Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

READ IT HERE: Opening brief in Seventh Circuit Wisconsin marriage equality appeal

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The opening brief in Wolf v. Walker, the challenge to Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, has been filed.

Wisconsin’s ban was struck down by a federal judge, and a stay was issued later.

The opening brief was filed by state officials in support of the ban.

Read the filing below, thanks to Equality Case Files.

14-2526 #53 by Equality Case Files


  • 1. MichaelGrabow  |  July 24, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Argument I section C: Wisconsin may affirmatively grant or withhold the positive right of civil marriage based on majoritarian policy decisions made through the democratic process.

    So evidently, WI would be fine with its residents voting to ban black people from getting married. Or men named Robert. Or people with brown hair.

    Argument III Section D: Responsible procreation and the procreative potential of opposite-sex couples are rational basis for Wisconsin's marriage laws.

    Allowing me to marry a man has exactly no impact on the rest of the population having children. Get this through your heads.

    Argument III Section C: Tradition, maintaining the status quo, protection the democratic process, and proceeding cautiously are rational bases for Wisconsin's marriage laws.

    This is seriously part of your argument? I want to bash my skull in reading this stuff.

  • 2. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:12 am

    Were you able to figure out what the hell they are trying to say in the long "negative/positive rights" dissertation? I just read a bunch of rambling with no conclusive single statement of the point they are trying to make. Perhaps a summer intern wrote this section.

  • 3. DoctorHeimlich  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:39 am

    Essentially, it's the same definitional argument of marriage. Our side says "there's just civil marriage, period, and it's unconstitutional to deny us that fundamental right." Their side says "there's 'marriage,' and then there's 'same-sex marriage,' — two different things."

    Their "negative/positive right" argument is trying to say that a "positive right" is a recognition of a new right not previously recognized. (Such as the right to suicide, in the often-mentioned Glucksberg case.) A "negative right" would be an existing right, being denied to people by passage of a law (for constitutional or unconstitutional reasons).

    Their contention is that "gay marriage" is a new "positive right." And that the Due Process clause only says you can't negate people's existing rights. It does not require you to offer citizens new "positive rights." Their argument goes that because no one historically has had the positive right to gay marriage, Wisconsin has not done anything unconstitutional because they haven't denied anything or taken anything away.

    Same old crap. Slightly new twist on the language.

  • 4. sfbob  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:56 am

    They think by twisting the language they're actually making some sort of new argument. But no, it's the same old crap.

  • 5. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:05 am

    Well, they twisted the language to the point it makes no sense for their setup of this argument. DH stated it clearly in 5 sentences (paragraphs 2 & 3). Thank you DH.

  • 6. RnL2008  |  July 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    I read some of it, but it's basically the same old used up arguments…..there is supposedly NO fundamental right to marry someone of the Same-Sex and I just DON'T believe that…….if one has ever read Zablocki vs Redhail…….you'd see that one's FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry can not be imposed on for ANY reason…….and just because we want to marry someone of the Same Gender as we are SHOULDN'T effectively ELIMINATE our Fundamental Right!!!

    I just can't continue to read these homophobic briefs stating that basically we are asking for some NEW right instead of asking to be included into the same Fundamental right that heterosexuals have!!!

  • 7. ragefirewolf  |  July 25, 2014 at 6:30 am

    I always thought a "negative right" was a right to not have something done to you, etc. and a "positive right" was the right to do something. That's what I remember from Philosophy of Law, anyway.

  • 8. BenG1980  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:05 am

    "… plaintiffs seek an unprecedented and unwarranted expansion of the scope of the Due Process Clause into an area of traditional state authority that the Constitution leaves to the democratic political process." (p. 16)

    Obviously they've never read Loving v. Virginia if they think this is unprecedented.

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

    You are correct, the summer intern who wrote this was not alive in 1967.

  • 10. BenG1980  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Apparently not. But neither was I …

  • 11. sfbob  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Heh. I was 16. And believe me, Loving vs Virginia was a big deal when it was handed down (as it should have been). On the whole I'm rather proud to have grown up in the era of decisions like Loving and Brown vs Board of Education.

