Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: more fallout from Supreme Court’s action in marriage cases this week

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Colorado state seal– In Colorado, the state supreme court has issued two orders (here and here) dismissing appeals and lifting stays in appeals in the same-sex marriage cases. In the Tenth Circuit, Colorado’s attorney general asked for dismissal of the state’s appeal in the federal case and for the court to lift the stay. The Tenth Circuit has lifted the stay. Their motion to dismiss was granted.

– Also in the Tenth Circuit, officials in Utah asked the court to dismiss its appeal in Evans, the case involving the marriages performed legally before the stay in Kitchen. The appeal has been dismissed as of 4:20PM ET, and I’ll post a link when I have it.

– The National Center for Lesbian Rights has filed a new lawsuit challenging Wyoming’s same-sex marriage ban.

– The district court hearing the challenge to South Carolina’s ban is asking for a proposed briefing schedule by October 15.

– The two sets of plaintiffs challenging Florida’s same-sex marriage ban in federal court (here and here) ask to have the stay lifted.

– The Fifth Circuit will fast-track oral arguments in challenges to Louisiana and Texas’ same-sex marriage ban.

– State defendants in challenges to North Carolina’s same-sex marriage ban the judge has asked for a response to the request for a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor by October 21.

– The plaintiffs in the Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, have filed their proposed order in the district court granting an injunction and other relief against the state’s ban. This was required by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling because the district court had upheld the ban, therefore there was no injunction. UPDATE: The district court judge has recused himself from the case, and referred it to another judge.

– The district court in the Wisconsin case has dissolved the stay in that case, although there was no strict need for it.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. SeattleRobin  |  October 8, 2014 at 9:37 am

    Thanks for this post! It's so difficult to follow everything piecemeal when what needs to happen next is different in every state.

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    I'm glad you like it! I am really struggling to keep up with everything. I would like to write more full posts but there's just so much happening it's impossible to track everything.

  • 3. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    If you are ever hiring for the blog I would be more than happy to write 🙂 !

  • 4. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Me too!

  • 5. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    And me!

  • 6. brandall  |  October 8, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    Raga and I would offer you a group discount for bringing on both of us together.

  • 7. DoctorHeimlich  |  October 8, 2014 at 10:17 am

    On Judge Jones' recusing himself, as updated above: it seems he's refusing to write the order striking down the marriage ban, as the 9th Circuit has ordered him to do. He's going to make someone else do it.

    I'm sure we can expect more of this "I'm going to hold my breath until my face turns blue" behavior from the opposition as the walls continue to close in around them.

  • 8. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:06 am

    My guess is that the judge heard from one or more of the 'elders of the church', and was told to do whatever he could to not make the ruling the 9CA told him to do.

    I'm sure the new judge will plead that he/she is not familiar with the case, and needs several weeks or months to get caught up – in other words, a delay tactic.

  • 9. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:13 am

    I didn't even know Judge Robert C. Jones is a Mormon. Thanks for pointing this out.

  • 10. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Graduate of Brigham Young University. . .

  • 11. FredDorner  |  October 8, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    The only other adverse opinion in the 9th circuit came from a Mormon too – Randy Smith on the appeals court for the Prop h8 case.

    While Mormons generally don't grasp the concept of equal rights or secular government, some of the good rulings came from Mormons too (like Judge Kimball in Utah)

  • 12. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:51 am

    I think the District judge who ruled against us in the Hawaii lawsuit was a Mormon as well.

  • 13. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Chief Judge Navarro is unlikely to pursue this course of action. She is a Barack Obama appointee born in 1967.

  • 14. Samiscat1  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Could well be the case. But here's the Mormon article of faith/core belief that should be ruling precedent for Jones:

    "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

    The hypocrisy never ends.

  • 15. Eric  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    For them, any authority will do, monarchy, democracy, it doesn't matter.

  • 16. KahuBill  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Well, Judge Robert C. Jones did not recuse himself from the case before so why does he recuse himself from disposing of the case in accordance with the directions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision? If he cannot uphold the civil laws and constitution in his official position now, why did he feel he could render a just decision when he took the case? It raises questions of his suitability to be a Federal judge. It also raises the specter of civil disobedience based on "sincerely held religious beliefs". If a Federal judge can get away with it, why not everybody – including your doctor, pharmacist, etc.

  • 17. brandall  |  October 8, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    He should be fired or impeached for refusing to do the duties he is paid to perform and has sworn to uphold. How are his actions any different than a hotel refusing a SSM wedding reception or a BAKER (sorry to mention THAT case) not making a wedding cake? They are not. It is discrimination. Period.

  • 18. RobW303  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:08 am

    He should be recused permanently. We shouldn't have to tolerate public servants refusing to do their jobs equitably to all because of personal prejudices. If these "martyrs" actually start losing their jobs, having to pay for their bluster, we'll see a lot fewer of them pulling that tactic, and we'll be rid of the rest. That's the price for civil disobedience, especially when you're in the wrong.

  • 19. Josh808  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:18 am

    If he has to recuse himself now, doesn't that clearly then mean he was biased from the start and should have recused himself at the beginning? This seems incredibly unethical to me.

  • 20. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:09 pm


  • 21. Zack12  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    I would file a complaint with the proper channels if I was a defendent in this suit.

