Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Even more fallout from the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s actions this week

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

United States Court of Appeals Ninth CircuitThis post will have new updates throughout, as they happen

– First, in case you missed it, Justice Kennedy confirmed that his stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate applies only to the Idaho case, not the Nevada case. Nevada doesn’t plan on appealing, and hasn’t asked for a stay. Although the state won’t appeal, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the group who sponsored Nevada’s anti-gay marriage amendment, has asked the Ninth Circuit to recall the mandate. The Coalition has also applied for a stay in the Supreme Court. UPDATE to this story: The Coalition has withdrawn its request in the Supreme Court. SECOND UPDATE: The Coalition also withdraws its request in the Ninth Circuit.

– The Nevada case is final! The district court has issued the final order in the case enjoining the state from banning same-sex marriage.

– Following those actions, the Ninth Circuit has recalled the mandate as to Idaho. They have also called for a response to the Coalition’s request by 5PM tomorrow. UPDATE: The plaintiffs filed their response.

– West Virginia will no longer defend its same-sex marriage ban. The statement from the AG is here.

– The South Carolina Supreme Court has put same-sex marriage on hold in the state. The state’s ban will remain in place until a federal judge issues an expected ruling striking down the ban.

– The Arkansas Supreme Court has rejected calls to put the case on hold. This is likely because of the US Supreme Court’s actions this week, as the initial request was for the case to be on hold pending the decision by the US Supreme Court.

– North Carolina Republicans will hire anti-LGBT lawyers in what will most likely be a futile attempt to save the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

– The district court hearing challenges to North Carolina’s same-sex marriage ban is allowing those challenges to move forward. The defendants have to file their answers to the complaint, and then the plaintiffs can file other requests, such as a motion for summary judgment. UPDATE: the answers have been filed (here and here.)

– In other North Carolina marriage cases, there’s still more action. The plaintiffs in UCC v. Cooper have filed a motion to lift the stay on proceedings in the case, and enter a preliminary injunction against enforcing the ban. They filed a brief in support of their motion. Mecklenburg County’s Register of Deeds has responded to the request, asking for 14 days to implement any ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

– In the same case, the state defendants have filed a status report sticking with their position that North Carolina’s ban is unconstitutional because of Bostic.

– UPDATE: North Carolina’s Republican legislators have filed a motion to intervene in a challenge to the state’s ban. The request and the memo in support were written by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) chairman John Eastman.

– UPDATE: Also in North Carolina, the judge asked for responses to questions about whether the parties agree with the judge’s take on the pleadings thus far. The plaintiffs’ response is here. The state’s is here.

– The largest county in Kansas will marry same-sex couples.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. brandall  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:03 am

    NC – while the stay pending review by SCOTUS has been lifted…there is now this:

    "U.S. District Judge William Osteen notified the other parties in the case that Potter called Wednesday to say that the legislature “intends to file a motion to intervene” on Thursday. “The court will address that issue tomorrow (Thursday),”"

    History repeating itself, the South will not go down without a fight. Instead of the National Guard escorting students into a school, will we eventually see the National Guard escorting SSM couples into a County Clerk's office?….

  • 2. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:21 am

    The link in your post doesn't seem to be working. I did find some stories relating to marriage equality on the Lake Wylie Pilot's site. One consists of a link an editorial from the Charlotte Observer…very good IMHO (Joe Jervis has excerpted it at Joe.My.God), suggesting to NC House Speaker and Senatorial candidate Tom Tillis that if he insists on continuing to fight the legal challenge to NC's Amendment 1, he cover the cost out of his own pocket. It's pretty blunt and well worth reading:

  • 3. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:12 am

    "the South will not go down without a fight". For the record, the South isn't going down. The people of the South, as elsewhere in the country, are in contention with one another over Marriage Equality. One might just as easily say the South is waging a tough fight to enact Marriage Equality. We are in fact doing that precisely that. We won in Virginia, we're fixing to win in the Carolinas, and we're raising money to fund and fight a potential 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Loss right back to SCOTUS. The comparison to the Civil Rights era is apt, but only so long as we agree that integration was fiercely resisted by many communities in the North- Pontiac Michigan didn't go down without a fight either, for that matter. And there have been dead-enders against ME in every state in the Union.

  • 4. daveinasheville  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:37 am

    Well, Tillis and Berger have apparently now hired their "legal expert": NOM Board Chair John Eastman!

  • 5. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:51 am

    umm this is stupid and won't go anywhere , the judge will strike down the NC ban without paying any attenion to this , i don't think the NC leg will have standing or be able to intervene in this case anyway

  • 6. daveinasheville  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Agree. They're getting hammered in the comments in Raleigh, Charlotte and Asheville papers.

  • 7. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:03 am

    i know and the gop is already in trouble in NC , that might even lose the leg after the midterms, this is only to anger more ppl, using ppls tax money on a unwinnable case

  • 8. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Yes, I hope this stunt backfires on Tillis and he loses to Kay Hagen bigtime.

  • 9. flyerguy77  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Wow John Eastman has a great track record and CA……… CA does not has Prop 8 because of him HA HA HA

  • 10. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Ah, the joys of wingnut welfare.

  • 11. brandall  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:10 am

    Scottie's sub-headline: "Developments are happening quickly in the marriage cases."

    Brandall's sub-headline: "Keep hitting the <enter> key every 60 seconds all day long today"

  • 12. RemC_Chicago  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:46 am

    No kidding. MIne's worn down like the steps you see on the marble staircases of very old buildings.

  • 13. JamesInCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:14 am

    I know, right? The reload button in my browser is totally worn down.

  • 14. ragefirewolf  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:45 am

    F5 is my friend!! ๐Ÿ˜›

  • 15. brandall  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:15 am

    Arkansas is moving forward in the right direction!

    "The Arkansas Supreme Court has refused to delay proceedings in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

    Earlier this year, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel asked the court to put the case on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in challenges involving other states. On Monday, the nation's highest court declined to consider appeals in those cases.

    The Arkansas Supreme Court did not offer any comment in its one-sentence denial Thursday of McDaniel's request."

  • 16. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:07 am

    The docket has been updated reflecting today's order here. Plaintiffs-Appellees submitted their answering brief on Tuesday, which can be read here.

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

    yep the Ark supreme court is now going to move things very fast

  • 18. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:07 am

    At the time AG McDaniel made his request earlier this year, it might have been appropriate for him to do so. As of the release of the information by SCOTUS on Monday, it should have been EXTREMELY apparent to the AG that SCOTUS had reached a final decision on the five cases before it.

    If any other request for cert reaches SCOTUS this year, then it might again be appropriate for the AG to request a hold on the case, but until then, the court has ruled, and so any request by the AG for a hold on this case can only be interpreted as a delaying tactic (IMO and I'm sure others').

  • 19. ragefirewolf  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:47 am

    I love one-sentence denials in our favor. They are to the effect of:

    "Nope. So ordered."

    LOVE IT!

  • 20. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:21 am

    Nothing from the 6th today.

  • 21. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:32 am

    Is there an injunction/stay pending in South Carolina, or does the Lesbian Couple there get their license today???

  • 22. RLsfba  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:35 am

    They don't.

    SC marriages on hold ๐Ÿ™

    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.

  • 23. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:36 am


  • 24. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:51 am

    any info on when the ruling might come in NC?

  • 25. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:06 am

    I can't imagine it should take the court very long to decide. If I understand the linked briefs correctly all the defendants are saying:

    a) we agree that the Fourth Circuit's decision is binding and
    b) we aren't the ones guilty of infringing on the plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

  • 26. Brad_1  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:59 am

    I wonder who will go down in history as the poster child of bigotry and hate when we look back at this era.

    Who will be recognized as the George Wallace or Strom Thurmond of our time?

    Lots of good candidates.

  • 27. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:00 am

    In order to get a "George Wallace" we would need a governor who actively ignores a court order, requiring military intervention, which I hope does not happen.

  • 28. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Well, Mary Fallin tried to do an imitation of that with her refusal to let OK National Guard facilities process benefit applications.

  • 29. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Oh and she will try much worse, along with the Oklahoma legislature..Something to the lines "Each couple that marries legally in Oklahoma must be appropriately dressed – one part must wear a wedding gown and the other a suit. Any not properly dressed couple coming to receive a civil marriage ceremony will be turned away and fined". Or something along those lines anyway..!

    Oh and the "license to discriminate" bill is almost certain in all of those states of course !

  • 30. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Or maybe they'll try out the "pairage" idea floated by a Utah state rep, just to, you know, distinguish between the different flavors of marriage.

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

    Anyhow they will be slapped by courts yet again. But I do not think they'll go or ,if they go, stay only there in Oklahoma. Utah's reaction has been much more mild on every level, the worst thing we heard is this ridiculous "pairage" thing, which is hilarious to even think about. Other than that, they seem to have conceded greatly, at least the governor and the AG (who did not seem that eager to fight the issue in first place anyway).

    Falin on the other hand has been much more hostile and unwilling to give in and the OK legislature has made it a habit passing resolutions stating their support for the ban. There will be an orgy of anti-LGBT bills in the OK legislature imo, the one worse than the other. I suppose it wil be impossible to defeat them on the floor so again the courts must intervene to protect LGBT citizens.

  • 32. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    What bothers me is the unconscionable time delay between such laws being enacted and them being struck down. Laws like this should have to pass a constitutionality sanity check before they can go into effect.

  • 33. F_Young  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    RobW303: "Laws like this should have to pass a constitutionality sanity check before they can go into effect."

    Indeed, there are countries where an opinion certifying that a bill is constitutional is required before a law can be passed.

  • 34. A_Jayne  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    Perhaps that should be our next Constitutional amendment!

  • 35. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    Maybe after the ERA and ENDA. Think we'll live to see the day?

  • 36. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:32 am

    "Pairage" And to think they say that Red State People don't have an ironic sense of humor.

  • 37. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:25 am

    That would be twice divorced Mary Fallin.

  • 38. BaronDrei  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:42 am

    Twice? Really? Did she dump Wade Christenson already?

    Yes, this is the same at-least-once-divorced-and-twice-married Mary Fallin who reportedly had an affair with her State Patrol bodyguard while she was Lieutenant Governor and still married to her first hub, Joseph Fallin. The bodyguard resigned, Joe got a divorce, and the good people of OK forgave her indiscretion and elected her to two terms in Congress and promoted her to Governor.

  • 39. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Hard to tell, there are so many people to choose from.

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

    Late-game moves will define legacies.

    Who will be the last judge to rule against marriage equality?

    Who will be the last governor to fight against marriage equality?

  • 41. Randolph_Finder  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:14 am

    My guess Nebraska. This has less to do with the Conservativeness of Nebraska, but rather because the 8th Circuit seems to be the Circuit (that has non-ME states) that will reach the Finish line last. (Assuming the Supremes not having to get involved due to the 5th or 6th)

  • 42. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:18 am

    i wonder though if that ruling in the 8th is still binding? that was a while back ,when this battle was no-where what it is now

  • 43. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:33 am

    General consensus is that it is no longer binding (IANAL).

  • 44. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Jindal probably. He is stupid enough to think that is good politics in his quest to become Vice President.

  • 45. FredDorner  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    I'd nominate Judge Feldman in Louisiana for the 2014 Leon M Bazile award. It comes with an engraved plaque which reads:

    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

    Other nominees this year are Judge Paul V. Niemeyer in the 4th circuit, Judge Robert C. Jones in the 9th circuit, and Judge Paul J. Kelly in the 10th circuit..

  • 46. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:15 am

    In UCC V. Cooper, the other NC case in the Western District the G.W. Bush appointee judge (Martin Reidinger – he is even mentioned to the proposed by the plaintiffs order) has recused himself and sent the case to Max Cogburn jr, an Obama appointee.

    It's physically impossible for these people to even sign an order..! And had Bostic not been decided this man would go on and decide on that case instead, in all his obvious now bigotry ! They do not even have the decency to recuse on time..!

  • 47. cpnlsn88  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:01 am

    Good evidence of animus. The provision of justice should be without respect to person.

