Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Marriage cases from Louisiana and Texas will be heard by same three-judge panel in Fifth Circuit

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Fifth Circuit Court of AppealsUPDATE: The Fifth Circuit has issued its briefing notice for the Louisiana case:

Apellant/Petitioner’s [plaintiffs’] Brief Due on 10/17/2014

Appellee’s Brief due on 10/31/2014

Reply Brief due on 11/07/2014 for Appellants

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a request to hear same-sex marriage cases from Louisiana and Texas at the same time and by the same panel.

State officials in Louisiana filed the request this week and proposed a fast-tracked briefing schedule.

The Texas case is further along: the opening brief has been filed in the Fifth Circuit. The state’s brief is currently due by October 10.

The two cases reach the appeals court from differing lower court decisions: in the Texas case, the district court judge struck down the state’s ban, while in the Louisiana case, the judge upheld the ban.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. ragefirewolf  |  September 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Do we know who's on the panel yet?

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  September 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Nope not yet. The briefs aren't even done yet.

  • 3. ragefirewolf  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Thank you, Scottie

  • 4. franklinsewell  |  September 25, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Does anyone else want to read the tea leaves to offer a suggestion of when either the 6th or 9th might rule?

  • 5. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    The 6th should be coming by the first week of October imo. The 10th and the 4th had split decisions handed down and got about 2 months each after the oral arguments. The cases are on an expedited schedule so I would guess mid October the latest. Of course they might not issue all 4 of them at once, but even one is indicative of how they will rule on the rest (as it happened with the 10th).

    The 9th should be coming at about the same time given that they will probably be unanimous decisions, but they will probably have to hand down 3 different rulings. Only the Idaho case can be appealed to SCOTUS and the injuctions and stays will be handled differently. In the Nevada case it will be reversed and remanded and sent back to district court and since there are no parties that can appeal it will be implemented sooner or later. The mootness issues in the Hawaii case are unimportant but they will probably dismiss it as moot. So yeah given the vast amount of cases the 9th has and that each case needs a different ruling it may take a bit more even if they are unanimous.

  • 6. Ragavendran  |  September 25, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Going by statistical averages and taking into consideration the divided opinion in the 6th, I would predict that both opinions will come out approximately at the same time, around mid-October.

  • 7. DoctorHeimlich  |  September 25, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Are you ready for some Wild Speculation?

    The short version: I don't expect the 6th before late October. I think the 9th could come late next week.

    The long version…

    The 6th

    We know Judge Sutton is the swing vote here, and many suspect from oral arguments that he's going to rule against us. In doing so, he could embrace the less than coherent dissents of Judges Kelly (from the 10th) or Neimeyer (the 4th), or try to stake out his own analytical ground. But since oral arguments, the 7th Circuit changed the landscape. They issued a unanimous ruling, and it was written by Judge Posner, who is admired generally in judicial circles, and specifically by Sutton himself. Posner and his opinion can't really be ignored or dismissed.

    I think it's likely this sent Sutton back to square one. His writing now must be better, his arguments tighter, to stand up to Posner. Who knows, depending on just how much Sutton truly admires Posner, he might even have to rethink his vote. In any case, I feel as though the clock on the 6th reset the day the 7th issued its ruling.

    Through it all, Sutton may well have been waiting to see if SCOTUS would take up one of the other cases, saving him from needing to publish an opinion at all. Despite the gauntlet Justice Ginsburg recently threw in his direction, the fact remains that the other cases have been distributed for the Justices to consider. So I would bet on Sutton waiting it out through at least one or two conferences to see if SCOTUS acts despite Ginsburg's speculation.

    My guess: if SCOTUS acts, we'll never see an opinion from the 6th. They'll officially hold the case. Otherwise, I think the opinion from the 6th is still at least a month away.

    The 9th

    In this case, I think we're waiting on Judge Reinhardt. He wrote the opinion in Perry, and I think he'll write here. Moreover, his opinion in Perry was a careful exercise in attempting to write for the benefit of Justice Kennedy. (Relying heavily on Kennedy's opinion in Romer.) At the 9th's oral arguments, Reinhardt even alluded to Kennedy being the vote that's going to decide this in the end.

