Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

READ IT HERE: Briefs in Love v. Beshear, Sixth Circuit challenge to Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

As we’ve reported, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by a district court judge, and subsequently appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, joining Bourke v. Beshear, the challenge to Kentucky’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The challenge to Kentucky’s ban itself is Love v. Beshear.

Briefing in the case is now complete, and the case can be heard on August 6 along with Bourke and the cases from Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

Here are the briefs, thanks to Equality Case Files (if the embed doesn’t work, Governor Beshear’s opening brief is here, the plaintiffs’ answer brief is here, and Governor Beshear’s reply is here):

Beshear’s opening brief:

14-5818 #20 by Equality Case Files

Plaintiffs’ answer brief:

14-5818 #22 by Equality Case Files

Beshear’s reply brief:

14-5818 #23 by Equality Case Files


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

    Nothing new in Defendent's Brief from all the others being churned out. They delved into the procreation issue by sticking to financial benefits only. So, there are no ugly statements like we recently saw in AZ:

    "The issue is not whether excluding same-sex couples from marriages results in greater natural procreation, but whether there is any rational basis for granting tax and other benefits to only heterosexual couples."

  • 2. MichaelGrabow  |  August 1, 2014 at 8:37 am

    The answer to their question is no. Next?

  • 3. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 8:55 am

    As predictable, Kentucky's brief asserts that Baker is the controlling precedent, while the plaintiffs assert that it is not.

  • 4. BenG1980  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Oh, don't show Rose. We really, really, really don't need to rehash that whole debate.

  • 5. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:12 am

    Look, I am sorry if my comments hurt Rose's feelings. But this is a serious board. People should be free to post their opinions about anything, but they are not free to misrepresent factual information. Most of us are here to learn from others. That should mean that when someone points out that something we have said is not accurate, we either modify and/or retract what we said, or we produce evidence that what we said is correct. We should not stamp our feet and say it's just a matter of opinion when it is not.

  • 6. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:27 am

    I don't know you well enough for me to allow you to hurt my feelings, we happen to see that case from different viewpoints and it could be that I see it from how it was used in the California cases specifically.

    Like I stated, I was 9 years old when Baker was ruled on and it was ruled on a year before Homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

    I am NOT trying to say your view is wrong, I'm just looking at it from a specific view point and that is this……in order for Baker vs Nelson to be valid in their arguments, the cases would have to be similar…, if NO marriage licenses had NEVER been issued, then yes, I can see where the anti-gay would try and invoke Baker, but even that is nothing more than a blank shot these days….because as some Justices have stated, there has been doctrine changes in the last 40 odd years, but Baker CAN'T be sited in cases where Same-Sex couples have already been allowed to marry BECAUSE the marriage license was issued, therefore some of these cases are NOT similar situated to Baker.

    So, though I have sat back and reflected on your comments, I feel that we both had valid viewpoints and I'm truly sorry that we had to get into it… a friend of my once stated to me…….we are both on the same side and if we start to argue among ourselves, then the anti-gay folks feel like their winning and they're not.

  • 7. jjcpelayojr  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:06 am

    But isn't Baker also not a precedent anymore because even if no same sex marriages were ever allowed/conducted in the state, they were allowed in others? Almost every case we have against the state has plaintiffs where the couple was legally married in another state and is seeking in-state recognition?

  • 8. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:08 am

    You might want to ask Jay this question……he seems to be the leading Historian on the issue!

    According to Jay, I'm an inaccurate, ill-informed, flat out wrong idiot regarding that ruling!!!

  • 9. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:24 am

    That certainly seems to me like just the sort of doctrinal development that would render Baker utterly useless. The moment one state declines to accept a legal status created in another state, a "substantial federal question" is created.

  • 10. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Naw, it's not worth getting into a pissing contest over it, Jay and I just see it differently and in a way, I see his point……to some degree, but to go through it again, just not worth it to me.

    Have a good day Ben:-)

  • 11. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:36 am

    As I said earlier, Rose, your comment on the other thread that Baker was never a precedent is inaccurate, ill-informed, and flat-out wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. I think too much of this board to allow someone to make inaccurate comments and get all huffy because they are challenged. The point is not that you and I disagree or see things differently. You are simply wrong on this point. It is an important point to anyone who cares about accuracy and about the history of lgbt litigation in the federal courts.

    To say that Baker was not important is like saying Hardwick wasn't important because you didn't like it and it was clearly bad law. I didn't like Hardwick and it was clearly bad law, but it was also a seminal Supreme Court ruling that affected negatively the lives of lgbt people throughout the country until it was overruled by Lawrence.