  • 48. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    A good example of lack of animus by a court could be SCOTUS when it ruled in the Miranda case. Miranda was a thoroughly disgusting person (as a person), but SCOTUS ruled on the law, not the person.

    Another example of lack of animus by a court might be SCOTUS when it ruled in the 'National Socialist Party of America et al. v Village of Skokie' (aka neo-Nazis v Skokie) case. I think most here would agree with me that the neo-Nazis are (and always have been) repulsive and repugnant, but SCOTUS ruled that the Village of Skokie was violating the freedom to assemblage rights of American citizens, and thus ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis. Also noteworthy, IMO, in that case, the ACLU defended the neo-Nazis, even though many would say the ACLU has many, even a majority of, Jewish attorneys.

  • 49. David Cary Hart  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:58 am

    I would not think that Monte Stewart's (Mormon) coalition has standing in Nevada to intervene:

  • 50. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:04 am

    I wouldn't think so either. And nothing he says in his brief even remotely justifies an alternative view.

  • 51. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:51 am

    They DO NOT have standing to intervene. The U.S. Supreme Court handed the 9th Circuit its proverbial rear-end for allowing the proponents of California's constitutional amendment to intervene, despite the California Supreme Court saying they did have standing. The Coalition's arguments are baseless and ignore the decision in Hollingsworth V. Perry.

  • 52. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    In California, proponents of ballot initiatives DO have standing in state courts (per the advisory opinion by the Cal. state Supreme Court), but proponents of ballot initiatives do NOT have standing in Federal courts (per SCOTUS).

    In this instance, the case is in Federal court, therefore the proponents do NOT have standing.

  • 53. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Thanks for the additional clarification, Mike.

  • 54. Eric  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Thankfully, Pugno makes a better bigot than an attorney. Future initiatives will include language granting standing to proponents.

  • 55. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    David: I should have said … They do not have standing to appeal. They were already intervenors, so approved by the district court judge and even the 9th.

  • 56. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    They have withdrawn their requests from both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit in regard to Nevada. We're now just waiting for the Nevada order to be issued.

  • 57. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:25 pm


  • 58. RQO  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:15 pm

    But you have to love Monte's "bonding rights". I have this image of thousands of 3 year olds hiring Goldman Sachs and selling enough bonds to get them through college.

  • 59. flyerguy77  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Take some deep breaths, keep calm and have a great day.. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 60. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Hearing scheduled on the motion to dismiss the lawsuit in South Dakota (the case is Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard) for Oct.17. It will be interesting to see if Brunning will play its role in 8th circ. states or if SCOTUS's actions on Monday (and all the other rulings on every level nationwide for that matter) will sustain the case.

    I don't believe it will be dismissed personally, even if Brunning is considered controlling in the 8th.

  • 61. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:31 am

    Hopefully the 8th will opt to hear the case initially en banc, so the spectre of Brunning doesn't have to hang over their decisions. I think it very likely that the District Courts in the 8th Circuit will still find Brunning controlling.

  • 62. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Republican appointees most definately will cherish Brunning. For example I expect little in the North Dakota were the only 2 justices are both Bush appointees. But the judge in the South Dakota case, a Clinton appointee, may think about the decisions in a different way given the way Windsor was used in many of the pro equality rulings the last year.

    Anyway I don't believe ME stands much of a chance to take the victory this time around in the 8th. It will take much luck with the panel in this 7/11 Bush (senior and junior) appointees court.

  • 63. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:43 am

    we had pretty good luck though with bush appointees though

  • 64. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:46 am

    True but that does not mean they are not more likely to rule against ME, especially in places like North Dakota, where higher court precedent already exists.

  • 65. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    We had one bigoted Clinton appointee rule against us in DOMA.
    It won't shock me if one more rules against us, especially in the 8th circuit.

  • 66. David Cary Hart  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    I wrote about this today (… ). The 8th CCA is EXTREMELY conservative. En banc they overruled the panel and reinstated SD's preposterous abortion law. Six of the 11 judges were appointed by W. Seven of the judges are products of (mediocre) local law schools.

  • 67. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Indeed, next to the 5th circuit, the 8th is the one most likely to rule against us.
    They did it once, I have no doubt they would do it again.

  • 68. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    I think the 8th may be the only circuit that won't have the time to issue a ruling on ME in this round of litigition anyway. If the 6th does not rule against ME, the 5th will and well before the 8th gets a case in its hands or hold arguments probably. And then SCOTUS will take on from there. The Dakotas and Nebraska will be among the very last states to get ME.

  • 69. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Can they really resurrect Brunning?!?! Its as remote as Dred Scott already.

  • 70. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Of course they can. It's the most recent decision in the 8th circuit regarding the issue, thus supposedly controlling. Why does it surprise you ? Baker was decided (sort of) in 1972 and it's still cited from the opponents as controlling. Judges who reject Baker have to spent time and pages on their rulings to explain why it is not.Brunning is much more recent with the only real judicial development since being Windsor. It's the only card we got (maybe along Monday's denials of cert) in any court in the 8th I think.

  • 71. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Seems I'm not alone in referencing Dred Scott this week-

    "Also from the American Family Association comes a new column from leading homophobe Bryan Fischer, the group’s director of issue analysis, likening Monday’s Supreme Court move to perhaps the most infamous decision in the court’s history — the 1857 ruling upholding slavery in the Dred Scott case.

    “The Court duplicated its wrongheaded and grossly immoral Dred Scott ruling yesterday by imposing same-sex marriage on the entire country. This is tyranny,” Fischer writes. “The Court was wrong in 1857 and it was wrong [Monday]. It was wrong on slavery and it is wrong on sodomy. … By the time this Court has finished working its mischief, all 50 states will be bludgeoned into recognizing the infamous crime against nature as a basis for marriage. This is a monstrous evil.”

  • 72. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Guffaw. . . . Let the bigots rant. Members of the Ku Klux Klan and their ilk occasionally crawl out from under their rocks, but their influence is marginal even in the deepest of the Deep South. Regardless of the ruling from the various courts, people will exercise their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. Other bigots will fund their hate. Life will go on, especially for the rest of us who do not give a flying rodent flatus what hypocrites and bigots think.

  • 73. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    It's said that even a stopped clock is correct once or twice a day.

    In this case though, the clock is stopped at 10:00 AM, and the current time is 4:00 PM.

    In other words, more bloviating from Bryan Fischer, who, as usual, is at least a day late and a dollar short in his arguments.

  • 74. Eric  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    But, Fisher's denomination supported slavery and the Dred Scott decision. It's nice that he admits his superstition is immoral.

  • 75. Waxr  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    In the Dred Scott case, the justices were conservatives, most of them were from southern states and owned slaves.

  • 76. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:52 am


  • 77. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Another rational one. The SC AG may want to take some notice finally, as well as WY officials.

  • 78. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:05 am

    Indeed, they are simply dragging it out.
    The district court judges are bound by the rulings of the 10th and 4th circuits now.
    They will have no choice in their rulings, peiod.

  • 79. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:53 am

    MSNBC is reporting that West Virginia Attorney General has thrown in the towel: will no longer defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

  • 80. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Joe.My.God is reporting that West Virginia Governor Earl Ray has ordered county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

  • 81. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:04 am


  • 82. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Trying to get independent confirmation that Nevada intervenors have dropped application for stay to Justice AMK.

  • 83. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:05 am

    i hope so

  • 84. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:06 am

    I have CONFIRMATION. They dropped both applications for stay (in the 9th and with Justice Kennedy)!!!


  • 85. montezuma58  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:12 am

    CPM cedes in Nevada.

  • 86. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:07 am

    now finally marriage equality can go forward in Las Vegas and the of rest of Nevada

  • 87. Pat_V  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:22 am

    WOW great news! Are there reports on the ground about same-sex couples actually getting married in Nevada and in West Virginia this afternoon?

  • 88. MichaelGrabow  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:43 am

    ACLU of WV says the clerks will be able to issue licenses by 10/14.

  • 89. dorothyrothchild  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Just read they will issue licenses today if you don't mind them with the old wording.

  • 90. MichaelGrabow  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:57 am


  • 91. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Can the married couples come back and get the new form if they want?

  • 92. bythesea66  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    When my husband and I were married in Toronto they hadn't updated the applications yet, but we still married and that didn't affect the certificate issued after. Likely the same here.

  • 93. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    That's when they'll have the new forms. The AG says they can start today, using the old forms, though it looks like not all counties will until an injunction is issued.

  • 94. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:26 am

    Awesome, awesome, awesome!

  • 95. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:08 am

    If someone can give me a contact, I can send the files to EQF.

    They are on Lambda's website:

  • 96. Rik_SD  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:09 am

    This is making my head spin.. I wish there was an updated map

  • 97. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:11 am

    now if kenndey just give us one more postive news in Idaho this day will be like winning the lottery

  • 98. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:19 am

    The parties in the Idaho case are not required to submit briefs until 5 EDT today, so I would not expect a decision until tomorrow at the earliest.

  • 99. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:22 am

    i don't know about that, remeber the attempt at a stay in cal was rejected thatday during the late night by kennedy

  • 100. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    But there is no urgency when it's for LGBT folk.

  • 101. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    The initial ruling against the laws preventing ME came in the late evening (after 10:00 PM, I believe) in February in Virginia.

    Several courts (including SCOTUS) have issued stays late in the day (hours after court closing) in non-death sentence cases.

  • 102. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:18 am

    i think the go head is now happening in West Virginia, this has been crazy week but it has been amazing hasn''t it?

  • 103. cpnlsn88  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Today and the next few days are going to be somewhat special as the earthquake unleashed from the Supreme Court works its way through in various judders, tremors and aftershocks impacting on different states. One way or another marriage equality is now coming to states covered by the 10th, 4th, 7th and 9th Circuit. A new metric will need to be applied to stay requests, so other states can be involved as well (not to mention State Supreme Courts). So the drama will be played out in a number of states – though in others they may proceed calmly to integrate same sex marriage without much fuss. Sooner rather than later legal avenues will be exhausted and the new reality will be born. By my calculations same sex marriage will be accepted and legal in at least 35 states and SCOTUS might have to bring them into line with the majority. That does not prevent the next few days from being hectic, confusing and perplexing.

  • 104. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:24 am

    35 states + DC + 3 TERRITORIES! As I keep pointing out on Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Facebook pages.

    Lambda Legal has a suit in Puerto Rico. Have they completely forgotten about American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands (under the 9th's jurisdiction)?

    In order to close out the 1st and 3rd Circuits we need marriage equality in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

  • 105. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:40 am

    IANAL – So, here's the question: Do the decisions of the circuits have the same precedential effect in the territories as opposed to the states?

  • 106. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:46 am

    The Constitution does not apply as of right in the territories. It is up to Congress to decide by law which parts, if any, they want to apply to the territories. While the full Constitution does not apply in some territories (such as the Northern Mariana Islands), Congress has applied the 14th Amendment to all of our territories.

    Therefore, a determination by the 9th Circuit that the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry should apply to these territories.

  • 107. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Thanks, Wes228 … I appreciate the answer.

  • 108. ragefirewolf  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:55 am

    That's partially incorrect. See the Insular Cases.

  • 109. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:59 am

    The Insular Cases say that the Constitution does not automatically apply to the territories, which is what I said. Congress however can pass pretty much any law they like regarding the territories. They have passed laws that apply certain portions of the Constitution to these territories.

    I can only find the law that applies to Guam (the Guam Organic Act). There is a court decision in American Samoa which says the Equal Protection Clause applies there too.

    Guam Organic Act:… (search "second sentence of section 1 of the 14th Amendment)

    American Samoa (court decision):

    Northern Mariana Islands (opinion of Attorney General, references law that applies EPC to the islands):

  • 110. ragefirewolf  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Again, that's partially incorrect. It applies in part automatically and in part, it does not.

    See, for example, Torres v. Puerto Rico.

    "The Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico."

  • 111. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    None of the Constitution applies automatically to the territories, except perhaps the 13th Amendment which prohibits slavery not just in the United States, but also in any place "subject to their jurisdiction."

    Remember that unincorporated territories (all of our inhabited territories are unincorporated) are NOT the United States. When you are in Puerto Rico you are not in the United States.