  • 22. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:21 am

    On Judge Jones’ reclusal to perform essentially a procedural order, does that in any way jeopardize the entire case? If there is a just cause for him to recluse himself at this point, did not that same reason exist during the time of the civil case? If so, is there now a possibility of a mistrial and the original ruling being vacated? Not anything one wants to happen at this point, but just asking.

  • 23. scream4ever  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:42 am

    No. This is largely just procedural at this point.

  • 24. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:19 am

    No, all him recusing himself does is delay it.

  • 25. F_Young  |  October 8, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen this update posted here:

    Gay Marriages Start In South Carolina

  • 26. Jaesun100  |  October 8, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Finally, TkinSC can get married

  • 27. RobW303  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Not for another day: there's a one-day waiting period. I think the article misstates the situation slightly. I'd heard that the judge has so far only accepted applications, he hasn't yet issued any licenses. I expect an emergency injunction before he can.

  • 28. JayJonson  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:46 am

    In many states that have a waiting period, you apply for the license one day and then pick it up later. When my husband and I married in Massachusetts, we applied for the license on a Monday and picked it up on Thursday, following a three-day waiting period. I think in South Carolina, there is a one-day waiting period.

  • 29. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:11 am

    We all know what GOTP'ers do. They'll go to the state supreme court and ask for an injunction to order this judge to stop granting marriage licenses.

  • 30. DrBriCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    And that's exactly what they've done! Ideally, the State Supreme Court will recognize that it's only a matter of weeks for the federal district court to toss the ban and just make the order themselves.

  • 31. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 10:45 am

    Scottie, the Tenth Circuit has not yet granted the request (as of the moment I'm writing this comment) to dismiss Utah's Evans appeal. They've granted the request to dismiss Colorado's Burns appeal (and that is the order that shows up when I click on the link). They did dissolve the stay in Burns yesterday.

    As to Crabb's order dissolving her stay, I think it clears the ambiguity that her original stay was intended to cover the entire period up to and including Supreme Court review (of cert petitions, and if granted, final judgment). Also, as was clear from Wisconsin's antics after Crabb's ruling came down, and oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, Wisconsin doesn't know what court to petition for what issue, and has a hard time understanding what an injunction enjoining state officials from enforcing a state law means without being very specific. So, in deference to their stupidity, she has issued this clarifying order. She does note at the end herself that no order from her is necessary, but she is simply issuing one anyway to avoid any uncertainty.

  • 32. buckybear0310b  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:18 am

    …however, no word on the marriages from 6/6-6/13 a d their validity.

  • 33. RobW303  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:26 am

    According to Wisconsin law (as I've heard reported), the judge's ruling was in effect from the moment it was issued, even without an explicit order, so those marriages were legal when entered. I don't think there needs to be a further judgment on their validity, though it would be gracious for the state to clarify their status.

  • 34. buckybear0310b  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:32 am

    That WAS the reasoning that my county clerk gave me BUT my license from 6/6 was never given a file number from the State Office of Vital Records and they never formally declared they would accept the marriages. I'm still in limbo until a) Van Hemorrhoid asks for dismissal based on grounds of acceptance by him and Walker b) we beat him at the hearing, whenever that is to be.

  • 35. Fledge01  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:54 am

    I believe, but am not certain, that filing in the vital records is not necessary to have your marriage be legal in Wisconsin. Its like filing deeds in the land records. Various state records provide an assumption that what you claim is true, but they in and of themselves are not conclusive evidence that (for example) either you own a piece of property, have a legal right to a trade name or that you are married. The actual nature of how you went about acquiring any of those things is what is legally important. The recording of that transaction just puts others on notice and is relied upon by many (including in the state) to assume that what is in those records are true. I assume that if you had a marriage license, that is the only real necessary step you would have had to take. Those earlier marriages in WI should be legal since the law never changed between Crabb's original ruling and today. All that happened is that an appeals court confirmed Crabb was right and the injunction forcing the state to issue licenses was on hold for a while.

  • 36. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 10:55 am

    Perhaps a glimpse (or non-glimpse) of SCOTUS's action on Monday came during this exchange during Tuesday's oral argument in a different case:

    In the same vein, Justice Kagan commented, “we know from everything we do every day that when a court decides to take something or not to take something, they are not just making a merits evaluation. They are doing a thousand other things as well about how they think it’s best to arrange their docket.” Sticking with the point, Justice Scalia (perhaps thinking of the Court’s order list of the previous day) then quipped: “I guess it’s an abuse of discretion whenever we fail to correct a clear error of law on a petition for certiorari. Right? And I’m not going to mention any names, but is that the case? It’s an abuse of discretion? I thought we just had the power to say we don’t feel like taking it.”

    And this part of the case: "The basic problem that the Justices face is that the Tenth Circuit did not explain its decision not to accept the appeal. That of course is understandable; presumably courts of appeals explain their decisions not to accept appeals about as often as the Justices explain their decisions to deny review by certiorari. So the Justices can’t easily insist that the courts of appeals explain each decision not to accept an appeal." (Now they know what we feel like when they refuse to explain cert denials, stay grants, etc.)

  • 37. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:13 am

    In other words, Scalia being Scalia. If he doesn't like something, he thinks everyone should not like it.

    Egos was mentioned earlier. IMO, Scalia has one of the biggest egos around.