    Similarly, Baker was bad law that negatively affected the lives of lgbt people. I remember having to name my estate as beneficiary to my retirement plan because I could not name my partner (now husband) as beneficiary. When same-sex couples attempted to challenge such discriminatory laws, their challenges were dismissed by federal courts who cited Baker as a controlling precedent. So do not tell me that Baker was not for many years a precedent.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:45 am

    You truly MISSED my point, but then like ya said…for you it's ALL about being in the "RIGHT"….well, I'm NOT always in the right and I tried to apologize for offending you, but again…IT'S ALL ABOUT YOU BEING RIGHT……sorry, but you're NOT right in all of your comments…..and I will continue to disagree with you on the point that current cases where a MARRIAGE LICENSE has been issued Baker is NOT binding!!!

  • 13. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:01 am

    It is not about my being right, it is about you being wrong.

    You were wrong when you said that, "The anti-gay folks just CAN'T understand that Baker vs Nelson was NEVER precedent outside of Minnesota and now that Minnesota has ME, it basically makes Baker vs Nelson a moot ruling, as the Justices have ruled…things have changed and because of the way the SCOTUS ruled in Windsor…….Baker is a long lost meaningful nothing!!!

    Just saying!"

    And then: "If Baker was precedent then several cases at the beginning of our fight would have NEVER gotten passed it for starters and with regards to California's case, it NEVER applied at all because marriage licenses HAD been issued to Same-Sex couples when the right was acknowledged and then the right was ELIMINATED.

    I believe that Baker was NEVER as important as the anti-gay folks want to believe."

    And then, "Just because ANTI-GAY Justices in both the Nebraska case(before Windsor) and the Nevada case(Post Windsor) decided to use Baker……DOESN'T mean it was EVER precedent in my opinion. It's like saying Hernandez vs Robles was precedent, even though it only applied to New York and again is IRRELEVANT because New York has ME now!!!"

    And then, "I DON'T believe Baker is precedent and I DON'T believe it was applicable outside of Minnesota and I think it has been explained by most if NOT all of the rulings where it has been brought up."

    And then, "I had NEVER heard of Baker vs Nelson until about 5 or 6 years ago, remember that I was like 9 years old in 72. I not only post here, but up until recently, I posted on a blog site called Topix's. Many folks who seriously oppose our right to marry like to use Baker vs Nelson and in order to take some position on it, I had to do a little research regarding it. Once I read it, I knew that it DIDN'T apply to the situation with the legal marriages as far as California was concerned, seeing that in Baker, the men NEVER got a marriage license and the 18,000 legally married Same-Sex couples in California had……, that's why at first I stated what I did regarding that ruling…….Baker vs Nelson is also NOT applicable in the cases were the lawsuits are about a state recognizing the legal marriages from other states, as again some marriage license had been issued…where in Baker vs Nelson, a marriage license had been denied!!! "

    And on and on, even after several other people, in addition to me, pointed out your error.

    And, of course, in the post right above you deliberately misrepresent my position as though I am arguing that Baker is a binding precedent in the current cases. It is not, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, because doctrinal development regarding same-sex relationships have eroded its power as a precedent. Just as judge after judge in cases that you claim to have read have said the same thing.

    Anyone can make a mistake and say things that are not accurate. But to obstinately insist that you are right when you are clearly wrong is more than simply annoying.

  • 14. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:10 am

    I truly get your point… can we move on? or do you want to continue to hash it out again? Either way, I see your point is valid regarding the history of Baker vs Nelson, but you continue to ignore my point that Baker is no longer as binding as it was and it ISN'T binding at all on cases where a marriage license has ALREADY been issued!!!

  • 15. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am

    I have never disputed the point that Baker is no longer binding. Judge after judge in the recent decisions have made that point.

    Again, you seem to think this is simply a matter of opinion. It is not. It is a matter of accuracy.

    I get no pleasure from this contretemps and it should have been over long ago. But it is a disservice to this board for any of us (me, no less than you) to post inaccuracies and, worse, to insist that they are correct in the face of numerous challenges.

    I am happy to move on. But those of us who value this board and who come here to learn from each other must also be alert to posts that spread errors and that cloud the issues. One cannot understand the current marriage equality cases without recognizing the significance of Baker.

  • 16. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:38 am

    Jay, whether you like it or not, or even believe it or not….I came to this board to learn more about this issue and have serious discussions and debates……if you can't see that……it's truly NOT my issue.

    You continue to insult my viewpoint(even after I have apologized and stated you have a very valid point), you think I don't belong because some of my views are different from yours, you the ONLY person, whom I had respect for that can't seem to see another's person's viewpoint( regardless if it's right or wrong)……every time I get into something with you, I get marked down ALL because I WON'T see one lousy case your way……I'm NOT new to this fight and I WON'T allow someone on some chat board to degrade my viewpoints on one frigging case!!!