    Congress has chosen to pass a law that applies the entire Constitution to Puerto Rico.

  • 112. brooklyn11217  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    All of this is very interesting…but, US citizens don't need a passport to go to Puerto Rico, do we? So, doesn't that in a way mean that one is still "in" the US when in Puerto Rico? Although maybe not subject to the same laws? Also curious, since my fiance has been to Guam, and we have a friend from there as well.

  • 113. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    You don't need a passport to go to Puerto Rico (or Guam), but you are still not in the "United States." You are in a place that belongs to, but is not a part of, the United States. This was determined by the Insular Cases.

    People who are born in Puerto Rico, for example, are not born U.S. citizens because of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause (because they are not born in the United States). They are born U.S. citizens because Congress has opted, out of the kindness of their hearts, to pass a law making them citizens.

    The only territories that are part of the United States are *incorporated* territories, of which we have only one (the Palmyra Atoll) and it is uninhabited.

  • 114. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    And the only reason Congress passed a law making Puerto Rico part of the US was because it feared the US would run out of 'draft eligible' males in WW I, and the quickest and easiest way to make sure the males in PR could be drafted was to incorporate PR under the Constitution.

    At the same time, CONservatives argue that the citizens of PR cannot vote for President in PR because the Constitution only allows voters in states to vote for President (DC got the vote for President upon passage of the 23rd Amendment).

  • 115. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    There are only 538 people in the country who actually get to vote for President. Everyone else votes for a slate of electors who will vote on their behalf.

    Citizens of Puerto Rico cannot vote for a slate of electors because the number of electors is determined by how many voting representatives you have in the House (0) plus Senators (0) and 0+0=0.

  • 116. Eric  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    I've always wondered, is the atoll uninhabitable, or does no one live there yet?

  • 117. BenG1980  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Palmyra is definitely inhabitable — and people have lived there in the past — but no one currently resides there permanently. These days, scientists live there temporarily, though often for months at a time, and most of the land is federally-managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a National Wildlife Refuge. The Nature Conservancy also owns a small portion.

  • 118. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    A brief history lesson: The Palmyra Atoll is our only incorporated territory because it used to be a part of the Territory of Hawaii, which was for a long period of time before statehood, an incorporated territory.

    When the Territory of Hawaii became the State of Hawaii, the statehood act carved out the Palmyra Atoll so that it could remain a conservation site under the full control of the federal government.

  • 119. Steve27516  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    It's complicated. Puerto Ricans *are* U.S. citizens, but, owing to their residency in Puerto Rico, are subject to some laws that are unique to Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico. For example, persons living in Puerto Rico cannot vote for President of the US, but if those same persons move to the States, they can vote for President. (And then, if they move back to Puerto Rico, once again they cannot vote for President.) Complicated.
    Be that as it may, Puerto Rico's federal courts are subject to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • 120. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Again, Congress has opted (via law) to make Puerto Ricans and Virgin Islanders U.S. citizens. They did not have to do this (and to date have NOT done so for Samoans, who are only U.S. nationals).

    Congress has opted (via law) to apply all of the Constitution to Puerto Rico (and I believe all of it also applies to V.I.).

    It was decided in the Insular Cases that the Constitution does not automatically apply to unincorporated territories. Congress can choose to apply some or all of the Constitution to these territories, but they don't have to either.

  • 121. Steve27516  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Thank you, wes228 – very interesting. I guess that helps to explain why there is no US district court in American Samoa. I see more information on territorial courts in the federal judiciary here:
    All this makes me wonder if the Wikimedia same-sex-marriage map ought NOT to include American Samoa at all.

  • 122. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Federal cases that originate in American Samoa (a very rare occurrence since their local territorial court–akin to a state court–handles pretty much everything) are heard in the District Court for the District of Hawaii, which is bound by the 9th Circuit.

  • 123. Fledge01  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    One thing to address is the type of relationship. The U.S. Virgin Islands are a territory while Puerto Rico is a commonwealth. I used to live in the USVI

    So in the U.S. Virgin Islands (I don't know about other places) they full U.S. citizens, they have the same rights as all U.S. citizens. Citizens there can be drafted into the U.S. army, they pay U.S. federal income taxes (though 100% is returned to the territory), a letter from Alaska to the US Virgin Islands costs the same as a letter between any two states. They have passports that say citizen of the United States of America. If a constitutional right does not apply to a citizen of a territory, its because the specific clause is worded in a way that addresses state limitations and not a clause that addresses individual rights. The territories can't pass laws that conflict with any part of the U.S. constitution. (In the U.S. Virgin Islands some senators had tried to give additional rights to those who were born there over someone from the mainland, who just arrived, regarding how long you have to live there before being able to vote and there efforts were not successful because it violated the U.S. Constitution)

  • 124. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    The term "Commonwealth" has no legal distinction in terms of Puerto Rico's territorial status. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Constitution only applies to PR insofar as Congress wishes it to apply to PR. PR's local government exists at Congress' pleasure only, and any PR law can be superseded by Congress at any time. Elected officials hold office in PR at Congress' pleasure and can be removed by them at any time.

  • 125. Fledge01  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    the deleted comment below is the same as the one above. Just a mix up. Sorry.

  • 126. ragefirewolf  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    I'm not saying you're totally wrong. Most of the rights enjoyed by Puerto Ricans as US citizens are because of Congress having broad power over the territories of the United States. In other ways, the Supreme Court has applied the Consitution directly to Puerto Rico, such as the Fourth Amendment.

    If you meant the Fourteenth Amendment, which we would care about here, doesn't automatically apply to the unincorporated territories, you would be correct.

    What I meant is that your original sweeping statement of the whole of the Constitution not applying to territories automatically is incorrect, and I'm right about that.

  • 127. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    In that decision, the Supreme Court notes:

    Congress generally has left to this Court the question of what constitutional guarantees apply to Puerto Rico. However, because the limitation on the application of the Constitution in unincorporated territories is based in part on the need to preserve Congress' ability to govern such possessions, and ****may be overruled by Congress, a legislative determination that a constitutional provision practically and beneficially may be implemented in a territory is entitled to great weight.****

    *****Both Congress' implicit determinations in this respect and long experience establish that the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on searches and seizures may be applied to Puerto Rico without danger to national interests or risk of unfairness.*****

    Congress could pass a law saying "The 4th Amendment does not apply to Puerto Rico" if they wanted to.

    I don't dispute the fact that all relevant portions of the Constitution apply to Puerto Rico. The difference is, the Constitution applies to Puerto Rico only because Congress says so. This is unlike a U.S. State, the District of Columbia, or an incorporated territory, where the Constitution applies automatically.

  • 128. ragefirewolf  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    Alright. Thanks for the clarification. I learned something today.

  • 129. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Slight correction –

    DC does not fall under the Constitution automatically. Since passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, Congress reviews all legislation passed by the council before it can become law, and retains authority over the District's budget. Also, the US President appoints the District's judges, and the District still has no voting representation in Congress.

    More info at:

    One twist DC has is that the City Council cannot be composed of one party only, but another party must be represented. The GOTP was shut out for many years because the 'second party' people voted for was the 'DC Statehood Party'.

  • 130. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    What orders will need staying in the remaining districts and circuits (he says pessimistically)? Even if there are positive rulings, the judges will probably issue their own stays voluntarily; the circuit courts surely will, obviating the need for the SCOTUS to re-evaluate the prevailing "gay means stay" policy.

  • 131. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:25 am

    An article that sums everything up.

  • 132. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    Great article and now I can add at least 6 States for sure to my flag:-)

  • 133. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:31 am

    The decision from the Coalition is probably not a product of good will but rather strategy. They know that in light of Hollingsworth they stood no chance to get a stay issued, so they drooped Nevada to focus on the Idaho battlefront probably. Well we did get another state for now, the 7th in 4 days (5 from SCOTUS denial + Colorado + Nevada) ! Waiting for the outcome with Idaho now.

  • 134. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    I think they did it to minimize annoyance to Kennedy and the rest of the SCOTUS, whom they'll need on their side for any chance of reversing the Idaho ruling.

  • 135. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    The minions of the fifteen old white men who are the One and Only True leaders of the oligotheoplutocracy we call HATU—The Bass Ackwards State (Utah)—are doing what said minions think the fifteen old white men want them to do. . .

    Because, as we all know, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.”

  • 136. robbyinflorida  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    I'm thinking that the "Coalition" Monti Stewart withdrew so he could work for the N.C. legislature.

  • 137. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    They have NOM and Eastman working for them there (who wouldn't hire them with such credentials, so many victories – not), Monti probably wants to focus onto analyzing sticks and balls to Kennedy for Idaho.

  • 138. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:42 am
    Sounds like the clerks that were sued in WV want to keep the fight going.

  • 139. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Wow, another day of things changing by the minute…….I really CAN'T update my flag until I know what we have for sure and what is still under change…….can someone give me the States we OFFICIALLY have past the 19th…..thanks folks!!!

  • 140. MichaelGrabow  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:59 am

    VA, WI, IN, UT, OK, CO, NV, and WV.

  • 141. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    That's as many states as we picked up all of last year.

  • 142. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    We have the cert denial five (Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia) and Colorado issuing recognized licenses to be at 25 states as of this second.

    West Virginia might be #26; I'm waiting for confirmation that same-sex couples are getting licenses before I count it.

    Once the injunction from the District Court comes out, Nevada will be #27.

  • 143. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Thank you for the answers……with everything changing rapidly……it's hard to keep up!!!

  • 144. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Looks like licenses are indeed being handed out in West Virginia, so we have 26 states and waiting on the Nevada injunction.

  • 145. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    And Nevada will not issue licenses until the District Court issues the injunction, for purposes of clarity.

  • 146. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Case has been reassigned to James C. Mahan, a George W. Bush appointee. I wonder why nobody wants to be the one to sign a simple injunction???

  • 147. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Judge Jones didn't want to sign it because he's a bigot who doesn't think we deserve the rights of marriage.
    He showed that during the trial, his ruling and his actions after he lost.
    Marriage equality is coming to NV but by golly, Judge Jones is going to make sure it's delayed as one last bit of venom towards us.

  • 148. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Umm. . . urrr. . . humm. . . [visual: hand wringing]. . . Judge Jones is a graduate of Brigham Young University.

  • 149. StraightDave  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Interesting that you say after "he lost". Judges aren't supposed to win or lose; they're neutral arbiters with no skin in the game. But in this case you may be right. He first lost as a Mormon bigot infiltrating our honorable court system who failed on his mission, then a 2nd time by a professional smack down from the 9th. He's a bad missionary and a bad judge.

  • 150. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    I get that, of course, but why not the next person it was assigned to, Judge Navarro? Why keep passing it on like a hot coal??

  • 151. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Judge Navarro is the Chief Judge, and may not have wanted to take on writing the injunction due to other administratively necessary tasks.

  • 152. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    I just re-checked PACER and I was mistaken! It says the matter was referred to Judge Navarro for reassignment.

    (Still, she could have done it herself. Note that she didn't have to write an injunction from scratch. Plaintiffs already submitted a proposed injunction. It would have taken her less than three minutes to review it and sign off.)

  • 153. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    There might be a large number of legitimate reasons why Jones didn't want the job . . . but frankly, I can't think of any. </snark>

  • 154. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    His reasons are not those of serious people.

  • 155. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    More News (thanks, Rav):

    9th Circuit states obvious: Mandate from 10/7 "in full force and effect."

  • 156. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    so actually West Virginia is the 26th and Nevada will be the 27 unless NC sneeks in there today

  • 157. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Well, the AG has thrown in the towel, but the lawsuit still needs resolution. What exactly is the criterion for deciding which state is first? I'm a bit confused.

  • 158. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    The way I'm counting WV as 26th and Nevada as potentially 27th is the order in which they start issuing licenses.

  • 159. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Oh, that makes sense. I didn't know WV is already issuing licenses (damn these collapsed comments, if they were mentioned by someone in there)!

  • 160. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Need a new thread:-)

  • 161. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    But to be fair, all counties must begin granting marriage licenses for the state to be counted before a legal injunction is issued, no? I don't know that that's happening in WV…

  • 162. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    Not all counties in WV are issuing yet, but the state is recognizing the marriages already under way, so it counts for the marriage map as of the current consensus.