  • 38. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Jones recusing himself from simply issuing an injunction on the case..How bigoted a man can be really ?

  • 39. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:25 am

    OMG – The Coalition to Protect Marriage just "joined' in Governor Otter's request for a stay … It's on equality case files.

  • 40. MichaelGrabow  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:31 am

    News out of Florida:

  • 41. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm


  • 42. mariothinks  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:31 am

    That Judge Jones is such a sore loser… next.

  • 43. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:45 am

    OMG – The Coalition to Protect Marriage just "joined' in Governor Otter's request for a stay:

  • 44. flyerguy77  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Judge Jones needs to be impeached.

  • 45. A_Jayne  |  October 8, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    At the very least censured by the court. As stated above, if he doesn't feel capable of writing the appropriate order now, he wasn't capable of making the initial judgement!

  • 46. SethInMaryland  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    florida might be the place to keep an eye on, Bondi could pull out soon

  • 47. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Judge Jones is a graduate of Brigham Young University. Did you really, really expect that he would step up enthusiastically to that assignment?

  • 48. mariothinks  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    The 6th Circuit published two opinions today. Both were argued after the same-sex marriage cases. One was argued just two days after. I wouldn't be surprised if we received a decision either by the end of the week or Monday of next.

  • 49. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Unless SCOTUS's actions on Monday set the clock back there..

  • 50. sfbob  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Next Monday is a federal holiday. No court decisions then.

  • 51. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    I was talking about the denial of cert 2 days ago, not next Monday.

  • 52. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:46 am

    "I wouldn't be surprised if we received a decision either by the end of the week or Monday of next."

    And it was that final sentence of your comment that 'sfbob' was most likely commenting on.

    You may have thought what you wrote was very clear, but it wasn't. There will be no decisions on Monday of next week, as that Monday is a Federal holiday (and we'll all be inundated with 'Columbus Day' advertising on radio, television, newspapers, etc.).

  • 53. RobW303  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Woohoo! Justice Kennedy has clarified that the stay only applies to Idaho.

    I so want to believe that this means he thinks the Idaho case is doomed, since it wouldn't make sense to allow one ban to be overturned while allowing the rest to stand as consistent with constitutional principles, as decided in a later reversal.

  • 54. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    That's good news. It is peculiar to provide it to Idaho but to Nevada it's wholy irrational given Hollingsworth. It would be unfair to treat them the same because the 9th on its own accord decided to consolidate them.

  • 55. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    So, I'm on facebook just now and one of my friends posted this article about some moron lawmaker in Utah now wants to call our marriages "Pairages":

    This moron obviously has NEVER heard of Separate and Equal are NOT and it's another way to DISCRIMINATE against our legal marriages!!!

  • 56. sfbob  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Hopefully one of that clown's colleagues will cite Brown vs Board of Education and Windsor to him. And remind him what it cost the state to lose in their defense of Amendment 2.

  • 57. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    It's simply amazing that someone would try this stunt KNOWING full well that Gays and Lesbians AREN'T going to accept it!!!

  • 58. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    You think this man cares about what gay and lesbian people accept ? He barely considers them human. Anyway he will be severely slapped by courts (I doubt the Utah legislature will stop him anyway…Jim Dabakis is the one I feel sorry for, he has to deal with so much animosity and stupidity in the legislature.

  • 59. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    I know he doesn't….that's why he's wasting time and resources to propose something he knows will NEVER survive!!!

    See my comment to Dave!!!

  • 60. sfbob  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    You took the words right out of my digital mouth.

  • 61. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Maybe we should propose a bill to henceforth refer to Utah as a "shate" instead of a state, and refer to their beliefs as a "peligion".

  • 62. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    I think we should……some folks just CAN'T understand what the word "MARRIAGE" truly means…….I wonder if he'd be okay with his marriage being called "breediage" that way we could tell the difference between those opposite-sex couples who can breed, from the rest of the legally married folks in Utah!!!

  • 63. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Ooh I like that : )

  • 64. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    When I posted it…I thought what a neat word…….but I bet some won't agree with it…!!!

  • 65. JuliHIA  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:02 am

    actually "pairage" is a real word that refers to a quantity of pairs of shoes. We can't redefine words! Society will collapse!

  • 66. Brad_1  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:08 am

    Pairage equals a closet case of sole mates?

  • 67. RemC_Chicago  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    Why don't you send your suggestion to him?

  • 68. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    I should…….I wonder if I can find his state e-mail address on his webpage!!!

  • 69. RemC_Chicago  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Here you go:

    [email protected]

  • 70. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Here is my e-mail to him:
    Dear Mr Powell,
    After reading your idea in the news, I want you to know that to proceed with this ridiculous idea is nothing more than you showing your animus towards a group of individuals who deserve the same respect and right to marry as you enjoyed and to try and call our marriages something else is nothing more than pure Discrimination UNLESS you want to refer to other marriages by different names in order to identify them as different from your marriage. So, here is a list of alternative names for marriages you can use:
    For opposite-sex couples who plan on having children, their marriage should be referred to as "BREEDIAGE"

    For opposite-sex couples who aren't able to procreate, their marriages should be referred to as "BARRENNESSIAGE"

    For EVERYONE else who gets married, their marriages should be referred to as what they are "MARRIAGE"

    Gays and Lesbians AREN'T going to accept your childish terminology just because you CAN'T handle that Gays and Lesbians are American Citizens and deserve the SAME right to marry as you did.