    So despite the fact that the 9th judges knew exactly how they were going to rule before they even heard the oral arguments, that doesn't really make the opinion "easy" to write. Once again, Reinhardt is trying to craft the argument that he thinks Kennedy will find persuasive.

    Looking back to the Perry case to guide the wild speculations, two-and-a-half months passed between the time the California Supreme Court certified the intervenors' legal standing (incorrectly, SCOTUS would later rule) and the issuance of the Ninth Circuit opinion — an opinion that couldn't really be thought out ahead of time since they were waiting on California. That 10 weeks or so also included time for one of the three judges to write a dissent.

    Considering the advance thinking Reinhardt could have done here, and the lack of a dissent, I'm actually amazed the opinion hasn't been issued already, even allowing time to "write for Kennedy." Perhaps he too is waiting to see what SCOTUS does in the long conference. If so, I think it's possible the 9th's opinion could be issued late next week.

  • 8. Ragavendran  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    Excellent speculation! I would like to add that when I re-watched the Ninth Circuit oral argument, I noticed that the panel seemed divided on the appropriate route (sex discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination). Judge Berzon was almost lobbying for a sex discrimination intermediate scrutiny opinion. Judge Gould seemed be content with simply applying heightened scrutiny based on sexual orientation discrimination. Judge Reinhardt, perhaps amusingly, wondered aloud whether the decision should be based on "one doctrine, two doctrines, or no doctrine", referencing Kennedy's vagueness about the doctrine he used in Windsor. So I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a concurring opinion from Berzon, which could delay the release.

  • 9. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Technically, the Cal. Supreme Court was only ruling on the standing of the litigants in California state courts, and made it fairly clear that that is what they were ruling on. The 9CA took the ruling of the CASC to also affect the standing of the litigants in Federal Court. The CASC is not controlled by SCOTUS (except only partially indirectly), thus the CASC ruling on the standing of litigants in state courts is not much in dispute.

    Other than that, I agree with almost all you stated (timings of when rulings are made public differ by a few days, but not by much.).

  • 10. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    They don't want to bother issuing bigoted rulings many times, they want to "rule" one time and be done with it and send it to SCOTUS if its not already there. I bet they are not too eager to create the circuit split first, the 6th will get there sooner. I would expect them to be. Few things must give most judges on this court such judicial joy as issuing a ruling against a minority good southern christians do not like.

  • 11. Corey_from_MD  |  September 25, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    "Circuit split" — here we come…

  • 12. debater7474  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    People who think that somehow Posner will change what Sutton decided are delusional. Reminds me of Karl Rove on election night insisting that somehow the magical votes would turn up to ensure Romney's victory. Just because you WANT something to happen doesn't mean it's GOING to happen. The idea that a month into writing the opinion, he would have just told the other judges to start over is completely ridiculous.

  • 13. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    He might not have started writing an opinion when Posner issued the ruling. Or he may not even write an opinion. He may get two written opinions, one by Cook (upholding the bans) and the other by Daughtrey (striking them down) and whichever he sides with is the majority.

  • 14. Ragavendran  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    I respectfully disagree, and second guitaristbl above. Perhaps you are familiar with what is called as a "supplemental authority", which includes opinions that are released post-oral argument that parties think are persuasive authority for the court to consider. A formal notice of supplemental authority has already been filed pursuant to FRAP in at least one of the six appeals, drawing the Sixth Circuit panel's attention to the Seventh Circuit opinion. You can argue that it is unlikely that Posner's opinion will have an impact on Sutton's decision, and I might even agree with that, but to say that people who suggest otherwise are "delusional" is going a bit too far, in my opinion.

    Even at the Supreme Court, it is not unheard of for justices, over time, to change their mind and switch sides, leading to what started out to be a dissenting opinion becoming the majority opinion instead. So, there is at least a possibility (and therefore, it is not "completely ridiculous") that Sutton could join (all or part of) what could have started out as a total dissent by Daughtrey.