  • 163. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    How about Kansas then? Not all counties are issuing, and those issued by the one county have to be recognized by the state as legal by court order. (Not trying to be confrontational, in case it sounds like that – just trying to understand precisely the criteria that is being used.)

  • 164. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    The West Virginia case is the state government ordering the counties to issue, so any hold outs in West Virginia have their days numbered. In Kansas, it's a single county, not a state-wide order. The map only deals with state wide situations, which is why the Tennessee case is not on the map as the stayed recognition striping of Ohio.

    If the Kansas state government or a judge ordered the other Kansas counties to follow suit, then Kansas would go dark blue.

  • 165. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Cool… thanks! I see that "State Registrar Gary Thompson notified county clerks around 4 p.m. that “pursuant to the governor’s mandate, all county clerks’ offices are to offer same-sex couples marriage certificates today, Oct. 9, 2014.”

  • 166. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    A small correction I'd use for order – I count them as to when a state starts issuing applications statewide. Some states have a 'wait period' of several days, others do not have any 'wait period'.

    I would list a state allowing applications on, say, the 1st, but people can't get married until the 4th (three day wait) ahead of a state allowing application for, and license of, marriage on the 3rd (zero day wait). And the same principle for 'time of day'.

  • 167. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    Okay folks, I changed my avatar to hopefully reflect the current states we have!!!

  • 168. David Cary Hart  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    The Christian Right are in full-tilt bat-shit mode It is simply amazing given the fact that we are a small percentage of the population and will probably be responsible for about 2% of all marriages (if Spain is a guide).

    These folks are expecting frog rain or a comet strike.

  • 169. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    They think everyone will stop reproducing and the human race will go extinct. They seem to overestimate our power and influence just by a little bit.

  • 170. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Not sure why Judge Mahan (the one now assigned to our case in the US District Court for Nevada) hasn't finished this yet, but here's the 9th Circuit – telling him he should:

  • 171. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    i heared it will be sometime this afternoon

  • 172. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    I wonder why Chief Judge Navarro assigned it to him; Mahan and Jones are the only Republican appointees on the court as everyone else is an Obama pick.

  • 173. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Maybe because he isn't a Mormon jerk like Jones is?

  • 174. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    I don't think he is Mormon.

  • 175. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    LOL: I wonder that, too. Why didn't she just write it? She's a rockstar.

  • 176. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    some more good news, this time in Europe:Estonia has leglized civil Partnerships , kinda a big step for fellow acticvist there

  • 177. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    First recognition of LGBT families in the former Soviet Union.

  • 178. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    They get them the same day we lose them (as the sole option, anyway; some ME states still allow them).

  • 179. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    WV is now blue on the wiki map..I don't think that's right yet is it ? Still the judge needs to issue the order.

  • 180. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    might as well , there are now counties issueing licences and by the 14th all the counties will be

  • 181. wes228  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    The state government is allowing same-sex couples to get marriage licenses. The order is just a formality at this point.

  • 182. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    It's that easy ? I mean practically the law is still in place until a court decision strucks it down..whatever I guess !

  • 183. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    This may be related to the fact that WV's ban was statutory rather than constitutional, so state officials that issue licenses aren't breaking any oaths or having to deal with conflicting ones.

  • 184. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    I suppose. Still a law on the books..Anyway as I said it doesn't really matter at this point. Maybe the judge will issue the order just for the formality of it and be done with all that.

  • 185. __M  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    What the heck is District Judge James C. Mahan doing in Nevada?? Come on dude, it's just ur signature!!

  • 186. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    I called his chambers. His secretary says he's looking at it and will finish it, "Expeditiously."

  • 187. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    From the 7 district judges (not counting the senior ones) on the district court, 5 Obama appointees and 2 Bush appointees, the one Bush appointee recuses himself (Jones) and they give it to the other (Mahan) ???? Really ???

  • 188. StraightDave  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    It'll happen. We're only talking minutes or hours here. Meanwhile, I'm rather enjoying this self-inflicted damage to their reputations.

  • 189. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 9, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Meanwhile, here in Utah. . .

    The Guv and AG were gracious in their defeat (except that Gary choked on his own foot while trying to explain his personal belief that states should be allowed to pass whatever bigoted laws their citizens desire).

    A few heads exploded (visual: “Mars Attacks!”), but the dire predictions that men would abandon their families and start having sex with farm animals generally does not seem to have happened. . . yet.

    One sewer-slime-sucking hypocrite in the state Churchislature spewed something stupid about differentiating marriage (different sex) and “pairage” (his term for marriage where unassisted procreation is not possible), and his nonsense got slapped down with widespread criticism. Some minor changes to the Utah Code will be necessary to remove gender-specific language like “husband and wife.”

    A few couples have applied for marriage licenses, and some had ceremonies in the hallways outside the county clerks offices. Others undoubtedly will be planning fabulous events for friends and family.

    And the sun rose over the mountains east of the Salt Lake Valley this morning same as always.

  • 190. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Utah (and I mean Utah politicians) took this one with surprising calmness and maturity as of now. I am impressed if not a little scared of what they may be preparing lol !

  • 191. StraightDave  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    There is a difference between polite religious law-abiding bigots and complete ignorant A-holes. I've been in UT a couple of times, and thought that on a social level they were genuinely nice people. They may have their "ways", but perhaps once the game/fight/war is over they shake hands and move on. Let's hope so.

  • 192. robbyinflorida  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    The problem with Utah is you can't find those nice Mormon boys in the bars (very often).

  • 193. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    I sent that idiot an e-mail yesterday regarding his comments and gave him a few suggestions for his marriage and other… this one:
    For opposite-sex couples who breed, their marriages should be referred to as "BREEDIAGES"

    For opposite-sex couples who can't procreate, their marriages should be referred to as "BARRENNESSIAGES"

    I mean if we are going to change the word for Same-Sex couples marriages……we'd better damn well change them for opposite-sex couples as well, right?

  • 194. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    Don't forget "adulterages" for those previously divorced.

  • 195. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Hey, I like that one……lol, bet no one wants their marriage referred to like that!!!

  • 196. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Let's see if we can make it stick to Newt Gingrich.

  • 197. Christian0811  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Good luck on the changes to the laws of Utah in this matter, it'll may likely be that it won't be for decades that the discriminatory language in both the statutes and consitution will be removed.

    I mean, even in California, where SB 1306 passed with overwhelming support, Rpeublicans nearly unanimously opposed the repeal-measure. Surely, in states where the legislature in blood-red, seep finically Utah, time will simply have to take its course as younger republicans take over. I mean, it's not like these states will be getting democratic legislatures anytime soon.

    And the constitutions will take longer too fix as those all (except in Delaware) require referendums and those are much more painstaking. The common example of this is in Alabama where it wasn't until 2000 that the Interracial Marriage Amendment was repealed despite 'Loving' being the common law since 1967.

    It will be a testimony, however, once the final ban is officially repealed as it would show that American society as finally evolved past such low-brow (and downright evil) prejudices.

  • 198. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    What makes me chuckle is all the sturm und drung of the Indiana legislature about whether to pass the state constitutional language passed in 2011, versus new language of a proposed constitutional amendment this year, then again in time for the 2016 election.

    Either way they wanted the legislative vote to go in 2014 (2011 vote and 2014 language, or 2014 and 2015/16 language), the proposed amendment will not reach the voters, as the 7CA (and now backed up by SCOTUS) has told the state it cannot discriminate when it comes to marriage.

    In other words, no vote in 2014, and no vote in 2016, by the voters on an amendment to the state constitution that would have enshrined discrimination into the state constitution. And as a bonus, the state laws already on the books are no longer enforceable!

  • 199. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm

    The discriminatory language will be a memorial to the religionist animus. I personally do not care if the language of Utah Amendment 3 is ever removed.

  • 200. Christian0811  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    Forgive my typos, I really need to proof read before I post

  • 201. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Since we are at Nevada, I found this on Jones's wiki page :

    "In August 2012, Jones held that Nevada's election law giving voters the ability to select "None of the above" was unconstitutional. He was overruled by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 4. One member of that panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, criticized Jones' handling of the case: "His dilatory tactics appear to serve no purpose other than to seek to prevent the state from taking an appeal of his decision before it print the ballots…. Such arrogance and assumption of power by one individual is not acceptable in our judicial system.""

    Coincidentally that was a decision also by Reinhardt.And such strong language…I mean if for anything else by the time he saw Jones's name on the Sevcik decision, he must have been worked up. This language against him by Reinhardt may be one of the reasons he recused from issuing the injuction on his reversed decision (by Reinhardt).

  • 202. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    still nothing in NC, i wonder when we will hear something?

  • 203. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    I believe we wil be hearing first from NV, then from NC and then possibly/hopefully from Kennedy on ID today.

  • 204. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    UPDATEin NC : Judge Osteen has issued an order giving parties until 5p to settle additional legal matters. No word as to when a formal ruling will be handed down. Stay tuned for more information after 5 PM.

  • 205. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    More reasons to keep on hitting F5.

  • 206. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    I have a question……how can a State Supreme Court trump a Federal Appellate Court's ruling?

  • 207. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    I don't think it can. There's this thing in the US Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.

  • 208. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    Which state are you referencing? South Carolina?

    If you're talking about SC State Supreme Court telling Probate Judges not to issue marriage licenses, they are fulfilling their administrative function.

    "The Supreme Court is responsible for promulgating rules governing all the courts of this state. This includes not only rules governing the practice and procedure before these courts, but also rules governing the administration of these courts. Additionally, the Court promulgates rules governing the admission of persons to practice law, and the conduct of lawyers, judges and court personnel. Further, the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of the Judicial Branch, is responsible for administering the courts, setting the terms of court and assigning judges to preside at those terms."

  • 209. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Perhaps the AGs of South Carolina, Wyoming and Kansas can explain, since they espouse this position. Please ask them.

  • 210. ranjitbahadur0  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    It is a technicality, the injunction bars the issuance of marriage licenses only "until the federal court hands down its verdict" (and It's final I suppose).

    That is to say, although the SC ban is certain to be struck, it hasn't been YET.

    While State officials in NC and WV have shown some grace and basically said "Ok, its only a matter of time anyway, just go ahead and get married now", SC is fighting on to the very bitter end.

    This is just a formality, although the circuit court decision has become binding precedent, it is not automatic, i.e. the other ongoing lawsuits still have to be rebriefed, replies filed, injuctions issued etc.

  • 211. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Lambda Legal: Per #9thCircuit: Mandate still in effect. Clerks in Nevada should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples: #LGBT —-> They are pushing Diana Alba to issue licenses in absence of injunction.

  • 212. flyerguy77  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    I'm confused……. Did WV governor ordered all county clerks to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples or does it needs to be an injunction by the District Judge?

  • 213. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    yes the governor told all the county clerks to start issuing licenses ,though some of the counties may wait for the offical injuction or for the new forms

  • 214. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Motion to Intervene from Thom Tillis + Phil Berger: http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws….

    Patheic and was a wastge of time reading

  • 215. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    Lord Jesus, Please tell them how stupid they are.

  • 216. StraightDave  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    No, please let them carry on. They will lose soon enough, anyway, and might embarrass Tillis into losing the Senate race to a Dem.

  • 217. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    I like how they managed to misspell "motion for intervention" on page 3.

  • 218. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Did these idiots learn NOTHING from when the House of idiots tried this and they LOST? Why are these folks allowed to do shiet like this just to cause MORE delays? I mean they have to know they are fighting a losing battle ESPECIALLY seeing that the 4th Appellate Court's ruling is already binding precedent!!!

  • 219. MichaelGrabow  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Hearing in Wyoming 10/16!

  • 220. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    For the federal lawsuit ?

  • 221. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm


    Should I be surprised that there is a hearing so fast? The lawsuit was only filed two days ago, and the motion for preliminary injunction and TRO was filed yesterday!

    I also wonder why preliminary injunction and not summary judgment? The law is clear, isn't it? There shouldn't be a need for briefs.