    Rose T-H
    Happily Married to my Wife

  • 71. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    I got an auto reply:
    Thank you very much for writing to me. Please know that I read all e-mails
    that I receive. In addition, if you live in my legislative district located
    in Summit or Wasatch counties, please re-send your e-mail to
    [email protected] with the name of your favorite local festival or
    celebration in the subject line so that I may prioritize your message for
    prompt reply. After you re-send your e-mail, you may ignore this automatic
    message when you receive it again.

  • 72. RemC_Chicago  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Read his comments in the NYTimes article. Makes my blood boil. Let's come up with words that indicate mixed race marriages, inter-faith marriages, and marriages of straight couples who have adopted. I'll write to him as well, Rose.

  • 73. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Great, the more e-mails he gets……the more he might realize how stupid he's acting!!!

  • 74. RemC_Chicago  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    The auto reply is standard.

    Incidentally, I also wrote to the editors of the Salt Lake Tribune about the comments of the leader of the Eagle Forum from that same NY Times article:

    Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Eagle Forum, a powerful socially conservative group, called Gov. Gary R. Herbert’s directives recognizing same-sex marriages “ridiculous” and said that Utah’s leaders had capitulated in an important fight over states’ rights and religious freedom.

    “I think the state of Utah should say no,” she said. “We should stand up for our rights. Just say, I’m sorry, not in the state of Utah. The people of Utah have spoken. If the court isn’t willing to do their job, why should we concede?”

    I covered all the obvious points.

  • 75. sfbob  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Basically he's restating arguments which the federal courts have already rejected.

    "The differences between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship are large enough that maybe we ought to recognize the difference between them.”

    Sorry buddy. There are no differences and you can't make laws that create differences. Not unless you want to be very sorry.

  • 76. DoctorHeimlich  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    Since he's all about the classifications, why stop there? Certainly other kinds of "compare-ages" would help him keep things straight in his narrow little mind!

    What about "prayer-age," for relationships approved of by his church?

    Maybe they should have "millionaire-age," so that he'll know which couples he can appeal to for campaign donations?

    If only he believed in "laissez faire-age," and could leave us the hell alone.

  • 77. RobW303  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    And since so many laws only apply to marriage, not breediage, they would lose over a thousand rights. What's sauce for the goose….

  • 78. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Exactly……I wonder if I will get an actual reply from the man and if I do…I'll be sure to share it:-)

  • 79. Eric  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    I refer to their beliefs as superstition, we don't need a new word.

  • 80. hopalongcassidy  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:14 am

    So can we call the Bachmann's union "beardage"?

  • 81. SethInMaryland  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    this coalition group may have been what caused the confusion , i think courts need to start getting strict on who has standing and appeals

  • 82. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    Well, that IS what SCOTUS addressed in the Prop 8 case… I think it's pretty well settled and their are just grasping at straws with no chance of success.

  • 83. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    OH … but they are trying. They filed a request for stay with Justice Kennedy, too.

  • 84. DACiowan  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    The Wikipedia map also got protected for a week due to all the reverts, meaning no changes scheduled for a week. So until that changes (there is a petition to unprotect it), don't bother checking the Wiki map.

  • 85. SWB1987  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    All of the reverts? Were NOM interns changing it back or something?

  • 86. DACiowan  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Edit war over what to do with the precedent states like Kansas and South Carolina that don't have rulings yet. It's unprotected now, so back to updating.

  • 87. F_Young  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:26 am

    Aren't both these maps clearly wrong with respect to Nevada?

    My understanding is, following yesterday's exclusion of Nevada from Kennedy's stay of the 9th circuit decision, that marriages are legal and will be happening in Nevada today (if they didn't start yesterday already).

  • 88. montezuma58  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:07 am

    Technically marriage equality is not in force yet in NV. The circuit court remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to issue an injunction allowing it. That hasn't happened yet. First off the judge handling the case recused himself (professional misconduct in my opinion since at this point he's basically following orders rather than making any judgment). Second, the Collation to Protect Marriage has filed for a stay gumming things up. It wouldn't surprise me if everything gets cleared up today.

    Here's the best explanation of the current situation I've seen in the media:

  • 89. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    I don't think so haha ! It's just that there was uncertainty on what colour should states like Kansas, the Carolinas etc should have. First they were red as the bans are still in effect, then light blue meaning that same sex marriage was on the process of being legalized, then red again. Nobody knows for sure what to do with them. And then there is Idaho. It has changed like 3 colours since yesterday. Better let it like it is for a while till this whole thing settles down.

  • 90. RemC_Chicago  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    I'm going to print a blank map of the U.S. and color in the states myself. In colored pencil.

  • 91. hopalongcassidy  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:21 am

    Keep a couple Pink Pearls handy…

  • 92. MichaelGrabow  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm


  • 93. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:38 pm


  • 94. RemC_Chicago  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    And to think they went to all that trouble to pass Amendment One just two years ago. Ah, me. Here's an excerpt from WNCN: "State attorney general Roy Cooper has said his office would not defend the state's law now that the federal courts have ruled. But House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate leader Phil Berger have said they plan to hire outside counsel to defend the state's law. They pointed to the fact that 60 percent of North Carolinians voted for the amendment in May 2012." WHEN will these legislators LEARN that the U.S. Constitution holds sway over any state constitution? WHEN?