  • 15. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    My most hopeful estimation at this point is that Sutton will take the middle road and uphold the bans on giving away marriage licenses by the state while striking down the bans regarding the recognition of out of state marriages. Thus joining a majority in the Ohio case and concurring in part to the rest with Daughtrey.
    But still that's a very optimistic estimation…

  • 16. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    Didn't Chief Justice Roberts admit that after oral arguments, he switched sides when the PPACA was being debated at SCOTUS? I didn't hear when he switched sides, but only after the oral arguments, thus making him the 5th vote to uphold the PPACA (except for one small section).

  • 17. Christian0811  |  September 26, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    On the note of Justices changing their minds, wasn't Justice Kennedy on an appeal panel which upheld the antigay provisions of article 125 UCMJ (since repealed)? Am I hopelessly confused or am I right?

  • 18. Ragavendran  |  September 26, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    If you are referring to this case, then it didn't reach the Supreme Court at all.

  • 19. DoctorHeimlich  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    I'd readily agree that hoping for Sutton to switch sides is wishful thinking, but it's far from unprecedented.

    A recent, highly conspicuous example:
    Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

  • 20. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    I doubt Sutton will face the external pressure Roberts faced on healthcare to be honest. They share a common strange fate on the health care law – both being prominent conservative judges upholding it – and I believe they will be like minded on this issue as well – given that it's 99,9 % certain that Roberts will be voting to uphold bans on same sex marriage when the time comes.

  • 21. Jen_in_MI  |  September 27, 2014 at 8:17 am

    Why must you insist that people with different opinions from yours are "delusional"? That seems to be your go-to insult, and it's very disrespectful.

  • 22. Zack12  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    If the 6th circuit doesn't rule against us, the 5th certainly will.

  • 23. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 25, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Off topic:

    According to the Washington Blade, the "IOC adds anti-discrimination clause to host city contract.
    (… ).

    This will probably reduce the competition for hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics, especially from such cities as Beijing, Almaty, Istanbul, Saint Pertersburg (Russia), and most of Africa since most cities don't have anti-discrimination laws, and most won't be able to institute them for various reasons (because of 'religious' and/or political reasons).

  • 24. Randolph_Finder  |  September 25, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    The 2022 Winter Olympics just got *way* simpler. The 2022 Olympics are down to the Final 3. Oslo Norway, Almaty Kazakhstan and Beijing. With 2006 in North America, 2010 in Sochi, Russia (which is arguably closer to Asia than to any of the previous European Host sites) followed by South Korea, just about *everyone* expects it to go to Western Europe next, which means Oslo.

    With the anti-discrimination clause, there is no way that Almaty is going to sign. (Kazazhstan has no anti-discrimination laws in the country right now). Beijing, OTOH, if it does so, it would be unlikely to do so as a city, but rather as something nationwide which would be truly wonderful…

    I have no idea if Oslo actually has one of these, but with the country having Marriage Equality, it would be very likely.

    2024 Summer games are actually likely to be affected less. I doubt they will be going to Asia, Australia or South America given the games prior to that, leaving North America, Europe and Africa. In Africa, neither Morocco nor Kenya are anywhere near as ready to host a games as South Africa is, North America would probably be the US and the four possibilities there are LA, SFO, Boston and DC, all cities without a problem. For Europe. Neither Paris, Hamburg nor Berlin would have a problem. The cities that are iffy are Rome (which probably would be willing to pass it) and Istanbul which probably wouldn't. So for 2024, the chance of Istanbul went down and that's about the only change…

  • 25. F_Young  |  September 26, 2014 at 3:30 am

    The new anti-discrimination clause is better than nothing, but it does not explicitly include sexual orientation, and is ambiguous about gender identity; so I am skeptical as to whether it will make any difference, even though "IOC President Thomas Bach last October explicitly said the Olympic Charter’s non-discrimination clause includes LGBT people."