  • 12. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:59 am

    I'm so happy for the two of you (sarcasm respectfully intended). I remember reading Dred Scott v. Sanford after it was delivered by pony express to SF three weeks after the ruling was released. My how things have changed as I sit here pounding refresh on the 4th circuit court's website for "daily opinions released."

  • 13. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:39 am

    sfbob – You revised your comment. I just saw "Heh. I was 16" and I posted my pony express fiction. I wish I had understood what Loving and Brown meant when I was younger. I would have voted differently, donated money differently and probably been more involved.

  • 14. RnL2008  |  July 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    I was, but I was only 4 years old…!!!

  • 15. debater7474  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Unpredented only if you ignore the unbroken string of 20 some precedents handed down since Windsor. What a silly thing to put in a brief.

  • 16. RobW303  |  July 24, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    "These are not the arguments of serious people."

  • 17. BenG1980  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Reading more, it seems all the positive vs. negative rights jibberish is being aimed towards Judge Posner since they repeatedly quote and cite his past opinions.

  • 18. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 8:59 am

    Good luck trying to follow/find the logic in WI's arguments. They continue their previous viewpoint of comparing the right to have a monopoly to regulate funding of abortions in the same way they can regulate marriage licenses. But, they don't have a monopoly on the ways individuals arrange their intimate and domestic affairs.

    Huh? They do have a monopoly by way of the benefits conferred via a license.

    And SCOTUS "merely eliminated certain incidental and peripheral restrictions" in Loving, Zablonski and Turner. But, in this case "plaintiffs seek to invalidate the fundamental of the marriage relationship."

    Maybe I'm biased, but I do not see the difference, especially when it comes to Loving.

  • 19. SeattleRobin  |  July 24, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Wow, I'm quite sure that the Lovings, who were actually arrested, thought the restrictions were far more than merely incidental or peripheral. Great way to downplay the horrible institutionalized racism in our not so distant history.

  • 20. sfbob  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:01 am

    "The District Court Erred" in rejecting Due Process and Equal Protection arguments…as did 25 (or is it 30?) other courts thus far. All of those judges got it wrong. That's quite a brazen argument to be making at this point.

  • 21. MichaelGrabow  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:11 am

    I believe it was 30 consecutive pro-equality decisions after the 10th circuit's ruling on OK.

  • 22. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:31 am

    They state the district court "erred" 14 times and the district court "misunderstood" 2 times.

  • 23. davepCA  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:36 am

    I find that, while I'm reading these opposition briefs, if I imagine an old-timey saloon piano playing in the background along with the sound of the opposition lawyers tap dancing, it often prevents me from getting angry and often even allows me to enjoy reading them. YMMV.

  • 24. TomPHL  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:14 am

    I started to read the brief, but slogging through the same old s**t is to much to ask at this point. i want to thank all of you who do read all the way through just in case they bring up something new and you can alert the rest of us. I know it's all thy have, but shouldn't that tell them it's time to throw in the towel?

  • 25. jpmassar  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:34 am

    At this point, couldn't we just have computers generate the briefs, both pro and con?

  • 26. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:37 am

    We've had this service available since the 1st of the month.

  • 27. jpmassar  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:41 am

    But does it take pointed jabs at Scalia?

  • 28. sfbob  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Maybe that's a premium feature.

  • 29. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 24, 2014 at 10:49 am

    I hear that's how some 'directors' in Hollywood 'create' new movie scripts.

    Maybe that's why the movie industry is not as profitable as it used to be, and why we get so many sequels to previous movies?

    I think humans have imagination, but computers don't.

  • 30. davepCA  |  July 25, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Yeah, these repetitious opposition briefs with the same handful of odd and senseless 'arguments' over and over again can seem a bit like one of those 'Mad Lib" games where you fill in the blanks and then see what kind of humorous nonsense it generates. Although filling in the blanks the exact same way over and over again is rather pointless and tends to make the joke wear pretty thin in a hurry…

  • 31. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:13 am

    7th Circuit – 20+ Briefs pile up in appeals of rulings overturning bans

    "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and groups representing four other churches argues that marriage between a man and a woman is God's will."

    Well, there is the definitive, winning argument that will certainly sway the court. What a waste of the court's time.