  • 95. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    60 % of less than 40 % of the population on a day of republican primaries. Civil rights are not to be out up for a vote of course but even for a legitimate matter that should be decided by referendum this is the definition of a biased result. It should be the law that no constitutional amendment can be adopted if less than 50 % of registered voters actually voted.

  • 96. MichaelGrabow  |  October 8, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    That is really great, and when you think about it, such an obvious, idea.

  • 97. wkrick  |  October 8, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    It was nowhere near "60 percent of the people of North Carolina". The Amendment was on the ballot for the May 8, 2012 primary so the voter turnout was really low compared to a normal November election.

    The total number of "yes" votes on Amendment 1 was 1,317,178. United States Census Bureau estimated the population of North Carolina in 2012 at 9,752,073. So, math…

    1,317,178 / 9,752,073 = 13.51%

    13.51% of the "people of North Carolina" voted for Amendment 1

    If you want to talk about "registered voters in North Carolina", which makes more sense, the total at the time of the May 8 primary election was 6,296,759. So, more math…

    1,317,178 / 6,296,759 = 20.92%

    20.92% of registered voters in North Carolina voted for Amendment 1

    Is it really a good idea to have our state constitution amended by percentages this low?

  • 98. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:27 am

    At least Maryland, Washington state, Maine and Minnesota voted on laws/constitutional amendments allowing ME on a general election date in 2012.

    ANY referendum on changing/keeping state law/changing the state constitution should ONLY be held when the most voters will be at the polls, which is almost always (99% of the time*) when general elections are held. (* Recall elections can be an exception on participation, but not all states allow for recall elections.)

    And in those states that do not have open primaries, not holding the vote on the date of the general election automatically cuts out those who are registered to vote, but not registered with the 'major' parties (Independent voters, those registered with the Green Party, Prohibition Party, etc., or any party that chooses candidates through non-primary means. In Virginia, for example, the GOTP sometimes chooses it's candidates through conventions, and not through primaries.).

    MOST people go to the polls to vote for or against a person, not a non-person (idea, concept, or whatever you want to call it).

  • 99. BenG1980  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:43 am

    Actually the vote in Minnesota that year was on a ban. Marriage equality was enacted (i.e., "allowed") by the legislature in May 2013 after the ban was defeated. The law went into effect in August 2013.

  • 100. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I believe the middle paragraph of Article VI explains it.

    I guess Tillis and Berger read the Constitution like they read their bibble – cafeteria style, picking and choosing only those sections they think support their opinions.

  • 101. DoctorHeimlich  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Kansas! (Johnson County, at least.)

    (For all the friends of Dorothy.) 🙂

  • 102. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Wow, that was quick! Did our side even have to ask the court to do this? Or did the court just take the initiate to do it?

  • 103. SethInMaryland  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    WOW!!! things are moving fast

  • 104. SethInMaryland  |  October 8, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    it's coming in NC soon

  • 105. DACiowan  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    A state senator in Nevada called a meeting to discuss the next steps — and proposed to his partner.


  • 106. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    CNN has this wrong. The state senator, Kelvin Atkinson, came out on the floor of the Nevada Senate in 2013, when the Senate was debating a bill to propose an amendment to the constitution (cancelling the anti-gay marriage Amendment 2).

    Last night's event was a press conference sponsored by Freedom Nevada, the Nevada chapter of Freedom to Marry.

    He did, indeed, propose to his now-fiancee last night.

  • 107. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Recalls Mandate in Idaho's Appeals.

    Order from Ninth Circuit (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON and RONALD M. GOULD): "In light of the fact that the mandates in these cases issued on October 7, 2014, we interpret the order of the Supreme Court dated October 8, 2014 as a directive to recall the mandates in appeal Nos. 14-35420 and 14-35421. Accordingly the mandates in these two above captioned appeals are recalled pending further order of this court or the Supreme Court. With respect to the emergency motion by the intervenor in appeal No. 12- 17668 to recall the mandate in that case, we direct both the appellants and appellees, including the state parties, to respond to the intervenor’s motion to recall the mandate by 5:00 p.m. Thursday, October 9, 2014."

    Does this moot Kennedy's stay, as there is no longer a mandate to be stayed, or does it automatically convert it to "a stay on the issuance of a mandate" now (similar to the 4th Circuit stay)?

  • 108. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    This is getting tedious and tiring..Apparently the intervenor has now asked Kennedy for a stay as well..I hope all this back and forth with the stays and the mandates ends by Friday the latest.

  • 109. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    I think Kennedy will deny the intervenor's attempt. He pretty much has to, given the decision in Hollingsworth.

  • 110. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    And more recently, NOM and Santai-Gaffney to some extent, though not identical situations.

  • 111. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    Reinhardt and Kennedy should just get on the phone and talk it out. Rules suck.

  • 112. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Kennedy already withdrew his stay as related to the Nevada case.

  • 113. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Right, I meant the Idaho stay.

  • 114. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    I really hope our governor and attorney general respond to the intervenor's motion and say, "It's time to give it up in Nevada, Dick and Monte." (Dick, a.k.a. Richard Ziser, the head of the now relatively defunct Coalition for the Protection of Marriage."