  • 222. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    It's 5:20pm ET. Does anyone have access to the answering briefs of the Idaho Plaintiffs with Justice Kennedy?

  • 223. davepCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Wow, I've been running through airports & sitting on a plane with no laptop handy all day and I'm just now able to read through all of todays events and comments. Trying to think of some adjective to describe it all but there are too many conflicting issues, most great, a few aggravating. What a day! This is amazing.

  • 224. StraightDave  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    You should stay away from airports for a while, Dave. I suspect there's still a whole shitload of wild days left in this movie.

    Not much OT: On Sunday, I had the privilege of attending my son's wedding (to a woman). There was a 2nd wedding going on at the same time in the same restaurant between 2 women. (I'm in MA.)
    I had a bunch of relatives visiting from Norway for the event and one of them asked me how many states allowed this now. When I said 19, my nephew said holy crap, I didn't realize it was that many! The next day we're hanging around out on the deck and I'm peeking at my laptop and blurt out "uh, make that 24". He says what the hell just happened? How do you get 5 all at once, especially spread all over the country like that. So ensured about an hour discussion of our court system and the background of how we got to this point. "What is this, 50 separate countries you've got here"? "Yep."

  • 225. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Nevada clerks not issuing licenses till the injuction is issued, couples are waiting in Las Vegas and there is frustration. What is the judge doing ?!

  • 226. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Already noted my frustration about that (the case going to the only other Bush appointee in the district court when Joner recused himself). Well without wanting to show much prejudice agains Bush appointees, I think an Obama appointee would have acted by now.

  • 227. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    I agree with that as well.

  • 228. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Yeah, the judge was assigned yesterday, and he hasn't acted yet. Judge James C. Mahan is a George W. Bush appointee. He has been involved in at least one controversy:

    And this amusing magician case, where he apparently denied a motion to have a jury comprised entirely of magicians:

  • 229. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    So we are dealing with a crook who got on the bench due to his connections and awarded millions to his friends through the court. Thank god he only has to issue an injuction here.

  • 230. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    He did disallow muggle-discrimination – we should give him that one ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 231. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    It sadly happens all the time.

  • 232. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Human Rights Council just posted a Tweet announcing Nevada marriage equality. I can't find anything new from Freedom to Marry or Equality Case Files, so I'm wondering if HRC is just running behind.

  • 233. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Just checked PACER. No injunction (or any other action, for that matter) has been entered by Judge Mahan.

  • 234. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    BREAKING (UPDATE), 3:40 p.m. MDT

    Clark County clerk in Las Vegas is now issuing numbers to same-sex couples waiting for their marriage licenses. Lambda Legal plaintiffs will receive first licenses.

  • 235. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Here's the Idaho Plaintiffs' opposition, thanks to ECF:

    I hope the Justices makes it a priority to discuss this early tomorrow at their conference and issue a decision by midday.

  • 236. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    This brief is wonderful.

  • 237. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Very well argued, addressing all the silly points from Idaho one by one (The scrutiny issue, Baker, the denial of certs to similar cases) and even pointing out that the part about the harm to the couples :

    "Applicants’ argument that this Court should issue a stay because same-sex couples and their children may suffer “dignitary and financial losses from the invalidation of their marriages,”see Application at 21, undermines, rather than advances, their argument. Applicants cannot simultaneously acknowledge that being stripped of one’s marital status causes profound, irreparable harm and yet urge the Court to deprive respondents of the ability to marry and to have their lawful marriages recognized."

    I do hope Kennedy refers this to the whole court. Honestly I can't see a stay issued. They could have avoided mentioning Berzon's concurrence about sex discrimination but nevertheless it's a great answer.

  • 238. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    This brief is beautifully argued. It is thorough and pointedly directed to the concerns articulated in Windsor itself. Justice Kennedy does not face a difficult decision in rejected the application for a stay.

  • 239. flyerguy77  |  October 9, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    HRC is reporting that the District Judge signed the injunction………

  • 240. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Still nothing on PACER. Perhaps a lazy clerk.

  • 241. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Still nothing on any of the other news feeds. Lambda Legal is reporting that couples have been issued "line passes" so they can obtain licenses when the injunction is signed but despite what HRC is reporting that doesn't appear to have happened yet.

  • 242. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Raga – Anything on PACER?

  • 243. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Still nothing.

  • 244. Rik_SD  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    yay! First PA was the roadblock to the equality express..then it was WV and now that is done too. Now it's Ohio standing in the way.. come on, 6th!

  • 245. Rik_SD  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    also they need to update kansas on their map

  • 246. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    Wiki map guy here. We're leaving Kansas off for now, since it's one county not recognized by the state.

  • 247. andrewofca  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    we need a new color code to show states that have "courageous counties" ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • 248. Rik_SD  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    thanks for the info! And nice to meet the person whose updates make me smile! ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 249. Brad_1  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    The take on this week's news from The Economist (which argued for marriage equality in 1995).

  • 250. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    This article is beautiful. I wish I knew who wrote it.

  • 251. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    I believe the author is Robert Rauch, who is interviewed in the accompanying video.

    "A bit longer ago, in the late 1960s, a young American boy came to a jarring realisation. “I am sitting at the piano daydreaming one afternoon, and it occurs to me that I will never get married,” he wrote in a later book. “So baldly clear is this realisation that I might as well be acknowledging that I will never have eight legs and spin a web.” This was a discovery at first merely puzzling, but later, with adolescence and then into early adulthood, sickening. It pointed ahead to a life in which furtive sex and fleeting assignations might be attainable, but the enduring security and companionship of marriage would be forever out of reach. No wonder he fought desperately, for many years, to deny his knowledge that he might be gay.

    Neither as a child in the 1960s nor as an Economist writer in 1996 did that boy ever expect that he would stand before a public magistrate in Washington, DC and marry the man he loved."

  • 252. Brad_1  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    The writer was Jonathan Rauch. Here's the backstory:

  • 253. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    DOH! Getting his name from the video to here, I managed to mangle it.

  • 254. Brad_1  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:36 pm


  • 255. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Yes, this is a very nice story. However, I have very mixed feelings about Rauch. He was a collaborator with David Blankenhorn on an op-ed in the NYTimes about a proposal that our opponents give up their opposition to our having the rights of marriage if we call it civil unions and give them broad religious exemptions. It was a particularly disgusting proposal from Rauch since he made it after he was already married. He was quite willing to sell the rest of us down the river.

  • 256. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    What's happening with Kentucky? Also why on the Wiki map is Nevada not dark blue yet?

  • 257. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    Nevada is not dark blue because the injunction hasn't been issued and clerks are still not issuing licenses, right DAC?

  • 258. Swifty819  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    That's what we decided over on the wiki. Personally, I think we ought to do something for precedent states like KS other than leaving them red though.

  • 259. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    How many guys here are actually working on the wiki map ?

  • 260. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    I'm Dralwik over there

  • 261. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    wow you had a lot of back and forth there with the light blue guys on Montana, Alaska, Arizona, territories hah !

  • 262. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    The injuction has not been issued yet. They are getting ready to issue the licenses but the line will be crossed once the injuction is issued.

  • 263. montezuma58  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Kentucky falls under the 6th Circuit. There won't be any changes there until the 6th issues it's ruling.

  • 264. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    It will also be interesting to see if any dissents will be noted this time around SCOTUS is deciding a stay. Whatever the decision is (I expect the stay to be lifted personally – wouldn't make much sense to decide the opposite) it should be interesting to see if this time around the dissenters will want to be noted.

  • 265. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    You mean someone like …

    oh …

    maybe …


    Wasn't he the Justice we were discussing earlier this week who wanted to make a big deal about unsigned decisions?

    IMO, this is reason enough for Kennedy to NOT let anyone else decide if the stay stays or goes.

  • 266. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    I don't remember that discussion..Honestly I don't know at this point who may vote and who may not vote to grant a stay…I hope SCOTUS further clarifies its intentions either today (unlikely, it's getting late) or tomorrow.

  • 267. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Thank you frank and guitar for your replies……'s only Thursday and it has been busy!!!

  • 268. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    A new thread might be a good idea with the number of comments. For a story, you could use the Idaho plaintiffs' opposition to the stay:

  • 269. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    A somewhat dangerous article on SCOTUSBlog's symposium:

  • 270. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Who cares really ? It's not like one opinion will vacate so many rulings and sent them to state supreme courts. The states themselves argue that state courts cannot decide on issues considering constitutional amendments in the state constitution. Isn't that what happened in Missouri ? The case was transferred from state court to federal.

  • 271. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    In Missouri, the decision was by a state judge.

  • 272. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    There was a case challenging the whole ban in state court which was transferred in federal court. The case is Lawson and Dahlgren v. Kelly and after being transferred fro state court to federal court, it was assigned to district judge Ortrie Smith.

  • 273. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Ahh…ย  Yes, but the case recently decided was by a state judge.

  • 274. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    I don't know why the case was removed to federal court, but state courts do have authority to apply federal law in cases involving federal constitutionality of state laws, as demonstrated by the recent Missouri ruling.

  • 275. JamesInCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    It's a bizarre argument, really. He's saying that because marriage, at the time of the founding, was addressed in UK law by the ecclesiastical courts, outside the civil or criminal courts, and because the Constitution doesn't say differently, that marriage simply falls outside federal jurisdiction entirely — and forever. It's as if the First Amendment never separated church and state, marriage never acquired civil status, and the Fourteenth Amendment never happened. In that alternate universe, he'd be right.

  • 276. JayJonson  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Calabrese is just navel gazing. Whatever traction his argument might have had is gone after Hollingsworth and Windsor. He wants to retry those cases, and it is not going to happen. I actually think he has a point about the absurdity of granting BLAG standing in Windsor, but that was a necessary move to reach the merits in the case.

  • 277. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    Did I read somewhere that there is a hearing tomorrow in Alaska?

  • 278. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    Yes, that is correct. It is unclear how the recall of the Idaho mandate, but not the Nevada mandate, in the Ninth Circuit will impact the arguments. (Oregon Judge McShane was not convinced that SmithKline could be construed as binding precedent before the mandate was issued there.)

  • 279. RobW303  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    From the last news I read about it, that's when oral arguments are scheduled in Hamby v. Parnell.

  • 280. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    Thanks guys!

  • 281. flyerguy77  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    I have a question about tomorrow's hearing in Alaska. Can the judge rule its unconstitutional, or does he must rule its unconstitutional based on the 9th Circuit's decision or can he rule differently?

  • 282. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    that 9th circuit mandate in Nevada is probally binding that Alaska judge to rule that in favor of marriage equality

  • 283. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    This guy is a REAL POS:

  • 284. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    He is but sadly he is likely to win

  • 285. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    What in court? or to be the next Governor of Texas?

  • 286. Rick55845  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    He is likely to become the next Governor of Texas. He is not going to win in court on DeLeon v Perry.

  • 287. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    So, the poor state of Texas get's another POS for their Governor…….damn, I'm glad I live where I do!!!

  • 288. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    He will win in the 5th circuit, as virtually all of the judges reflect the philosphy of the judge in charge of that Circuit, Scalia.
    The Supreme Court is another matter.

  • 289. flyerguy77  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    We don't know this.. I believe we should give 5th a benefit of doubt for now.. I see this happening– 5th rules against, ME case asks for an appeal at SCOTUS., SCOTUS denies the appeal, and reverse the decision without hearing the case and tell 5th to rule differently….. I think they can reverse decisions without hearing the case

  • 290. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    The 5th circuit just ruled that a woman having to travel 200 to 300 miles to get a legal abortion isn't an undue burden.
    They don't deserve the benefit of a doubt at all.

  • 291. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Along with this idiot:

  • 292. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Anytime, Judge Mahan…

  • 293. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    REALLY. I'm considering calling his chambers again.

  • 294. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    An update:

  • 295. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    An update:

  • 296. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    An update:

  • 297. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    An update:

  • 298. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    An update:

  • 299. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    A county photographer who planned to videotape the start of the licensing process, had showed up outside the bureau by 2 p.m. So had several Democratic politicians, including Rep. Dina Titus.

    Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, who was on hand alongside state Sen. Kelvin Atkison, put in a call to Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto for a status update.