    Now, I'm DONE with arguing with you about the same issue that we have argued about for the last 24-48 hours.

    I'm on the side of Marriage Equality and I believe that EVERY ONE should have the same right to marry as I did almost 6 years ago…….I believe that initiatives should NOT remove rights, nor do I believe that EVERY case that has been ruled against us for WHATEVER reason is correct INCLUDING Baker and Harwick.

    Please have a great weekend:-)

  • 17. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:59 am

    You have a propensity for attributing to others characteristics that you yourself exhibit. You are the one who persists in clinging to an erroneous position even after numerous people have pointed out the error. You think this is about YOU. It is not. It is about accuracy.

    I do not doubt your commitment and passion for marriage equality. Nearly all of us who post here share that commitment and passion.

    I insult your "viewpoint" about Baker because it is inaccurate and because you obstinately clinged to that position even after its error was repeatedly pointed out by numerous people . That is simply stubbornness and it makes it difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

    For the tenth time, let me repeat. This is not about a matter of opinion on which anyone can disagree. It is about a matter of fact.

    If you have come to this board to learn, then you have to be open not only to differences of opinion but also to understand the difference between opinion and fact.

  • 18. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:10 am

    The fourth of YOUR posts above, you said "Naw, it's not worth getting into a pissing contest over it,"

    And yet here we are, with you still apparently trying to say "I'm correct, you're wrong."

    If it's not worth getting into a pissing contest, then please don't comment further. Otherwise your further comments make your 'not worth a pissing contest' comments make it seem like you are extremely insecure, and indicate that you must always be correct (even if you are not), and everybody who might disagree with you is wrong (even if they have the facts to prove you wrong).

    I do not think you are insecure, but continue commenting after you say it is not worth arguing about, and you will probably cause several others to believe you are insecure.

  • 19. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:13 am

    You're right, but at times, I just can't help myself…… has been one of my life lessons still working on.

    Thanks for the reminder:-)

  • 20. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:30 am

    I am going to accept this as an acknowledgment that you recognize that your many posts saying that Baker was never a precedent and that it is an insignificant case were erroneous.

    With this acknowledgment, I am happy to apologize if my comments about you were sometimes intemperate. But from my point of view, this exchange has never been about you (and certainly not about me). It is about maintaining a high level of accuracy as we attempt to understand what is happening in the courts.

    I have absolutely no desire (and no power) to drive you away from this board. But when someone posts here, their posts are subject to challenge and disagreement. That applies to all of us.

    I have made errors in some of my posts, and I have been happy when others have corrected me. That is how we learn. If we all knew everything, there would be no need for any of us to come here.

    As you have said, we are on the same side.

  • 21. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:36 am

    I do believe you are knowledgeable regarding that case's affect on this issue and I'm happy to move forward:-)

    Peace Jay!!

  • 22. JayJonson  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:46 am

    Peace to you as well, Rose.

  • 23. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:48 am

    Thanks… do have good comments and I usually like reading them:-)

  • 24. DoctorHeimlich  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:04 am

    You can understand why they have to try that argument, since a ruling that Baker is controlling precedent is their shortest route to victory.

    Still, you have to be willfully blind and arrogantly disingenuous to argue that there have been no doctrinal developments undermining the Baker summary dismissal in the last 40+ years.

  • 25. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:30 am

    In many ways, the use of the Baker as a sole argument (as was done for some time by the bigots in courts) reminds me of one of the early marijuana incidents in Federal government history. In short:

    Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law, that basically stated to possess pot, you had to have a license. To get the license, though, you had to have pot in your possession. But if you had pot in your possession before you had the license, you were effectively admitting that you were in violation of the law as soon as you applied for the license.

    SCOTUS voided the law, as it could be considered a form of entrapment and was a gross violation of the Fifth Amendment, and told Congress and the President to come up with a different method of licensing.

    Many bigots were trying (and apparently continue) to use Baker in a similar manner – the precedent of Baker couldn't/can't be challenged, because the courts would throw out all cases involving ME, and no one could thus challenge Baker.

  • 26. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    I certainly see the analogy. I would suggest it's a bit more straightforward than that: the logic is simply circular. Baker is precedential so marriage equality bans can't be challenged. Challenging Baker at the federal level requires challenging Baker but Baker says marriage equality doesn't present a substantial federal question so marriage equality bans can't be challenged. The argument is actually rather similar to appeals to tradition. In fact some of the folks who like to file amicus briefs against us do something rather similar: Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman so two people of the same sex cannot, by definition, be married. The best way to bust a hole in a circular argument of this sort is by inserting a fact: there are same-sex couples with valid marriage licenses, issued by any one among 19 states plus the District of Columbia. So, like it or not, those couples are married because they have valid marriage licenses that have been recognized by their respective states. Q.E.D.