  • 115. JayJonson  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    Court has ordered Johnson County Kansas (the largest county in the state) to begin issuing marriage licenses.

    A North Carolina judge has lifted the stay on two cases there; he is expected to order marriages to begin there soon.

  • 116. RobW303  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    The intervenor, Monte Neil Stewart of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, who was allowed to argue for the ban in the Nevada case but who isn't a party, is now petitioning Kennedy to reinstate the Nevada ban. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice if this petition were granted. I also don't know how this plays with the 9th's recall (or whatever it is) of their mandates. Was the Nevada mandate recalled as well?

  • 117. wes228  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    The Nevada mandate was not recalled, they just want briefs on whether or not it SHOULD be recalled.

  • 118. DACiowan  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Here is the Ninth's recall of the Idaho mandate. They state that the parties in Nevada have until 5 pm tomorrow (Pacific Time I'm guessing) to brief on whether Nevada should be recalled as well.


  • 119. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    DAC – They want ALL parties to brief, including the now former government defendants. The 9th will not recall the mandate in Nevada. The only party left standing cannot appeal to the Supreme Court, despite his attempt to do so with Justice Kennedy.

  • 120. DACiowan  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    I wish they'd just send Monte Stewart a letter saying "Hollingsworth v. Perry. Now FO" and be done with it.

  • 121. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    So FUNNY! Indeed. I wish the same.

  • 122. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    A few choice quotes from the Coalition's petition, which, by the way, doesn't mention Hollingsworth once:

    "The Coalition, however, as a party defendant since virtually the beginning of this civil action is defending Nevada's marriage laws, and there is no question that it is as much a party defendant as is, for example, Nevada's Governor."

    No question? Seriously? Does the word "intervenor" mean nothing to you?

    "[T]he Coalition's reputational interests are uniquely at stake in this civil action, and those interests are far from de minimis; everyone knows what it means in this Nation to be tarred a bigot."

    No one gives a rats ass about your reputation.

    "[T]he Coalition is not relying, for standing purposes, on its status as the proponent of Nevada's constitutional marriage amendment."

    A lame attempt to silently distinguish themselves from Hollingsworth without saying so. Fat chance of that working!

  • 123. davepCA  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    "[T]he Coalition's reputational interests are uniquely at stake in this civil action, and those interests are far from de minimis; everyone knows what it means in this Nation to be tarred a bigot."

    That's hilarious!

    If they're so damned concerned about that maybe they shouldn't be trying to prevent same sex couples from marrying…..

    Wow, that is just frikking unbelievable.

  • 124. SoCal_Dave  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Yup. If you don't want to "be tarred a bigot" , just don't BE a bigot. easy-peasy.

  • 125. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    We don't know anymore… The law seems to be changing by the hour. My guess is that the clerks are holding off until the issue is settled by the Supreme Court / Ninth Circuit.

    (Some clerks might also be waiting to be forced by an injunction that the district court is supposed to issue, according to the mandate.)

  • 126. sfbob  |  October 8, 2014 at 8:55 pm

    /"[T]he Coalition's reputational interests are uniquely at stake in this civil action, and those interests are far from /de minimis/; everyone knows what it means in this Nation to be tarred a bigot."/

    In other words they are claiming that their good name is being defamed. By the court!. There is some audacity of breathtaking proportions. It is, first of all, a willful misconstruction of the legal meaning of the word "animus." Not to mention being a willful misconstruction of the of the word "standing."

  • 127. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    South Carolina AG is asking the state SC to stop that judge that is going to issue licenses (after he accepted applications today) to same sex couples.
    You can't really fix stupid as I already said. And it would be even more tragic if this SC proves to be bigoted enough to follow him down this lunacy.

  • 128. Zack12  |  October 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    If you need any proof of how some judges won't put aside their personal prejudices to do their jobs, Judge Robert Jones of Nevada is proof of that.
    He had no problem doing his job when it invovled ruling against us but now that equality is here he'll throw a temper tanturm.
    He's nothing more then a bigot in a robe.

  • 129. A_Jayne  |  October 8, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    The beginning of your sentence "He had no problem doing his job when it involved ruling against us" needs to have quotes around "doing his job," because he apparently thought it was his job to apply faulty legal logic and his own prejudices to the case instead of good law – and that is not what his job entails.

  • 130. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    BREAKING: Channel 4 reports Nevada marriages are off again, courtesy of a third order today by Justice Kennedy:

    Seriously, what the hell???

  • 131. wes228  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    Somebody take Justice Kennedy's yo-yo away from him and send him to time out.

  • 132. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    I'm suspicious now about this report. I don't see an order on the Supreme Court's website, and I don't see this being reported by any other news media.

  • 133. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:55 am

    The news report has been changed. Kennedy didn't grant a stay for Nevada.

  • 134. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Raga: I'm suspicious, too. I think they have confused the 9th Circuit's request for responses to the intervenor's request as another order by Justice Kennedy.

  • 135. Ragavendran  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Yeah, that must be it!

  • 136. franklinsewell  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    Our Las Vegas newspaper is now reporting that the County Clerk here, Diana Alba, will wait until the 9th Circuit issues a ruling on the intervenor's stay request tomorrow before deciding when to start issuing licenses.