    An hour-and-a-half later, Flores received a text from Masto indicating the judge hadn’t yet signed the order.

  • 300. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    BREAKING: Judge Mahan has issued the injunction. (PACER shows it now.)

  • 301. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm


  • 302. Pat_V  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    so marriage licenses will be issued by tomorrow?
    If i counted correctly, we had Colorado as number 25, West Virginia as number 26 and Nevada as number 27?

    So we are still missing, Kansas, Wyoming, North and South Carolina?
    as well as Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Idaho from the 9th circuit to bring us to 35.

    I haven't heard anything from Arizona and Montana: anything going on there? or is everybody waiting for the Idaho case to be settled before creating more confusion?

  • 303. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    The Las Vegas (Clark County) Clerk's office is open until Midnight, and she will begin issuing licenses as soon as she gets a piece of paper with the order on it, apparently. Carson City (state capitol) issued licenses around 4 p.m. Reno (Washoe County) is apparently also waiting on a paper.

  • 304. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    ORDER. The court hereby permanently enjoins the state of Nevada, its political subdivisions, and its officers, employees, and agents, from enforcing any constitutional provision, statute, regulation or policy preventing otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying, or denying recognition to marriages celebrated in other jurisdictions which, if the spouses were not of the same sex, would be valid under the laws of the state. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/9/14.

  • 305. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Finally ! What took him so long ? Congrats to all the couples !!!

  • 306. davepCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Nevada has odd working hours for a lot of professions….. Maybe he's on the swing shift?

  • 307. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Tonight, after 8:00 PM EDT, SCOTUS shot down Wisconsin's new voter law.

    And tonight, at or after 8:00 PM CDT, a Texas Federal District judge shot down the new voter ID law in Texas.

    Odd hours? A judge is on the clock 24 hours/day/365. The court rooms might not be open after business hours, but the judges are still on duty.

  • 308. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:17 am

    I was in a court case until nearly 2am a few months back, when we left there was still another case going on, and the COs said it was not that uncommon.

  • 309. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    He signed it a few minutes before 5pm Pacific Time. Sounds like he wanted to do it on his way out!

  • 310. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    According to Jon Rauston of the Rauston report, the injuction has been signed!

  • 311. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    It's Jon Ralston.

  • 312. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    I was so excited I misspelled his name.

  • 313. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    YES, Zack – noted just above ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 314. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Carson City issued the first license.

  • 315. Corey_from_MD  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    BREAKING: Carson City issues the first same-sex marriage license for the state of Nevada!

  • 316. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Apparently, our district attorneys are stupid. Why tell the Clark County Clerk that she has to wait for the paper if Carson City can issue a license at 4 p.m.

  • 317. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Maybe it wasn't the DAs stopping the issuance of the applications/licenses, but the county clerk, for who knows for what reason?

  • 318. franklinsewell  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:15 pm

  • 319. Fortguy  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    Aren't we also expecting some news from a court-imposed deadline late today in North Carolina still?

  • 320. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    These GOP legislators have queered the doo. It may take the judge another day to smack them down for standing. I hope.

  • 321. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Arizona is literally surrounded by blue ME states now ! It looks peculiar..Needs to be fixed soon imo ๐Ÿ˜‰ !

  • 322. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    So…on the front burner we only have NC, ID for tomorrow. With hopes for plot twists in AK, SC, SD, and WY next week. As well as wildcards OH/MI/KY et al, and, of course, FL. I'm Glad things are finally settling down.

  • 323. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    Alaska might be tommorow, i think it's possible the gov and att gen might decided to to not continue the case

  • 324. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    Given the binding force of the Ninth Circuit mandate issued in NV (which hasn't been recalled), you are right, the judge might simply issue a bench ruling and close the case.

  • 325. BillinNO  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Has anyone heard from AZ lately?

  • 326. Alphazip  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Here's an interesting take by Judge Alex Kozinski (prominent player in the Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management case) on why Monte Stewart and his Coalition withdrew from the Nevada case earlier today:… (Look in the Discussions under "Cynical Observer".) If the comment is really authored by Judge Kozinski, it's surprising that he, a Reagan appointee, would use such terms as "wacko clients" and "hateful lawyers". Of course, remembering that Judge Posner is also a Reagan appointee, perhaps not so surprising after all.

  • 327. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    I think you did not read that right…The commenter is of course not the chief judge of the 9th circuit. Take another look on the last paragraph :

    "I hope that Nevadans who were inconvenienced or upset by the result of these interloper Idaho lawyers' activities yesterday and today will send letters to the presiding judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals complaining about lawyer misconduct in the Nevada case and asking the court to impose Rule 11(b) sanctions on the Idaho lawyers.

    Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge
    9th Circuit Court of Appeals
    125 Grand Avenue
    Pasadena, CA 91105"

    The commenter simply gives the contact information of the chief judge for those who want to contact him about the whole issue he describes in the comment. I doubt the chief judge of a circuit would be commenting on a site ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 328. Alphazip  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Oops! My mistake. I thought it was odd, but Kozinski has done some eccentric things, such as having himself investigated for having explicit photos and videos on his website. Sorry!

  • 329. sfbob  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    It would have been a gross breach of etiquette (and possibly a reason for the judge to be disciplined) if he HAD said those things. However I suspect that if Kozinski doesn't feel precisely that way his overall sentiment may be quite similar. Kozinski has made it quite clear that he personally supports marriage equality. He also issued an administrative ruling, in 2008, in favor of Karen Golinski, an employee of the Ninth Circuit, supporting her demand that she be granted health insurance for her wife under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Another judge ultimately ruled in her favor and her case one one of the ones under consideration for a Supreme Court ruling. The Court instead chose Edith Windsor's case.

  • 330. RLsfba  |  October 9, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    Who would have thunk the first week of October, 2014 would bring us this. To go from Windsor to now is amazing and head-spinning. Yeah, it is becoming a race to see who will be the last holdout, what a "distinction." Gov. Herbert accepted and moved on, I think wanting to get his name out of so much public scrutiny. Herbert is a genius compared to the dudes in SC. Herbert so much hoped Kitchen v. Herbert would end the marriages, and then nothing. You did it right and we got Utah+.

  • 331. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    Here is the Nevada injunction to make it official:

    The North Carolina judge rejected the General Assembly's request for an extension to briefing:

  • 332. JamesInCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Judge Osteen isn't having it. Looks to me like he wants to rule on the intervention by the end of the day so he can have a weekend.

  • 333. guitaristbl  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    But he will decide about their motion to intervene tomorrow…He knows they have nothing to argue about and are just trying to delay the inevitable, probably in hope that the 6th rules against ME ? I don't know how that will affect their case but it's all I have..Or they are simply so bigoted that the longer they delay equality, the better they will feel, who knows…

    Anyway, he seems like a sensible judge and I hope he ends the whole thing tomorrow.

  • 334. BenG1980  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Tillis is running for the U.S. Senate against Hagan and the election is less than a month away, so I'm sure that factors into this.

  • 335. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:49 am

    It will work against him if Hagan takes advantage of it and explains how the whole thing is completely futile and a waste of tax payers money, no matter which side of the issue you lie on. I read that Eastman wants 10.000 in front and then 400 per hour to work on that. Such amounts of tax payer money given to a failure of a lawyer to defend the indefensible are certain to agitate even the most bigoted republican voter. Let alone that support and opposition for ME in NC seem to be tied now according to latest polls.

    On another note I have to say scales have tipped a bit in the battle for the senate lately in favour of the democrats.

  • 336. BenG1980  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:05 am

    Haha, it's true that it looked liked the scales were tipping in favor of Ds about 72 hours ago, but then things started looking pretty bad. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Rs would have a net increase of 7 seats if the election were held today (1 more than they need for control), and that assumes they lose Kansas, which is decidedly moving away from Orman now. As for NC specifically, Tillis is also catching up on Hagan in the polls. Hagan's lead has shrunk to just over 2 percent.

  • 337. Zack12  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:09 am

    It's going to be a tight race but I'm not going to be shocked if we lose six or seven seats on election night, simply too many seats up in red or purple states.

  • 338. BenG1980  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:17 am

    Yep, I agree. A good night for Dems would be losing a net 5 seats to barely retain control. I think the worst it could get is a net loss of 10 seats if Roberts holds his seat in KS, Hagan loses in NC, and Brown somehow beats Shaheen in NH.

  • 339. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:36 am

    Right now according to realclearpolitics and if we assume that Michigan and New Hampshire will go to Dems as polls suggest, Dems have a slight edge with 46 seats over Reps with 45.
    9 toss ups. One in Kansas seems to be going to Orman. The Dems need 4 of the 8. Hagan is the safest bet imo, followed by Udall in Colorado (will be tough though) and the Iowa race is awfully close and could go either way. Now if Grimes is able to do it and get out McConnell then that would be a game changer imo. Georgia is also very close. I consider AK, AR and LA lost causes personally, although Landrieu tries to hang on.
    It's tought but not impossible for dems to take 5 out of the 9 toss ups at best case scenario. I will be happy with the 4 to get to 50 personally.

  • 340. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:46 am

    Also worth noting that on Governor right now seems to be a net change of +3, which could play its role in states like Florida. Assuming that Quinn pull through in Illinois and Hickenlooper does not lose in Colorado (where its pretty close) it could be a +4 with Reps only getting AR.

  • 341. EricKoszyk  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:55 am

    Sorry to be the bearer of good news but you are incorrect. I follow politics and there are several things you should know — first of all, the only reason why things look worse now is that Fox News released a bunch of polls two days ago. All of those polls showed a strong Republican bias. Fact is they are probably not credible.

    For one example, while the Fox poll showed Orman trailing by 5, every other poll shows him ahead by 5-10 points.

    And that NC poll you mention was a poll done for Tillis. Even his own poll shows him behind! Most other polls show Hagan ahead by about 4 -5, which really isn't that much different than 2 points. It's within the margin of error.

    One thing you have to remember is that pollsters are having a tough time deciding who is a "likely voter" vs who is just a "registered voter". A lot of these polls are probably throwing out a lot of voters who will actually show up. I predict that the electorate will be slightly more Democratic than most of these polls are saying.

    This year will not be like 2010 for the Democrats. It also won't be like 2012 of course. It will probably be somewhere in between.

    Could the Republicans still gain the Senate? Sure. The Democrats are defending seats in some very conservative states. But it sure looks better now than it did a few months ago, especially since Democrats have a real shot at picking up seats in GA, KY and KS (if Orman caucuses with them which I think he will) and holding SD.

    Here is the best blog for all things elections. It is Democratic leaning but if anything it is mostly filled with realists if not outright pessimists.

  • 342. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:17 am

    You are right at most of your points, for example the FOX news polls which stand so much out from the rest it's funny to the very least to consider them credible. On the other hand I will disagree on the whole "likely voters" vs. "registered voters" issue. The voting restrictions enacted in many purple (Ohio), light blue (Winsconsin) or light red (North Carolina) states were enacted in order to help republicans and that's what they will do imo.Also SCOTUS did little to stop those laws. So I agree, things look better for Dems now but the voting laws will impact in favour of republicans, given that they are also more commited to vote this time around.

  • 343. EricKoszyk  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:03 am

    In the world of polling, how you define "likely voters" matters a great deal. The best example is the asinine Gallup poll in October of 2012 that showed Romney beating Obama by 7 points. Even though every other poll showed Obama winning the media went crazy about stories of Obama's clear political demise.

    The biggest problem with the poll?

    It stated that to be a LV you had to have voted in 2010, a non presidential election and a Republican "Wave" election where Democratic turnout was way down. Gallup's definition of LV was of course ludicrous. (Really though, why does anyone take Gallup's presidential polls seriously? They were the ones that stated that Dewey would defeat Truman in 1948).

    I think that many of these polls today have poor definitions of what constitutes a LV. Especially in places such as CO, which has now moved to an all vote by mail election, the LV screening process is now meaningless. Plus, some polls still have trouble reaching cell phone users.