  • 27. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 1, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    If I remember correctly, the circular argument was brought up in court deliberations, but it wasn't included in the decision, maybe because the Justices thought they had a stronger decision by deciding that it was a violation of the 5th amendment.

    As I implied, it is not an exact analogy, but there are many similarities.

  • 28. TDGrove  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:54 am

    The thing I don't get about the emphasis on Baker is why anyone thinks it will matter in the end game. You can argue about whether it is binding at the District/Circuit level (I don't think it is), but the Supreme Court can just say "No, it isn't any longer." When the SCOTUS decides, Baker will not matter. There will be a paragraph explicitly stating that it is no longer precedent, and that is it.

  • 29. Bruno71  |  August 1, 2014 at 11:44 am

    It may not matter specifically in the endgame, but it has definitely mattered as you stated at the District/Circuit levels, and those rulings taken in sum will have a great influence on the endgame.

  • 30. brandall  |  August 1, 2014 at 8:59 am

    One other thought.

    Windsor: "State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975)."

    That single sentence is edited in the Defendent's Brief. Guess which half of the sentence is omitted?

  • 31. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:15 am

    The most important part, right?

  • 32. brandall  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:22 am

    'Morning! Interesting. Is it the most important part? Or is it the necessary balance is only achieved with both parts? I'm pondering this and not questioning your opine.

  • 33. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:29 am

    Implicitly agreeing with RnL I would say that whether or not the "most important" part of the sentence has been omitted, it's the part that matters, the "subject to constitutional guarantees" part, without which the federal courts would never have any say over who a state can exclude from the right to marry.

  • 34. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Morning brandall,
    I haven't read the brief actually and was just fishing to see what you thoughts were.

  • 35. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:18 am

    Windsor is not a "doctrinal development?" Now they're just being silly.

  • 36. samg68  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:52 am

    These arguments are not those of serious people.

  • 37. Jen_in_MI  |  August 1, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    I will never tire of that sentence!!! Makes me smile every time. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 38. StraightDave  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Well that was short. They're not even trying very hard. Beshear is just going through the motions at the lowest cost and wants this thing gone.
    "The state's interest in procreation?" Doesn't even bother to say what that interest is. There just probably is one, I suppose. It's nice to see the states finally getting the point and learning to waste less money.

  • 39. brandall  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:59 am

    They did state their interest in procreation as I posted at the top:

    "The issue is not whether excluding same-sex couples from marriages results in greater natural procreation, but whether there is any rational basis for granting tax and other benefits to only heterosexual couples."

    And I agree…BORING, dull, let's just go though the motions.

  • 40. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:05 am

    From the brief:
    There is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

    This is in my opinion the ONLY valid argument they have, but in reality we are NOT asking for a NEW right, we are fighting for the Fundamental Right to marry the person of OUR choosing WITHOUT regards to specific gender make-up………..and if the anti-gay folks could get over their copy and paste jobs and simply DO their jobs, they'd already KNOW that they have no defense at all!!!

  • 41. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:14 am

    I wouldn't even concede them that much. They have no valid argument; they know they have no valid argument, so all they're doing is trying to see if they can distract a judge or two and get them to buy into their framing (which we all know is incorrect). We know that such a strategy is somewhat successful since the dissenting judges in the last two appeals court cases have accepted the idea that this whole thing is about a "new" right.

  • 42. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:27 am

    I know that they have NO real valid argument, but in their eyes if they believe that by adding something in front of the word marriage makes it appear as something new, they are going to run with it……the ONLY way it stops is if some lawyer on our side SLAPS it down and stops using the term as well.

    This is NOT about some new right, it's about being included in the existing right and this has NOTHING to do with polygamy, bestiality or incest, which is another part of the argument they love to bring up…..well, at least the polygamy and incest. Only true idiots mention bestiality or some other inanimate object like one's computer!!!

  • 43. Rick55845  |  August 1, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    There is no fundamental right to opposite-sex marriage either. Marriage, unqualified, is recognized as a fundamental right in US jurisprudence as explained in numerous SCOTUS decisions.