    This is the new clause:

    “The city and the NOC (National Olympic Committees) acknowledge and accept the importance of the games and the value of the Olympic image, and agree to conduct all activities in a manner which promotes and enhances the fundamental principles and values of Olympism, in particular the prohibition of any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise, as well as the development of the Olympic Movement.”

  • 26. Randolph_Finder  |  September 26, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Still wouldn't get signed by Almaty. Be interesting to see if Beijing would sign it.

  • 27. RobW303  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Any specifics about how the wind was blowing in the Missouri out-of-state SSM recognition case heard in Jackson County court today? I gather the case name is Barrier & Schild v. Vasterling: 10 couples represented by the ACLU, filed back in February.

    Another case, concerning the four couples who married in Saint Louis in June when the mayor briefly defied the state ban, will be heard on Monday in STL district court. I haven't found the case name.

    A general observation: it would be nice if, instead of saying "the Louisiana case", folks would give the case name (or at least one party). There are now over eighty cases being heard; it's hard enough keeping track without such vagueness. (Granted, most news sources are pretty lax about this.)

  • 28. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    I could not find much about what the judge seemed to think, I could only find the following :

    "Youngs said he would take the case under advisement but gave no timeline for his ruling.

    “By no means will anything I say be the last word,” he said."

    Which does not say much tbh. Personally I will be waiting for the federal case. It's time the 8th to get its feet wet, every other appeals court has.

  • 29. ragefirewolf  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    The Louisiana state court case: In Re Costanza and Brewer.

  • 30. RobW303  |  September 25, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    To clarify: the (federal level) Louisiana case referred to in the lead article is Robicheaux v. George (originally v. Caldwell), the appeal of the infamous ruling by Judge Feldman.

    The state case In Re Costanza and Brewer is the adoption/marriage case just decided in our favor, and which the state intends to take to the Louisiana Supreme Court (bypassing intermediate levels?)

    This is exactly why it helps to have the case names stated. And thanks, because I neglected to make notes about the Costanza/Brewer case, partly, I admit, because it's unlikely to matter much. Since the defense relies on interpretations of the US Constitution, I assume that one side or the other will hop the case to federal court after the LA Supreme Court eventually rules—should it even get that far before SCOTUS gets the ball rolling at the top level and pretty much everything at the federal level (and in most places, the state level as well) gets halted.

  • 31. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSblog has been loyally reporting every development on same sex marriage and just reported on the 5th circuit orders :

    I love the part where he states : "The members of the three-judge panel have not yet been named for the Texas case. But, given the overall makeup of the Fifth Circuit, it is widely assumed that a state’s ban on same-sex marriage will have a strong chance of being upheld in that circuit."

    When a reporter like Lyle, who rarely makes estimations and assumptions even after oral arguments and prefers to stick to reporting the facts makes such a statement even before a panel has been chosen, you know it's going to be really bad..Can we just hope it won't be unanimous when it's issued ?

    He also states that it appearsl likely that oral arguments in DeLeon will take place in November and that seperate decisions on the Louisiana and Texas cases are likely.

  • 32. Zack12  |  September 25, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    Even the Democrats on the 5th circuit are more conservative then not and would be likely to rule against us and many of the Republicans on it make Scalia and Alito look like card carrying members of the ACLU.
    There is simply no way we are going to come out of the 5th circuit with a victory at all, there are simply too many judges on it who are hostile to us.

  • 33. guitaristbl  |  September 25, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    I believe the 5th will not be able to rule in time, before SCOTUS gets on this. At least I hope so.

  • 34. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 26, 2014 at 11:19 am

    I think 5CA will try to drag things out, hoping they don't have to rule. They'll drag out the procedures to give time for SCOTUS to accept at least one request for cert, then the 5CA will act swiftly to put a stay on any further proceedings in the 5CA, and then wait for SCOTUS to rule.

  • 35. guitaristbl  |  September 26, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    I am sure it will pain the 5th a lot to have to implement a possible pro-marriage equality ruling from SCOTUS when it comes to the Texas and Louisiana cases. Or they may even dismiss them totally, who knows. It will pain them for sure though.