  • 32. StraightDave  |  July 24, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Those briefs also include one from
    "…a group of five social science professors who claim that psychological studies validating gay parenting are flawed."

    Gee, I wonder who they might be. Probably a couple old friends in there. I also wonder how much they charge for allowing their reputations to be shredded by letting their names be used on such documents.

  • 33. sfbob  |  July 24, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    "Marriage has its origin, not in the will of any particular people, religion, or state, but rather, in the nature of the human person, created by God as male and female."

    Just a tad bit of historical revisionism going on here. I guess those folks have never heard of civil marriage. Or of marriages engaged to cement political alliances.

  • 34. davepCA  |  July 24, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Yup. As a legal argument, or even just a generic LOGICAL argument, there are two rather huge flaws in that one sentence. One, they are conflating sexual reproduction with the legal construct of civil marriage, which are two entirely different things. And two, they then arbitrarily assign a creationism-based explanation for the phenomenon of sexual reproduction. Which is, ultimately, simply stating the personal view that they choose to hold, and does not provide any valid logical argument when testing a civil law for constitutional compliance.

  • 35. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    Catholic bishops forgetting that the Pope, during a very long era of the Xian church, determined who would marry whom, mostly to help boost the status of the Papal States, or weaken a political opponent?

    And it was also during this time period that the Latin Rite church changed the definition of prohibited consanguinity for marriage to as many as 7 levels (for example, people who had the same great-great-grandparent(s) would be at level 4). Gradually it started backing down the levels of prohibited consanguinity, but only the rich and powerful (such as kings, queens, etc.) could trace their family history, thus were (basically) the only people affected by the church laws on prohibited consanguinity.

    And Rome (both the Republic and Empire), before Xianity became an accepted religion [let alone the official state religion], had laws and customs about marriage. Thus marriage predated, by centuries, the various definitions Xians tried to ascribe to the word.

  • 36. sfbob  |  July 25, 2014 at 11:10 am

    It's very convenient that the Catholic bishops ignore entirely the tradition it springs from. If anyone wants to know about it, within the history of Judaism…well several things are of interest. Marriage was only incidentally a religious rite. It was first and foremost a business agreement between two families. The husband's family purchased the bride. Betrothal (what we would view as engagement) was the more important act: it was the signing of the contract and the binding of the parties. It could only be ended by divorce and a divorce consisted mainly of the husband giving his wife or his betrothed a written notification (also the bride price was returned).

    The wedding constituted the delivery of what had been purchased. Things of course changed over time but there are remnants even today of this fact, the most important of which is the ketubah or marriage contract which today is basically a contract between the husband and the wife (or if one is Reform, between the two spouses, as Reform Judaism allows for the solemnization of same-sex marriages, as does do the Reconstructionists; Conservative Judaism generally supports civil marriage equality but as far as I know does not provide for its sanctification and of course the Orthodox lag still further behind though even some within the movement support marriage equality as a social justice issue).

    I did not realize this until I decided to do some research but not all branches of Judaism ever formally banned polygamy. The Ashenkazi Jews did so but only about 1000 years ago. Sephardic Judaism still hasn't. That being said, historically, polygamy was rare among Jews in biblical times or later, probably because it was an expensive proposition which few families could afford.

    And although Judaism considers marriage religiously sanctified, sort of by definition, the presence of clergy is entirely optional. Witnesses are mandatory but a rabbi is not.

    Anyway, this is the legacy from which Christian marriage sprung. Thus, so much for the "eternal and sacred" view of marriage.

  • 37. SeattleRobin  |  July 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    In the Arabic world the tradition was similar, in that the marriage was considered official when the groom came and picked up the bride. Both the Hebrew and Arab traditions can be kind of summed up as "cash on delivery".

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

    They are also ignorant of Christian history prior to the 13th century.

  • 39. davepCA  |  July 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Yup. Before that time, the church basically felt that it shouldn't have anything to do with the entirely secular business of marriage. Religion didn't invent marriage, it doesn't own it, and it certainly doesn't control the secular civil laws that regulate civil marriage.