  • 137. RLsfba  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    And we thought it was going to be dull because the SCOTUS divas would grant cert on at least one of those cases from Monday and all the current cases would be on hold. I think all this BS just works in our favor in the long run. We'll never know, but what if SCOTUS figured out their strategy when they finished Windsor? I've got an opera playing in my head about the private conference when they decided to deny cert. A circular firing squad, and each emote with great heartfelt arias, except for Thomas since he doesn't speak. I'm making popcorn as I watch ME progress. Lousy that we have to go circuit by circuit, but we're doing great. Thank you Peggy Tomsic along with innumerable others in these many cases to get to ME. Scalia loves the spotlight.

  • 138. ragefirewolf  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Oh dear. I am so lost right now. That's what I get for having a bad day off the computer. Anyone care to summarize all of this for me? Anyone? 🙁

  • 139. RnL2008  |  October 8, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    I so agree with ya…….I can't even update my stars on my other Rainbow flag because I DON'T know how many to put……ugh:(

  • 140. ragefirewolf  |  October 8, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Right? Ugh.

  • 141. brandall  |  October 8, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    I'll summarize today in one word. CHAOS.

    The courts are stumbling over each other. They all need to get on a conference call and agree on who should be issuing what, when and by whom.

  • 142. Dr. Z  |  October 8, 2014 at 11:07 pm

    Agreed. This is a mess of Kennedy's making. The SCOTUS can't keep making things up as they go along while giving no guidance as to what their new rules are. If they try to revert to "gay means stay" now they're going to turn half the country upside down during the middle of an election. This needs to stop now.

  • 143. DACiowan  |  October 8, 2014 at 9:21 pm

  • 144. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:21 am

    Seriously this on-again, off-again situation that has occured since Tuesday with Idaho but especially with Nevada has primarily hurt the reputation of SCOTUS above everything else. Kennedy making decisions in his own, taking them back, and then back to the 9th with more uncertainty and delay. It's meaningless and hurtful to all those couples especially, but county clerks as well, without any actual reason since, without a decision upholding the bans from the 6th, the outcome is easily predictable.

    On another note, if we all think this is chaos, let's wait and see if the 6th issues a decision today. Then we will see true, uncontrollable chaos no matter what way that goes.
    Honestly at this point I don't want the 6th to issue a decision till Monday the very least. Let's sort this out first, as well as NC,SC,KS,WY,WV, and then let's have a decision by the 6th.

  • 145. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:20 am

    I agree, at this point having a split is NOT a good thing to have.

  • 146. Waxr  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:51 am

    Traditionally, courts do not take a case if they do not need to. As long as there was no division in the appeal courts, there was no need to consider ME at that time. This could be the reason the Court did not grant cert to the appealing cases.

    The 6th Circuit knew that if they came out with a decision upholding the ban, that would have created a split, and the Supreme Court would have to take the case up. Why didn't they come out with that decision? Why don't they come out now?

    Considering the political climate of the states the 6th Circuit represents (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee,) my theory is that they are waiting for a politically good time to come out with a decision favoring ME.

  • 147. Fledge01  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:11 am

    Could be they wanted more legal cover to support ME by letting SCOTUS tip its hat first. I think they are in the process of making final adjustments to their ruling. Regardless, it would be great to have the new ME states have a chance to fully enact their new rules before the 6th rules (if the 6th plans to uphold the bans). All in all, I think Posner's aggressive and quick ruling from the 7th was a game changer in the eyes of SCOTUS.

  • 148. Waxr  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:48 am

    I agree that "more legal cover," is a better way of expressing it than "a politically good time."

  • 149. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:14 am

    A politically good climate in the 6th cir. states for ME ? I do agree this a tricky circuit with a solid red state in (Tennessee), a blue on the outside (federal elections), red on the inside (governor, state legislature) state (Michigan), a red on the outside, blue on the inside state (Kentucky) and the historic joker on everything (Ohio) but : a) I don't see much changing after these elections, at least not in favour of ME. Tennessee will get even more red and so will Kentucky probably, unless McConell loses, which seems unlikely right now. and b) Sutton does not care about such stuff, he will do what he thinks is right and based on what judicial signs he has. He did not hesitate to be the 1st republican to uphold ACA's individual mandate, an issue that effects much more lives than ME. Even if he had any kind of ambitions for SCOTUS nomination it's not going to happen, he knows it. Even if he rules against ME he will always carry the "stigma" of upholding ACA among republicans who want even shortlist him for SCOTUS if they take the White House in 2016.

  • 150. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:54 am

    With TN, it was never really Blue, only Purple.
    And even then, the Democrats were no better then the Republicans as they are of the Blue Dog Variety.
    Each of the five Democrats from TN in 06 voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment including that lying snake Harold Ford Jr.

  • 151. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:30 am

    I said Tennessee is solid red in my comment actually. I do not trust those southern democrats anyway. Except from some democrats from urban districts in Texas and Florida, the rest are not to be trusted much imo.

  • 152. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:25 am

    I think of any Democratic politician from the South (except for a very few) much like FDR, HST, LBJ, etc. did – don't trust them and/or count on them unless absolutely necessary, and only then after a long period of discussion and persuasion.

    It is much easier to not have to rely on them to get something done.

  • 153. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Its tough. They're tightrope walkers, really. I've been bitterly disappointed in Mary Landrieu for being about the only democrat in the Senate not to endorse ME. But what is one to do? She pretty much votes with us on the LGBT votes that matter. Would it be better if we were rid of Blue Dogs? Would we really like them all replaced by Ted Cruz clones? Of course not. Bottom line- some of these blue dogs are the best you can hope for given the political climate in their states.