  • 36. Ragavendran  |  September 25, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    I don't understand why the farce of all this briefing and oral argument then. Why not summarily reverse Texas and affirm Louisiana and get it over with? It's not like the briefs and argument are likely to change their minds…

  • 37. Zack12  |  September 26, 2014 at 12:11 am

    Because they want to stall as long as possible and not create a split.
    In the small chance the 6th upholds the rulings striking down the bans, the Supreme Court may not take up same sex marriage for a while.
    But if they create a split, that all but ensures they will hear it sooner versus later and IMO, the bigoted judges like Scalia know there are five votes for marriage equality, something him and some of the bigoted judges we've come across in DOMA and the various circuit and district court rulings do NOT want to see happen in their life times.

  • 38. Ragavendran  |  September 26, 2014 at 12:45 am

    Okay, but that doesn't square with why they expedited the Louisiana appeal. They could simply issue a regular briefing schedule, wait for it to be completed, and then schedule oral arguments for both cases next year, at a leisurely pace. (They had absolutely no problem denying expedition in the Texas case, and were very liberal in granting months-long extensions for filing briefs.)

  • 39. guitaristbl  |  September 26, 2014 at 4:22 am

    Characterizing them as "very liberal" even on scheduling briefs might be a terrible offense to them, I hope they won't read that lol !
    But I am not sure it would be to their best interest, even for such a bigoted court, to summarily reverse and affirm the two rulings on such a contentious issue. Even if they have all made their mind up, they have to be cautious on how they treat such an issue, they have to pretend they care about the arguments of the other side.
    Following that logic the 9th should affirm latta, reverse sevcik and vacate Jackson on summary judgement as well. Not in the best interest of anyone either.
    We have a strong legal basis here. Let it play out in the 5th, at least have a chance. And maybe we can get a split decision even, not a unanimous one, if we are lucky enough. That would indicate something as well.
    As for the expedition I simply believe that they refused to expedite DeLeon because they don't care enough probably but expedited Robinchaux just to get it together with DeLeon and be done with it. Plus in the 2nd case it was the state who is defending the ban asking for it, not the "bad" homosexual plaintiffs as in DeLeon. Yes such bias is possible I think…

  • 40. ragefirewolf  |  September 26, 2014 at 4:48 am

    I honestly wish the Sixth and the Ninth would hurry up and join the chorus.

    I know, I know – they'll probably both come thru mid-late October, but justice waits for no man! Especially not this very impatient one, hahaha.

  • 41. guitaristbl  |  September 26, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    The Sixth to join the chorus ? I hope you mean the chorus of issuing decisions, not the pro-equality chorus because I can't see that happening 😛

    Just delayed is justice denied for many couples where one of the spouses has died waiting, but the realities of social change are such unfortunately…For LGBT couples who lived in the 90s and before that, it never came, let's not forget that. LGBT americans have been waiting for decades, if not centuries. I think we can wait till mid October or till June.

  • 42. ragefirewolf  |  September 26, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    What can I say? I'm an optimist. I have no desire to see the Sixth rule against us, even if we're after a Circuit split – which I believe has already happened because of the Eighth Circuit's Brunning decision. SCOTUS needs to actually address that once and for all, recent doctrinal developments or not. It would be nice if they explicitly reverse Baker as well.

  • 43. guitaristbl  |  September 26, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Brunning may not count as a split (it obviously doesn't for RBG) due to the doctrinal and judicial developments since. Windsor has been widely cited in the 40 pro-equality opinions issued since June 2013. If the judges are to take the 8th circuit's opinion under consideration imo, they should wait for it to address the issue again in light of Windsor. I am not hoping for much given its current composition but IMO Brunning is not a real split. The 6th's will be. In my opinion no splits even if they delay the decision, is better. The court will have a much harder time overturning unanimity.