    It continues to amaze me that people who oppose civil marriage rights for us think they do so because of 'deeply held religious beliefs' and yet they don't even know the basic facts about what marriage really is and is not, like the fact that it has always been a secular and civil matter, and that western religion didn't decide to get involved and start performing symbolic ceremonies to celebrate people's CIVIL marriages until many centuries after these religions were formed.

  • 40. Eric  |  July 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    I especially like when True Christians™ put forward a definition of marriage that would mean that Mary and Joseph were unmarried and not a "real family."

  • 41. DACiowan  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:31 am

    2:30 Eastern, and no new opinions from the 4th yet.

  • 42. BenG1980  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Looks like five new unpublished opinions and that's it.

  • 43. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:48 am

    I starting to feel the 4th's ME decision delay is violating my 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Come on already.

  • 44. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Are you looking at the 4th? I see no new opinions (published or unpublished) for today. The last decision was Jorge Solomon-Membreno v. Eric Holder, Jr. released yesterday.

  • 45. DACiowan  |  July 24, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Try deleting the 4th Circuit cookie and it should refresh. I had the same caching problem. (On my computer a simple refresh doesn't do it.)

  • 46. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    Yup…that was it. Why the heck would they set a date based cookie? It cached the date to yesterday. Oh well, delete all cookies will now be part of the morning routine.

  • 47. Eric  |  July 24, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    Given the typical pace and interest in the Court, the web admins probably didn't anticipate people checking the site repeatedly the same day when configuring the server caching policies.

  • 48. haydenarwen  |  July 25, 2014 at 6:11 am

    Since the 4th takes an average of 2.2 months to rule. It seems likes August ruling is more probable and with recent 10th's rulings the 4th will possibly need more time. Ugh!

  • 49. DACiowan  |  July 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    In international news, the Australian Parliament is trying to get marriage equality legislation done — and public approval is 72% — but the big question is if Prime Minister Abbot/Asshat will allow a free vote from his party.

  • 50. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Also in international news…I applaud Scotland for intentionally scripting this KISS into the opening of the Commonwealth Games. It's one thing to finally legalized ME. It is another thing to not hide it behind the curtain (or should I say closet).

  • 51. StraightDave  |  July 24, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    Also happened in the 2012 London Olympic opening ceremony, starting at 0:48. A few scattered other scolding tongues did wag, but they got over it.

  • 52. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Off topic, but of probable interest to almost all who read this site:

    Takano introduces Social Security fix for gay couples
    (… )

  • 53. sfbob  |  July 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    I would certainly like to see this pass. Actually the rules governing receipt of Social Security benefits really could use a wholesale update; they were and, to some extent, still are predicated on the notion that a household consists of a man who who is the breadwinner and a woman who is a (non-salaried) housewife, plus dependent children. Reality diverges more and more from that assumption.
    When the Social Security Act was passed in 1934 there may have been some rationale for the way eligibility for receipt of survivor benefits was determined (place of residence rather than place of marriage) though of course there might have been some political calculation involved in the original rules as well. Things have changed so much since then and people have become so much more mobile that there are situations where the rules simply make not much sense anymore.
    I would like to see Takano's fix passed but the reality is of course that nothing will happen as long as Republicans control the House.

  • 54. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 24, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    I agree that nothing will happen as long as the GOTP controls the House.

    In the meantime, the whole spectrum of Social Security programs should be reviewed, so when the GOTP no longer controls the House, changes and progress can be quickly made.

    (And 'control' does not necessarily mean not in a majority – we need fewer Tea Party members whose mind set seems to be "Just say NO!" and more people who can actually think and govern.)

  • 55. Margo Schulter  |  July 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Now that Google has cached Wisconsin’s brief so that I can access the text with my browser, I quickly pick up on their effort to appeal to Judge Posner’s positive/negative rights distinction — a misplaced effort, as others including Judge Crabb have noted!

    The basic fallacy is that the Supreme Court has viewed marriage as a “fundamental right” in lots of cases — unlike the right to have state funding for an abortion. Whether it’s positive or negative might be tested if one or more States wished to get out of the civil marriage business altogether, a more likely possibility if all the federal marriage benefits involved in the DOMA case were no longer tied to the specific status of being married. But certainly that scenario doesn’t seem relevant to the fundamental right of marriage in the real world so far.