    I do agree that a lot of states have onerous voting requirements. I live in VA which recently enacted fairly harsh ID requirements. And you are right they will mostly effect poor people and young people who tend to vote Democratic. And VA makes it difficult for one to vote early or to vote by mail. Which means that during presidential elections, in urban areas, sometimes people have to wait up to 5 hours in order to vote. Which is why I hope that more states go to all vote by mail, like OR, WA and CO.

    That said, just because a state has onerous voting requirements doesn't mean that people don't vote. The Democratic Party and various progressive groups have spent a lot of resources in educating people about these new requirements. Sometimes it backfires on the Republicans and more people vote because they're angry about the new requirements. It certainly didn't help the GOP in 2012 and I doubt it helps much this year, although it might in several tight races.

  • 344. JamesInCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    His order denying them the extension of time made pretty clear he didn't think they had much else to say that hasn't been said. And he has a proposed final judgment from the plaintiffs on his desk as well. It seems possible to me that he could end the entire thing tomorrow by denying the motion to intervene and entering a summary judgment.

  • 345. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Yeah, I won't be surprised if he already has the injunction written and ready to be issued soon after he denies the intervention request tomorrow. (It'll be Oregon all over again if they try to appeal the denial of intervention to the Fourth Circuit, and ask the Fourth Circuit and then the Supreme Court for a stay in the meantime.)

  • 346. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    So, what's our OFFICIAL State count now?

  • 347. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:34 pm


    old 19 + 5 denied cert + CO + WV + NV

  • 348. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Good, I only have 27 stars on my flag!!!

  • 349. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    update the in NC: the Judge is getting pissed at Tom Tilis and the gop : : Judge denies GOP's request for 8-day extension giving Tillis and Berger’s attorneys until noon on Friday, Oct. 10, to file a completed motion to intervene, which Osteen said he is currently reviewing.

  • 350. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Also noted two comments up by DACiowan ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 351. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    The ban's days are numbered.

  • 352. KahuBill  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    I am confused about what is going on in South Carolina with its Supreme Court issuing orders barring issuance of marriage licenses at the "behest of" the State AG. Are those who issue marriage licenses in SC under the supervision and authority of the judiciary? Is there a case or controversy before the SC Supreme Court? On what legal authority is the SC State Supreme Court acting? Perhaps someone familiar with SC practice and procedure can explain this situation.

  • 353. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    there was judge yesterday that told the county to issue marriage licenses , then the state supreme court stepped in and said wait until the fed court to gives the okay

  • 354. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    The order pretty much explains their actions. The SC Supreme Court orders that "Respondent and all other probate judges are hereby directed not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples pending a decision by the Federal District Court." I would think that the SC Supreme Court holds a higher authority than probate judges. This is just like the CO Supreme Court enjoining Adams, Denver and then Boulder County clerks from issuing licenses in response to the CO AG's request. In South Carolina, both parties to a marriage must appear in person at the office of a county probate judge and file a written application, after which there is a 24 hour waiting period before the judge issues the license.

    The relevant portion of the order with an explanation is:
    "Avoiding concurrent litigation in both the courts of this state and the Federal District Court will foster wise judicial administration and conserve judicial resources. Cf. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) (discussing discretionary abstention when concurrent proceedings are pending in the state and federal courts or in multiple federal courts). Further, although the parties in this matter and the federal case are not identical, the principle underlying Rule 12(b)(8) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure that duplicative litigation should be avoided applies to this case. Accordingly, we accept this case in our original jurisdiction for the limited purpose of maintaining the status quo until the Federal District Court can resolve the case pending before it."

  • 355. KahuBill  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    OK I get it now. In SC you have to get a marriage license from a county probate judege which is part of the Judiciary thus under the SC Supreme Court as an administrative matter. In most place I have lived the people issuing the license are under the administration of the Executive Branch. Thanks

  • 356. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    I just hope the 6th circuit doesn't rule tommorrow unless it's in our favor.
    I'd hate to have this amazing week ruined by a negative ruling.

  • 357. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:05 pm

    Totally agree with ya on that!!!

  • 358. Rick55845  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    I don't think it matters. It's all going to work out.

  • 359. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    i don't think we hear from the 6th for a while, i think we are looking a month with all the recent developments that occured, which i'm okay with

  • 360. Rick55845  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    I'm not OK with waiting a month. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how they rule. If they rule in favor of plaintiffs, we win. If they rule in favor of the State, we win. Either way, it goes to SCOTUS, and we win. What's the big deal?

  • 361. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    think about it ,if we lose and actualy if it goes to the supreme it be longer then a month, however, if the recent developments set it back it a month with a winning result on the ruling , that will bring marriage equality faster in the 6th circuit and give aeven better chance once it does make it to the supreme court

  • 362. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    I agree, plus even though the states that are dragging their feet in the 4th and 10th are bound by rulings in their circuits, I would rather they not get ammo that would allow them or bigoted judges to drag their feet in those states.

  • 363. Rick55845  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    Yeah, well, I'm in Texas, which is in the 5th CA. I want an immediate ruling against us in the 6th so SCOTUS will take up the issue this term, and bring ME to ALL states this year.

  • 364. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:33 am

    It would not happen this year that way and no matter how little the chance may be, the more circuits to join the fold may just sway the judges in the 5th.

  • 365. tornado163  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    I think it would be better to hear from the 6th circuit asap, no matter their ruling. If they rule for us, that's 4 more states with marriage equality. If they rule against us and the couples rush to file cert, the state would have until mid-late November to file. Then SCOTUS could grant cert in December and could hear the case and issue an opinion by June 2015.

  • 366. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:35 am

    It would more than likely cause the breaks to be put on at least a few cases like last time though.

  • 367. RQO  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    Unless Sutton finds a new argument (in Area 51, Roswell, or the Bermuda Triangle??) with which to dazzle the legal world, can he really be thinking the 6th should uphold the states' bans? He takes himself very seriously and is fairly young. I can't imagine him signing up for an early reputational death no matter his private convictions. (Tee hee, sometimes getting assigned to the really big flashy cases doesn't work out as planned.)

  • 368. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    Which is exactly what distinguishes him from Paul Kelly and Paul Niemeyer (the only two post-Windsor federal appellate judges to have sided against us so far), who are both in their seventies and at the end of their careers! I'm with you, RQO. At the same time, even though it sounds improbable, I wouldn't put it past Sutton, who is very smart, to find some narrow argument that isn't as bluntly nonsensical as Kelly's or Niemeyer's. For example, while his Baker theory would seem to have lost what remaining force it had on Monday, he could still go with that, maintaining that technically, cert denials don't mean anything on the merits.

  • 369. Zack12  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    Or he could just do what Chester Straub of the 2nd circuit (who is a Democrat by the way) did in his dissent in Windsor and say that since there was still a vigorous public debate going on, the courts shouldn't step in.
    Speaking of Straub, he and some other judges of the 2nd circuit will be giving a lecture at one of our local colleges in a couple of months.
    I'm seriously tempted to go and ask how "honored" he is to be the only Democratic judge out of more then 40 to rule against us in the federal courts between DOMA and the state bans.

  • 370. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:37 am

    To that I would say, there are still plenty of racists debating the merits of non-white people in the world, but I sure am glad the courts have stepped in multiple times to fix some problems we've had with that in the past.

  • 371. robbyinflorida  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:24 am

    But the Straub decent is already 2 years old and the "vigorous public debate" is now just a few conservatives complaining about judicial activism.

  • 372. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:59 am

    The point here is what would consist a reputational death for Sutton ? If he wants to get further (SCOTUS), it will be by a GOP president and it will definately count in his favour to rule AGAINST marriage equality in that case. So if Sutton cares about his future he will rule against, even if he overturned. It will increase his chances for SCOTUS nomination.
    That said, even if he does that, I do not believe he will ever be nominated for SCOTUS, he is too unpredictable and that's the last thing SCOTUS needs right now – for either side.
    I believe that after his ACA ruling he signed his death certificate for SCOTUS nomination, he won't even be shortlisted. And I believe he knows that.
    So the safest bet here is for him to think that he will not be going any higher from here under any presidency and make a ruling that won't expose him judicially.
    That's the best case scenario with Sutton imo. If he hasn't issued that decision on ACA I would say that he would most certainly rule against ME. But he has shown to have a judicial backbone and do what he believes is right (no matter if it is or not) instead of being a GOP puppet (sometimes).

  • 373. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:00 am

    I am with you on that, I stated the same thing yesterday. Lets settle what needs to be settled in the 10th and the 4th for now, solidify ME for now there, lets see what SCOTUS will do today with Idaho and how things will proceed in the 9th and then lets embark to new adventures with the six. A ruling now from the 6th against ME has the potential of stopping things if not in NC, in SC,KS,WY,ID,AZ,AK and MN.

    Today SCOTUS has its conference btw, so it will be like Latta is part of the conference almost. Fingers crossed.

  • 374. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    Once we get Idaho on board, that's the entire Pacific Time Zone to marriage, i.e. the first time zone with full marriage equality.

    (Northern Idaho is Pacific Time, note that the Aleutians in Alaska prevent Hawaii Time from full ME.)

  • 375. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    Here's a perfect song for the anti-gay folks:

  • 376. DACiowan  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Come mothers and fathers
    Throughout the land
    And don't criticize
    What you can't understand
    Your sons and your daughters
    Are beyond your command
    Your old road is
    Rapidly aging
    Please get out of the new one
    If you can't lend your hand
    For the times they are a-changin'.

  • 377. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    Love it…….I was posting to someone on topix's tonight and he told me it was PERFECTLY normal for a heterosexual couple to perform anal sex, but disgusting when a Gay couple does it……my response was what a HYPOCRITE you are……these anti-gay folks will say and do ANYTHING to keep Gays and Lesbians down!!!

  • 378. ebohlman  |  October 9, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    I suspect the rationale for his compartmentalization was probably some variant of Women Don't Poop.

  • 379. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    These idiots continue to make comments because they have an issue with Gay men who must somehow threat their manhood………funny thing is that regardless of one's sexual orientation……Gay men AREN'T interested in a man simply because they are men……..can't figure these folks out and then they say something is disgusting, but then they go out of their way to look for pictures or sites that they say are disgusting……man, if something is disgusting to me….I certainly don't go looking for it!!!

  • 380. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    It just occurred to me that if the Sixth rules in our favor and therefore the Supreme Court doesn't step in, we'll likely have at least 40 states with ME by July 4, 2015. This total is by first counting all states that are not in the 5th, 8th, 11th circuits, and then adding Arkansas. (The Eleventh and Florida SC might rule in favor of us, but seems unlikely that that'll happen by mid-2015.)

  • 381. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    i think we will get Arkanas sometime in Dec, and maybie we will get the 11th sometime early next year this would really us strong once we see the supreme court again

  • 382. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    I was going to add that the Florida SC seems reluctant to let an appeal pass through an intermediate appeals court, and the Eleventh Circuit just granted a one-month extension to Bondi to file her opening brief. So, it's perhaps unlikely that we'll get either by mid-2015.

  • 383. SethInMaryland  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:38 pm

    yea but Arkanas is a almost for sure soon ,

  • 384. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:11 pm

    Oh yes – no dispute there. I already added Arkansas to get the number 40.

  • 385. DrBriCA  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    I wonder if Missouri might be on the way, too. They already now recognize out-of-state marriages (although I understand that the legislature is looking into taking over the appeal since the Attorney General won't), and they also just had the hearing a week ago for the 4 marriages that took place in St. Louis. That judge might also rule in favor of ME in light of everything this week, paving the way for Missouri to sneak in without waiting for a federal court decision in the 8th CA.

  • 386. Ragavendran  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    Yeah! The hearing in the case you mention, State of Missouri v. Carpenter, took place on September 29. And on Tuesday, proposed orders were submitted by both parties. A ruling could come down any day! I don't know about this judge, but even if he rules against us, we have another path to victory in Missouri:

    We have a Clinton appointee, Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith, currently in charge of a federal lawsuit in Missouri, Lawson v. Kelly. If the judge finds Windsor strong enough to render Bruning non-binding, and rules in our favor, the AG may not appeal it to the Eighth Circuit and we could get ME in Missouri that way. Yeah!