  • 44. RnL2008  |  August 1, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    Actually SCOTUS has ruled 14 times in it's history that Marriage is a Fundamental Right. They have NEVER ruled SPECIFICALLY that interracial marriage is a fundamental right, nor that interfaith marriage is a fundamental right, nor is opposite-sex marriage a fundamental right……just that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right, which over the years has been interpreted to mean opposite-sex….hence why the question going to SCOTUS is going to be important!!!

  • 45. brandall  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am

    There is no passion in this brief. If this had been the first of all the cases, would it have been written differently? It's had to be hard to now write a defendent's brief when you know 29 cases in a row have failed and you have no new, novel position to take. Must be depressing….

  • 46. Jen_in_MI  |  August 1, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    The easy way to avoid being depressed would be to decline to defend this idiocy. Problem solved. I have no energy to waste on feeling bad for those who continue to oppress me and my LGBT siblings.

  • 47. davepCA  |  August 1, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    I don't think brandall or others here are feeling bad for them.

    Maybe just some justifiable schadenfreude.

  • 48. brandall  |  August 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    You are correct, I have no sympathy for any of them. If they are depressed, they are getting what they deserve. It's a lot less painful then what they done to others for many decades.

  • 49. Jen_in_MI  |  August 1, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    I didn't mean to suggest otherwise – I was just rolling my eyes at yet another crappy brief, and not feeling too charitable towards the state of Kentucky. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • 50. montezuma58  |  August 1, 2014 at 10:32 am

    That had the most thorough evisceration of defendants' attempts to distinguish today's marriage bans from those adressed in Loving that I've read.

  • 51. davepCA  |  August 1, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Oh hell yeah. I just had a chance to read through the whole thing. The way it pointed out previous blatantly racist and bigoted rulings about interracial marriage, and their reliance on exactly the same bogus "concerns" and illegitimate "states interests" about 'procreation' really helps to illustrate how offensive and indefensible that kind of rhetoric really is. Well done.

  • 52. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    One thing they do that not all of the other plaintiffs has done is to cite not only Griswold but also Eisenstadt vs Baird. I hope it's not overkill to explain it here but while Griswold pertained to the right of married couples to use contraception, Eisenstadt which was decided in 1972, may have been even more important. It extends the right found by Griswold to unmarried couples. It explicitly affirms the right of unmarried couples not only to NOT have children (and to take the necessary precautions) but implicitly it also affirms the right of unmarried couples to HAVE children. The jurisprudence around the choice to reproduce or not to reproduce having gone that far, why would the state have any legitimate interest in pressuring heterosexual couples to marry if they want to have kids while preventing us from marrying because, technically speaking, we can't reproduce. Of course the reality is that we most certainly can reproduce. If they're worried about people producing kids with individuals who are not their spouse wouldn't it make more sense that we be given legal cover so that none of us ever gets the random bisexual impulse and goes looking for some third party to have a kid with?

  • 53. DoctorHeimlich  |  August 1, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    "Trolling Scalia" is the judicial game that's sweeping the nation!

    The Plaintiffs' reply brief has a new way of doing it that I haven't seen before. In the footnote on page 12, to respond to Kentucky's characterization of Windsor as a federalism case:

    This interpretation was even rejected by Justice Scalia in his dissent to Windsor. “[T]he opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations — initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion.” 133 S. Ct. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

  • 54. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    That one's gonna leave a mark.

  • 55. davepCA  |  August 1, 2014 at 3:00 pm


  • 56. sfbob  |  August 1, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    To inject a sports metaphor here, the plaintiffs attack the state's position that sexual orientation should not be considered a suspect classification based on the "politically powerless" factor. The state claims that we aren't in fact entirely incapable of attracting the attention of lawmakers. Setting aside the fact that in Kentucky (as the plaintiffs note) when we attracted that state's lawmakers' attention it was entirely negative–in 1998 when they passed a marriage equality ban by statute and again in 2004 when they elevated the ban to the state's constitution, on the state's interpretation, the 1962 New York Mets were a winning team. After all, they won 40 out of 160 games. The worst record of a Major League baseball team ever. But look…they won. Sometimes.

  • 57. Ryan K.  |  August 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm

    I must have missed the thread or intra-thread where the panel was announced for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals oral argument this coming week. It sounds pretty uphill given the panel, and it would either require an en band or lightning striking to get a win out of the 6th at this point. I guess we may have our circuit split sooner than imagined (i.e. The 5th). When was this already discussed?

  • 58. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  August 2, 2014 at 7:48 am

    […] USA, Kentucky: Equality on Trial has the briefs from the state’s marriage equality lawsuit. full story […]

  • 59. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  August 2, 2014 at 8:05 am

    […] USA, Kentucky: Equality on Trial has the briefs from the stateโ€™s marriage equality lawsuit. full story […]

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