    So the drafters of this brief might have spared all that positive/negative diversionary effort (which I’d guess is not likely to impress Judge Posner), and fallen back on the standard marriage ban argument that the “fundamental right” is implicitly confined to “man-woman marriage.” It boils down to that, anyway, so why all the pointless distractions?

  • 56. Margo Schulter  |  July 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Also, this “positive/negative rights” thing seems to suggest that marriage equality, by requiring States to engage in the “positive” activity of actually issuing marriage licenses, might be a step toward some kind of “creeping socialism” (my expression, not theirs) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment!

    One good rebuttal, already implicit in Judge Crabb’s excellent decision, is that if this theory were true, then Loving, Zablocki, and Turner all were wrongly decided, because they require the state not merely to refrain from criminalizing the relationships in question (as Virginia did in Loving), but to grant the “positive” benefit of a marriage license to otherwise eligible interracial couples, people owing child support, or prisoners.

    It would be humorous to imagine a conservative campaign: “Fight big government: Abolish civil marriage!” But unless/until it’s abolished, it remains a fundamental right, positive or otherwise.

  • 57. Margo Schulter  |  July 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    The Wisconsin brief also raises some issues about Judge Crabb’s injunction as applied to various state statutes specifying “husband and wife,” arguing that the injunction was essentially rewriting state law and thus going beyond the power of a federal court. This point might be an interesting discussion, with the state arguing that it’s being subjected to the risk of contempt if it doesn’t guess right on exactly which statutes and what remedies are intended.

    It’s suggested that a statute relating to fishing licenses for a “husband and wife” might simply not apply to same-sex couples, rather than being reasonably interpreted to mean “spouse and spouse.” Has this type of issue come up in other cases? In Arkansas, of course, there was the state judge’s oversight in omitting one of the marriage ban statutes, corrected nunc pro tunc, but this argument that the injunction overall is simply too vague or sweeping is something I can’t immediately recall seeing in other marriage equality cases.

  • 58. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Impact of the 4th Circuit pending decision. There are 7 Federal cases in that circuit where the decisions have been stayed pending Bostic. They break down by state as VA (1), NC (4), WV (1), and SC (1). MD already has ME.

    One of these cases, General Synod of the United Church of Christ vs. Cooper, has always intrigued me because it is the UCC in favor of ME claiming the state can't tell religious institutions they cannot perform SSM. A novel and very interesting position that I believe is the only case of its' kind.

    Assuming the 4th rules in favor of ME, these case must automatically adopt the 4th's ruling. How long it take to have each of these individual case decisions released?

  • 59. Japrisot  |  July 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    That depends on how the 4th Circuit decides the issue. For example, if the 4th rules that laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny and VA failed to satisfy that standard, the lower courts may ask for briefing from the states to allow them to make some kind of claim that marriage restrictions further a compelling government interest and that they are narrowly tailored. Similarly, if the 4th includes language regarding animus, courts may ask for briefing on that issue. A briefing schedule would likely be expedited. Perhaps a couple weeks for briefs and a week to reply.

    If, on the other hand, the 4th employs rational basis either alone or as an alternative to heightened scrutiny, lower courts will quickly issue opinions on the cases with outstanding motions for preliminary injunction. I would say in under thirty days, although I would note that from this ACLU list it appears that the NC and SC cases aren't fully briefed.

  • 60. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Very, very helpful. Now I'll know what kinds of nuances and things to look for when the 4th's decision is released. Thank you.

  • 61. RobW303  |  July 24, 2014 at 7:03 pm

    The UCC suit was filed because the NC ban goes so far as to forbid same-sex union celebrations; i.e., it extends beyond the civil sphere into attempting to limit freedom of religious expression and freedom of speech. Here is a clear case of transgressing religious freedom: where is the flood of amici briefs? Where is the Teaparty outrage?

  • 62. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    The outrage is now being expressed as "we don't discriminate against gays and lesbians, everyone should have equal rights. But, we have to uphold the voters decision to maintain traditional marriage and that is not discrimination. And, stop picking on us because that is not fair"……Rubio's latest rant.