  • 154. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:59 am

    She was not the only one. At least we all know she personally supports it, but won't do so politically due to the hostility of her state towards this issue.
    Joe Manchin on the other hand (D-WV) is probably the only democratic senator opposing ME on principle as well (has voted for some pro-LGBT legislation though).
    I agree with you, better have those southern democrats and their moderate attitude rather than the crazy fundies of the GOP in the south.

  • 155. brandall  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:16 am

    I am a major reader and contributor to this site. I have NEVER read any comment hoping a court would delay their ruling. We have all spent the last 11 months since Utah chomping at the bit or hitting <enter> waiting for decisions to be released.

    I must be honest…"at this point I don't want the 6th to issue a decision till Monday the very least."

    I have to agree with you.

  • 156. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:19 am

    I share your feelings and thoughts, up to a few days ago we were "shouting" to Sutton to make haste. But the situation the USA currently face on that issue is unprecedented in the LGBT rights movement as a whole, let alone in the last year of judicial action. Thus a different approach is needed.

  • 157. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:25 am

    Whenever the 6th Circuit announces their decision, they will wait the normal 21 days before issuing their mandate, so nothing will happen. I'm dying to know how they'll rule!!!

  • 158. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:27 am

    I am monitoring the 6th cir. site as they will issue decisions for today soon. I just have this gut feeling it will be this week, meaning either today or tomorrow. I do hope I am wrong.

  • 159. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:32 am

    What time do they issue their options at?

  • 160. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:42 am

    I am not sure, I thought at about 10:30 local time so they are already a tad late by the time I am writing this..

  • 161. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Seems to be 11 Eastern time, or 5 minutes from now.

  • 162. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:37 am

    Chirp, chirp, chirp.

  • 163. Terence  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:26 am

    News from Europe:

  • 164. brandall  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:41 am

    Nevada – "Tara Traynor and her fiancee, Cathy Grimes, had been among those waiting at the Clark County Marriage License Bureau, checking their phones for court developments on gay marriage and letting straight couples cut in front of them while they waited."

    Sitting in the back of the bus came into my mind when I read this. But yesterday, Tara and Cathy were not even allowed to board the bus.

  • 165. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:25 am


    OLATHE, Kan. (AP) — A judge in northeast Kansas has ordered a county to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following actions earlier this week by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Johnson County Chief District Judge Kevin Moriarty issued the order Wednesday. He says it was meant to avoid confusion about the legal climate surrounding gay marriages.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans on gay marriage. One of them was Utah, which is in the same federal appeals court circuit as Kansas.

    The Kansas Constitution has banned gay marriage since 2005.

  • 166. RLsfba  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:55 am

    SC marriages on hold 🙁

    The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered Charleston County Probate Court to “refrain from releasing same-sex marriage licenses” until they are able to fully consider the action, according to a release from Judge Irvin Condon.

  • 167. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:02 am

    Of course they won't, anyone who thought otherwise was fooling themselves.

  • 168. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:24 am

    No decision from the 6th today *phew*

  • 169. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:26 am

    You have to wonder if Sutton was waiting to see which way the wind was blowing on this one.

  • 170. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:34 am

    If Idaho's stay is lifted late today or tomorrow it may provide further indications to Sutton as to where SCOTUS is going.

  • 171. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:37 am

    I'm starting to get the feeling that the ruling from the 6CA originally was based on SCOTUS granting at least one request for cert., and then the 6CA was going to issue a decision upholding at least one, if not more, of the bans on ME in the four states in the Circuit.

    The delay might be the result of SCOTUS denying cert in all cases, thus tipping it's hand on how it would rule on a decision from the 6CA upholding one or more of the bans. I think the 6CA is now having to rethink the position of how it will rule, and thus I expect it might be as long as a month or more before it hands down a ruling.

    In other words, a delay in the release of the ruling very well could be good news for us, and especially all the couples in those four states.

  • 172. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:39 am

    i agree

  • 173. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:52 am

    I agree as well, Sutton must feel at least confused after the denial of cert to all the cases from SCOTUS. Whatever the majority opinion is, I don't think he will write it to be honest, he will be concurring most probably imo. And I believe one or more state officials (most likely Tennessee) will ask for an en banc hearing in case the panel rules in favour of ME, just to delay things.

  • 174. tushargoyal357  |  October 15, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    One of the best blog to find details related to Happy Diwali 2014 , to find Diwali Rangoli , Happy Diwali 2014 Greetings and Happy Diwali Wallpapers and Images 2014

  • 175. cylinder wedding silicone bakeware  |  November 10, 2014 at 9:01 pm

    Everything wrote made a bunch of sense. But,
    think on this, suppose you added a little content? I ain’t suggesting your content is
    not solid., however what if you added something that grabbed people’s attention? I
    mean Equality On TrialEquality news round-up:
    more fallout from Supreme Court’s action in marriage cases this week
    Equality On Trial is a little plain. You ought to peek at Yahoo’s front
    page and note how they create post headlines to get people to click.
    You might try adding a video or a pic or two to get
    people excited about everything’ve got to
    say. In my opinion, it could make your blog a little livelier.

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