are familiar with court dockets around the country to see the way the different attorneys file these cases strategically. The Eastern District of Virginia has been widely seen as a "rocket docket," usually nine months to trial. I interned for a law firm which purposefully filed a patent infringement suit there in order to get to trial quickly. Furthermore, the fourth circuit has one of the quickest turnaround rates. It's telling that Boies and Olson chose to file there right after Windsor, as they clearly wanted to be first to the Supreme Court.

  • 66. Zack12  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:17 am

    I think everyone thought they would be first.
    No one was expecting the 10th to rule as fast as they did.
    It's why I suspect the 4th is taking longer. Both sides have to update what they've been writing, both for and against.

  • 67. SeattleRobin  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:48 am

    I think the Olson and Boies decision also had a significant symbolic component, since Virginia was home to the Loving case.

  • 68. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:51 am

    They couldn't overcome the earliness of the Utah case being filed and the 10th's willingness to rocket this one through their docket, I guess. I think at the time of Windsor, there were only "live" ME cases out of Utah, Oklahoma, Michigan, Nevada & Hawaii.

  • 69. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Boies and Olson have publicly stated they took up VA because it had one of the the most restricted state constitutional bans in the county since it includes no civil ceremonies nor anything that contractually entitles L&G's to anything as a couple.

  • 70. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:07 am

    On the plus side: I really like the concise wording about the Due Process aspect of the ruling on pages 5 & 6. Really spells it out clearly.
    On the minus: Since there is only one couple involved in this case, and they brought suit because they tried to marry in Florida and could not, there's no standing for a complaint about out-of-state marriages being recognized in Florida. That will have to wait for one of the other Florida trials (dang it – why couldn't they find a second couple with an out of state marriage to join the case?)

    So the 'wait until Tuesday' thing is worded to mean that this small delay is only to allow the county clerks office a few days to prepare for issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, and it is not a 'stay'. But of course the state may choose to request one before Tuesday…. here we go again.

  • 71. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:17 am

    See my comment up the food chain. It's the "group" filing in Miami-Dade by several national ME organizations where they should have added out-of-state couples…"oophs".

  • 72. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    got it, thanks!

  • 73. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:10 am

    …OK, I must be missing something here. The ban on marriage for same sex couples in Florida is in their state Constitution, it's not just a state statute. But this case is at the state level, for Monroe County. Huh? Don't get me wrong, I think the ruling is great, but how did this case even happen? Shouldn't a case about a state constitutional amendment have to start at the FEDERAL District Court level, like the Prop 8 case?

  • 74. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:13 am

    This is like CO where they also modified their constitution and we had both a Federal and a State court overturn the ban. The State court appeals go up to the State Supreme Court. The difference in FL is we don't have a Federal court ruling yet, so it is less complicated (for the moment).

  • 75. RQO  |  July 17, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    I think the federal court ruling on CO's ban specifically comes the end of next week (on a case filed THIS MONTH). The judge has already indicated that obviously he will overturn the CO constitution, per Kitchen. The suspense, given the ongoing license issue, is over a stay. In the interim, SCOTUS rules on the Utah Evans stay. I can see the Colorado Supreme Court going one way and then the federal court going another. Tee hee, it's fun seeing AG Suthers play whack-a-mole.

  • 76. DaveM_OH  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Federal issues can be litigated in state courts, and often are as they are easier for plaintiffs to access.

    They also have different paths of authority, i.e. what previous decisions may be binding.
    An interesting document on what authorities are proper can be found here:

  • 77. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Page 4: Romero v. Evans typo caught my eye 🙂
    Page 10: This judge trolls Scalia's Lawrence dissent as well!

  • 78. JayJonson  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:24 am

    There are several typos and several incomplete sentences in this ruling. AS good as it is, it bears signs of being rushed.

  • 79. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:28 am

    And someone needs to teach the court clerk how to create a searchable PDF that we can copy/paste from! Urgh…Imaged PDF.

  • 80. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Yup. Also, after the fundamental right analysis, the judge doesn't explain why the ban violates due process and what scrutiny is used.

  • 81. Zack12  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Indeed… I'd rather wait another week and have it be a solid ruling versus looking like that.

  • 82. __M  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Hi guys, a question for both of you from a foreigner: As this ruling was issued by a State court, does it apply to every single county or city in Florida or is it reduced to Monroe? Thanks!!

  • 83. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:47 am

    For the moment, it only applies to that County. If there is no appeal or if the appeal to the State Supreme Court is denied, then all the county clerks will start issuing licenses. We need to see what the State AG is going to do. A word of caution…that is the way it is supposed to work. Colorado's 3 county clerks took their own novel approach.