  • 63. BenG1980  |  July 24, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    The UCC suit also has its own website:

  • 64. brandall  |  July 24, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Boulder Clerk Hall just won another one. The State Appeals Court denied the stay today in Suthers v. Hall. The court determines appellant has not established the factors required … Way to go Deborah.

    And tomorrow the decision on the the CO stay will be released in Burns v. Hickenlooper (Federal).


  • 65. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 24, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    With more than five months left in this year, how many more times will Suthers be slapped down?

  • 66. Ragavendran  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    Enough times to make a drinking game out of it?

  • 67. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    I really don't like hangovers. So thanks for the invite, but no thanks to participating.

  • 68. ragefirewolf  |  July 25, 2014 at 6:37 am

    I'm down Ragavendran, but the first drink is on you. :o)

  • 69. brandall  |  July 25, 2014 at 7:16 am

    Drinking games aside, he has one more play left. He can take Suthers v. Hall and appeal to the State Supreme Court. He has played out his hand using Brinkman (the original state ME recognition case) and can't use Burns via the 10th to specifically stop Clerk Hall.

    If he takes Suthers v. Hall to the State Supreme Court, he stands an excellent chance of losing since that court already ruled against stopping Clerk Hall in Brinkman, but did stop Denver. Pueblo voluntarily stopped issuing licenses until they can see through the spider web of cases.

    Half jokingly….All of this assumes Suthers will not file a new case in CO. Why not, CO already has 4 active cases (2nd only to the 7 cases in Florida). Also, this assumes he won't file a state case in Nevada or Utah and say it's part of the 4 corners. The guy is not the brightest lightbulb in the chandelier.

  • 70. Ragavendran  |  July 25, 2014 at 8:34 am

    I would be surprised if he doesn't appeal one more time to the CO Supreme Court. I wouldn't say they ruled against stopping Clerk Hall the last time – they simply did not rule on that request, obviously due to a lack of jurisdiction – Boulder wasn't party to the Brinkman case.

  • 71. Ragavendran  |  July 24, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    I believe the federal Burns case was decided yesterday by Judge Moore and he decided to grant a temporary stay until August 25.

  • 72. BenG1980  |  July 25, 2014 at 5:11 am

    Maybe brandall means he expects word from the 10th Circuit on whether it will grant the longer stay pending final disposition of Kitchen that the state is seeking.

  • 73. Ragavendran  |  July 25, 2014 at 5:19 am

    Perhaps, but I just checked PACER. The docket for the appeal shows no motion at the appellate level yet, so I doubt there will be a decision there today.

  • 74. brandall  |  July 25, 2014 at 7:27 am

    No, I meant Burns and forgot to update my tracking sheet with that decision. Even if the Burns stay is granted beyond 8/25, I don't see how that specifically stops Clerk Hall.

  • 75. Ragavendran  |  July 25, 2014 at 10:43 am

    You are correct. But if it is not granted, it will open the gates to marriage licenses being issued in the entire state!

  • 76. MichaelGrabow  |  July 25, 2014 at 6:36 am

    "But Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall, who was the first clerk in the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last month after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld a lower court’s decision that Utah’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional."

    I guess they forgot to complete that sentence.

  • 77. ragefirewolf  |  July 25, 2014 at 6:40 am

    It irks me when official court documents or news articles have egregious grammatical errors in them. >.<

  • 78. Ragavendran  |  July 25, 2014 at 6:57 am

    Allow me:
    ", is a 2014 People's Choice Ally Award nominee!"
    Vote here:

    (Yeah, I'd remove the "But" at the beginning of the sentence so it reads better.)

  • 79. brandall  |  July 25, 2014 at 8:08 am

    Retroactive ME benefits. Last week we saw the CT Supreme Court rule in favor of providing retroactive benefits for a same-sex couple who were not allowed to marry. Here is a second instance (not a case, it did not make it to court) where PA inheritance taxes from a death in 2012 will not be levied on the surviving partner. There will be a lot more of these cases, especially in states that now have ME.

  • 80. Equality On TrialREAD IT &hellip  |  August 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    […] The opening brief can be found here. […]

  • 81. Equality On TrialREAD IT &hellip  |  August 22, 2014 at 10:57 am

    […] opening brief can be found here. The plaintiffs’ brief can be found […]

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