  • 44. ragefirewolf  |  September 26, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    I'm well aware of the doctrinal weakness of Bruning, that's why I mentioned that SCOTUS needs to address it regardless of doctrinal developments…because it does. They don't need to call it by name or even mention it, but IMHO it should still behoove them to take up the cases and issue a wide ruling. Then they can say themselves how doctrinally unsound it is by their actions. :o)

  • 45. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  September 26, 2014 at 9:17 am

    […] USA, Louisiana/Texas: Challenges to marriage equality bans from both states will be heard by the same three judge panel at fifth circuit. full story […]

  • 46. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  September 26, 2014 at 10:24 am

    […] USA, Louisiana/Texas: Challenges to marriage equality bans from both states will be heard by the same three judge panel at fifth circuit. full story […]

  • 47. ragefirewolf  |  September 26, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Does anyone know how far the Texas Supreme Court has gotten with In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.?

  • 48. Ragavendran  |  September 26, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    You can refer to the docket of the case here. Oral argument in three consolidated cases took place November 5, 2013, and a link to the audio and transcript is available on the docket page. Looking at the sluggish pace of this case so far, I'm not surprised that there is still no decision. Perhaps by the end of the year.

    The Wikipedia article is here.

    J.B. sought review from the Texas Supreme Court in February 2011 and that court requested briefs in October. On July 3, 2013, the Texas Supreme Court sua sponte ordered supplemental merits briefing in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor. On August 23 the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear the merits and scheduled oral argument for November 5, 2013.

    I haven't listened to the oral argument audio nor read the transcript, but the fact that the Texas Supreme Court agreed to take up the case after supplemental briefing following Windsor perhaps indicates that the Court is open to considering the possibility of overturning the Fifth Court of Appeals (of Texas). It could do so narrowly, saying that Texas has to constitutionally allow same-sex divorces, but it doesn't mean that it violates the Texas marriage ban by recognizing those marriages in the first place, like the Wyoming Supreme Court did a few years ago. Or, much less likely I guess, it could rule broadly striking down Texas's marriage recognition ban as unconstitutional, which would then automatically take care of the divorce issue. And then if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Texas's ban, that could create an interesting conflict that the US Supreme Court would be compelled to resolve.

    UPDATE 1: I stumbled upon the video of the oral argument here. Apparently, it was webcast live.

    UPDATE 2: Just watched the entire oral argument. This case seems to be incredibly complicated. There are serious questions here about jurisdiction, intervention, standing, alternative relief, full faith and credit, constitutionality of Texas's DOMA, and some umpteen other things. My head is spinning. No wonder the decision is still not out. I'm not sure there is enough agreement among the Justices for any single majority opinion. Perhaps every Justice is writing their own 🙂

  • 49. ragefirewolf  |  September 27, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Can I just say that you're quite awesome? You did all that research just to answer my question…I love it, Ragavendran!

    I can't bring myself to watch the oral argument after you said it made your head spin, of all people, haha! I very much appreciate your both cogent and comprehensive analysis – your hard work. Thank you! :o)

  • 50. Ragavendran  |  September 29, 2014 at 10:08 am

    You're being too kind. I must admit that while your question initiated the research, beyond finding out the status of the case, it was my own curiosity that led me to delve deeper and find out more. You should watch it when you get some time. I liked noticing the finer procedural details about how the argument unrolled, the interaction between the justices and counsel, etc.

  • 51. TheMelancholicAlcoholic  |  October 3, 2014 at 8:32 am

    7th cicrcuit Posner said:
    “but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage.”

    How did Indiana claim that gays are model citizens?
    Isn’t Posner misrepresenting Indiana here, because he’s overly snarkish?

  • 52. And Colorado makes it 25.&hellip  |  October 6, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    […] a state ban. This could occur in the Sixth Circuit; it could also occur in the Fifth Circuit, which will be hearing cases relating to Texas and Louisiana soon. These are appeals to ban in Texas which was struck down, and a ban in Louisiana which will be […]

  • 53. Updates: Texas Gay Marria&hellip  |  October 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    […] the Fifth Circuit’s case on track for arguments later this year. Late last month, the court paired the Texas and Louisiana appeals on the docket after granting an expedited briefing schedule for the Louisiana case, reports Equality on Trial. […]

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