  • 84. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:26 am

    The "Florida Sun-Sentinel" needs to hire a new reporter:

    Gay marriage repealed in Monroe County

  • 85. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Yikes! Also in the article, the ruling "does not take affect… "

    Let's hope this reporter never has to write an article about busketti. Or the lieberry.

  • 86. Bruno71  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:34 am

    I'm glad the ruling doesn't have any affectations.

  • 87. Rik_SD  |  July 17, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    oh the grammar… I cringe

  • 88. B_Z  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Reporters usually don't write their own headlines. They need a new headline writer.

  • 89. hopalongcassidy  |  July 17, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    They should hire my old buddy who did that job, my favorite was one he wrote for a story about a man who escaped from an asylum and sexually assaulted two women in a laundromat:

    "Nut bolts and screws washers"

  • 90. B_Z  |  July 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    "Skywalkers in Korea Cross Han Solo"

  • 91. davepCA  |  July 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    pffft. Good one : )

  • 92. Zack12  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:31 am

    It looks like the news from Florida will be the item of the day since there is no Bostic yet again.

  • 93. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:33 am

    4th Circuit released today's decisions. No Bostic.

  • 94. Marekweber  |  July 17, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Yeah, the 4th circuit just posted five fresh decisions and Bostic is not among them. Let's hope it will be in tomorrow's Friday dump.

  • 95. Dave_wx  |  July 17, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    A good way to look at it is that every new day bring a higher likelihood than the last one.

  • 96. Margo Schulter  |  July 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Just an aside that while headline about two women being sexually assaulted in a laundromat might be admirably clever (I appreciate that also), we are talking about a violent crime inflicting a very high level of trauma. This is true regardless of the sexual orientation of the women, which could have well been Lesbian. In fact, the infuriating Hobby Lobby decision makes me reflect how a Lesbian who has suffered sexual assault might well require emergency contraception.

  • 97. Ragavendran  |  July 17, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    ACLU has filed its response a day early with SCOTUS:

    I love the spin that the Plaintiffs put on this. They're saying that when the district court and the Tenth Circuit refused to stay the injunction, if SCOTUS intervened and granted a stay due to the irreparable harm it perceived (as Utah claims), then what took place in the window when there was no stay should indeed have been irreparable – that is, the marriages cannot be undone. Wow – I didn't see this brilliant argument coming! Overall, a very strong response.

  • 98. MichaelGrabow  |  July 21, 2014 at 8:37 am

    Governor says he will recognize Utah same-sex marriages if SCOTUS rules against him

    Is this supposed to be a joke?

  • 99. sfbob  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:02 am

    It's either a joke or the result of a severe lack of comprehension. I'd actually go with the latter.

  • 100. davepCA  |  July 21, 2014 at 8:48 am

    The fact that the state can't undo the marriages is indeed "irreparable", but it is not "harm". In fact these marriages are beneficial to the state, just as other marriages are.

  • 101. _Schteve_  |  July 23, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    I like that argument, but remember that Utah was not (at least not with the Evans case) arguing that those marriages were invalid, only that it shouldn't have had to recognize them. The marriages still exist and are legal and are recognized for the purpose of federal benefits and would be recognized if those couples moved to one of the nineteen equality states, but Utah doesn't have to recognize them (yet) any more than they have to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states. The fact that those marriages took place in Utah doesn't change the fact that with a stay in place, Utah law forbids the recognition of legal same-sex marriages.

  • 102. Irreparable Harm  |  July 18, 2014 at 4:29 am

    The very violation of state law that an injunction allows is per se irreparable harm to the state. Just because the state can void the “marriages” later on doesn’t mean the state hasn’t already been irreparably harmed, or that future recognition wouldn’t also irreparably harm the state.

  • 103. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  July 18, 2014 at 7:23 am

    […] USA, Indiana / Wisconsin: The Seventh circuit has cancelled a planned hearing for 8/13 for the two marriage equality cases, saying they will reschedule them soon. full story […]

  • 104. cheap Raiders jersey  |  July 27, 2014 at 1:09 am

    The cheap Eagles jerseys from china of an advanced lightweight material for maximum performance.
    cheap Raiders jersey

  • 105. Equality On TrialSeventh &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:29 am

    […] The appeals court had initially set oral arguments for August 13, but that order was subsequently canceled. […]

  • 106. HD porn scenes&hellip  |  September 9, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    HD porn scenes

    Equality On TrialSeventh Circuit cancels oral arguments, Utah asks SCOTUS for stay » Equality On Trial

  • 107. best mobile porn&hellip  |  October 1, 2014 at 11:39 am

    best mobile porn

    Equality On TrialSeventh Circuit cancels oral arguments, Utah asks SCOTUS for stay » Equality On Trial

  • 108. porn website reviews&hellip  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:59 am

    porn website reviews

    Equality On TrialSeventh Circuit cancels oral arguments, Utah asks SCOTUS for stay » Equality On Trial

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