  • 387. mariothinks  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:05 am

    A one month extension? Wow. I wasn't aware. Is there an order somewhere? Who needs an entire extra month for briefs? It's a clear delay tactic. Can't believe the 11th actually gave into that. The Florida bigots are really trying everything they can to deter ME. Bondi's hypocrisy is nauseating.

  • 388. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:16 am

    I think such 1-month extensions are pretty much routine, especially when not opposed by the other side, as is the case here, for regular (non-expedited) appeals. The Tenth granted it to CO, UT and the Fifth granted it to TX, and don't get me started on the Ninth. The two-line order order appears on PACER. Opening brief now due 11/14.

  • 389. MichaelGrabow  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:39 am

    Where did you get that date from?

  • 390. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:17 am

    Independence Day, and also just after the end of the current Supreme Court term.

  • 391. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:43 am

    Bondi is trying to delay the whole thing. She should not have been given the extension. In a month she may not be in office anyway, but I guess that was her target from the beginning, push that after the elections. If she is in, she will say that she has a renewed order by the citizens to defend Florida's constitution and will continue doing so, if she is out, end of the story.

    It is my estimation as well that the 11th will rule in favour of ME if it gets the chance to issue a ruling. As for the AR Supreme Court things could be difficult. These judges are elected, thus vulnerable and unfortunately when you leave judges up for election, self preservation instincts come to play. 40 states is definately an optimistic and attainable scenario of we assume Sutton got the message.

  • 392. Pat_V  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:54 am

    Actually, shouldn't we maybe prefer Bondi to pursue the appeal? Sure it may delay marriage equality in Florida for a bit, but at least an 11th circuit ruling in favor of marriage equality would ultimately cover Georgia and Alabama as well.

  • 393. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:56 am

    By all means but her delay tactics due to the upcoming elections have already made it very hard time-wise for the 11th to rule in time, before a split occurs either from the 6th or the 5th.

  • 394. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:19 am

    The request for extension, if I remember right, was unopposed. Not sure why.

  • 395. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:19 am

    The request for extension was unopposed. Not sure why.

  • 396. SWB1987  |  October 9, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    I never thought I would say this but I want the 6th circuit to rule against us and do it asap!! I want this taken care of by SCOTUS in this term

  • 397. Rick55845  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:12 pm

    I'm with you. While the prospect of having 40 states with ME by July 2015, assuming a judgement in favor of plaintiffs by the 6th CA, is heartwarming and amazing, the fact is that I live in Texas, one of three states that I think will be among the last to join the party if there is no circuit split. Judging by your avatar, I assume you also live in Texas, so I know you know how that feels. I want SCOTUS to decide this issue this term. I am tired of waiting, and I sure don't relish another year or two of waiting if there is no CA split and SCOTUS can continue to dodge the issue.

  • 398. jjcpelayojr  |  October 9, 2014 at 10:46 pm

    Even if SCOTUS didn't take it this term, there would be over half the country with marriage equality. It would take a miracle for SCOTUS to be convinced that marriage equality is all a big mistake and to uphold state bans and unwind all these marriages that have occurred…


  • 399. bythesea66  |  October 10, 2014 at 12:31 am

    If there were no split at all that would mean the 5th had ruled for ME sometime in early 2014 (or sooner conceivably).

  • 400. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:41 am


  • 401. Rakihi  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:10 pm

    Even if there is never a circuit split, I think the U.S. Supreme Court has a moral obligation to pass judgement on these marriage bans.

    As well-written as many of the pro-equality decisions already handed down by the lower courts have been, we need a decision from the highest court in the land that unambiguously declares to the heterosexual majority, "When you voted for these amendments, you were violating the civil and human rights of your fellow citizens and abusing the democratic process."

    Heterosexuals must fully acknowledge and atone for the misery and injustice that they've inflicted upon the gay community if there is to be any hope of healing and forgiveness.

  • 402. RQO  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:35 am

    While sympathetic to your point, I don't think SCOTUS will want to make this a moral crusade any more than it has been. As to making heterosexuals acknowledge and atone, the anti's will never – just look at the Deep South 140 years after Reconstruction. The best I hope for is that they die off soon and their prejudice is blocked and marginalized legally sooner. The appellate rulings and the support of a President may have to suffice as public testament.

  • 403. Waxr  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:10 am

    A general rule for courts is: Never try a case you don't have to. If there is no split, the Court will not have to decide.

    What state wants to be the last state to ban SSM. Then: Do they want a federal Court to make the decision, or do they want to do it through their voters or their own court system?

  • 404. Fledge01  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:20 am

    Let's not cast stones on an entire class of people. Even within the gay community there exists those who have inflicted injustice upon the gay community. Why waste our energy on replaying the stories from the past, even if the story only happened yesterday. Wasting the gift of being alive today on following a thoughts about what others believe. This drags us down and prevents us from fully experiencing the love that is ultimately within us. The actions and thoughts of others are never ever prerequisites for our own happiness. Forgiveness is as simple as deciding right now to let it go. Everybody has that potential right now. So who cares if some people never acknowledge and atone for their actions. Thinking about that stuff is a waste of my time. And if you are thinking about it, then being around you is also less enjoyable and you are wasting a precious day not being fully their for those you love, exuding the love you have inside of you right now. You owe it to your friends and loved ones to focus on them, not to waste a singe ounce of your radiance by replaying and reliving and experiencing old stories.

  • 405. CowboyPhD  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:36 am

    "Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself"

  • 406. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:54 am

    Thank you, FledgeO1. You're a better person than I am. I admire your sentiments, but doubt that I could live up to them.

  • 407. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:52 am

    I would not expect any moral pronouncement from SCOTUS, but I agree that SCOTUS has an obligation to rule on the question of a constitutional right to marriage that includes same-sex couples. The problem of allowing the question to be decided by Circuit Courts of Appeal alone is that they give different rationales for their rulings. I think we need an unambiguous decision from SCOTUS, hopefully one that is broad enough to implicate discriminatory treatment of gay people in areas beyond marriage. That would free gay people from oppression throughout the country, rather than just in certain areas.

    I suspect that the reason the conservatives did not vote to grant cert in the five marriage cases is that they preferred doing something that would spread marriage equality to eleven states rather than granting cert, which would likely lead to a definitive ruling on the issue that would be binding nationwide not only in terms of marriage but perhaps also in other areas as well. We have seen from Justice Kennedy before that he has an abiding interest in the liberty interests afforded sexual minorities. I suspect that frightens Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts even more than the marriage question itself.

    I agree that after there are forty states in which marriage equality is law, it will be difficult even for the most conservative of the circuits and SCOTUS justices to stop the spread of marriage equality to the rest of the country.

    But they can stall and they can attempt to make the rulings as narrow and as limited as possible, and hope to deny the imprimatur of the Supreme Court on any expansion of gay rights.

  • 408. RnL2008  |  October 9, 2014 at 11:58 pm

    Please take a look at this link…… might help some understand the issue better and pass it on:

  • 409. ragefirewolf  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:36 am

    I love that page. I've read it before. It definitely spells things out clearly.

  • 410. Pat_V  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:55 am

    So much action going on that it's indeed hard to keep track. I have now updated the spreadsheet that I had made earlier, showing the timeline of marriage equality state by state (I hadn't kept it up to date in the past couple of months, but now I will try to keep track of everything).

    (I have numbered the states in the order in which they started actually issuing licenses, though it's hard to come up with a reasonable ordering for states 20 to 24… so for those I kept Wikipedia's order)
    Please feel free to point out errors. And Raga, since you have the editing rights, feel free to update it ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 411. F_Young  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:25 am

    I don't recall seeing this mentioned anywhere on EoT; so, for the record, Kennedy granted a stay on the Idaho case.

    It seems strange considering that SCOTUS denied cert in every single case so far, seven cases that seem to involve every aspect and effect of same-sex marriage and every conceivable argument against same-sex marriage .

    Unfortunately, Kennedy's stay in Idaho may influence courts to grant stays in states where litigation is ongoing in the 4th, 9th and 10th circuits.

  • 412. samg68  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:41 am

    A temporary stay, I can see no evidence he's granted a more permanent stay yet. As others have mentioned, Kennedy may in fact be one of the justices who wants to rule on the issue now and so is offering up a "clean" case for the court to consider. Given what happened Monday I'd say whatever happens will be positive.

  • 413. RLsfba  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:47 am

    There are comments, I think somewhere above, that say it might be the wording around the issue of the level of scrutiny, and/or how it was applied. Or, it is that since the ninth issued the mandate so fast, Idaho didn't have the chance to ask for an appeal. So Kennedy gave them that chance. We'll see what happens. I'm going out for awhile around the time the 6th posts.

  • 414. montezuma58  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:19 am

    I think he's just being procedurally kosher. There was an unusually short time between the 9th ruling and issuing a mandate. Like it or not the loosing side does have the right to ask for stays and file for appeals. While at a very base level, the cases in the 9th are practically the same as the cases just won in the other circuits there still may be some significant differences in how the cases were decided (particularly with level of scutiny). The Supreme Court may or may not wish to take up such issues. Perhaps Kennedy is just doing this to protect the image of the court. This stuff his happening at light speed on the judicial time scale.

    If the Supreme Court does take up the case it will likely be just to sort out the level of scrutiny. The arguments in favor of the bans in all of the cases have no differences of import. I don't see the Supreme Court essentially rejecting those arguments then in a matter of months finding them valid very unlikely.

    What I suspect will happen is the stay will be lifted as the case works it's way through appeal to the Supreme Court. How exactly the Supreme Court deals with it is still up in the air.

  • 415. robbyinflorida  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:52 am

    You're correct. Idaho has the right to appeal. Should the en banc deny the appeal I think it's over and Idaho will have ME.

  • 416. ragefirewolf  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:00 am

    It may end up being over, which I hope it will be, but it won't be over if they appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court grants the appeal…

  • 417. montezuma58  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:45 am

    The only reason to go en banc is to stall. Wouldn't put it past them to try. ID is more likely (still low though) to prevail with the SC than a rehearing with the 9th. It could be the state tries for a hail marry to stall long enough the case doesn't get through the SC this term. The big question now is whether or not the stay stays in place while this plays out.

    It's not any guarantee that the denial of cert in the other cases would mean a fully argued case would would have the same result. But I just don't see how, if the SC had any serious thought that the anti side's argument had merit, they would have just decided to deny cert in the other cases.

  • 418. sfbob  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    I would have to agree with you there. The denials of cert convey a rather clear message: that decisions striking down marriage equality bans present no issues, regardless of the level of scrutiny. While some of those cases have opined that heightened scrutiny might be appropriate, they all determine it isn't necessary since the bans fall under rational basis. So I don't think there'd be any reason for the Supreme Court to take up an appeal of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

  • 419. jjcpelayojr  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:27 am

    Kennedy's a state's rights proponent. He is giving the state the right to due process (even though it's a formality and they'll likely get denied at en banc and/or referral to the court).

  • 420. Waxr  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Don't use the phrase "state's rights". The Constitution gives states powers. Not rights.

    Rights are given to the people, both collectively and individually. Rights limit the powers of the states and federal government.

  • 421. jjcpelayojr  |  October 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Duly noted, I'll use "federalism" instead. Happy?

  • 422. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:47 am

    What is this referring to, that he granted the stay? There are no new orders on the Supreme Court website regarding this issue. The last order posted is him saying it does not apply to Nevada.

  • 423. JayJonson  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:33 am

    "I don't recall seeing this mentioned anywhere on EoT; so, for the record, Kennedy granted a stay on the Idaho case. " Huh? You must be living under a rock; certainly not reading EoT.

  • 424. ragefirewolf  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Be nice, Jay. Not everyone has the time to sift through all of the comments, especially after all the replies collapse from the sheer number of entries.

  • 425. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:19 am

    The 6th just published a bunch of opinions…no marriage case! ๐Ÿ™

  • 426. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:08 am

    Personally I am relieved I have to admit. Let's get NC today and let's see what happens with Idaho and then let's take a break till Tuesday from all the crazyness.

  • 427. flyerguy77  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:27 am

    We need have the weekend off to get these things in our heads really? 32 or 33 states

  • 428. Samiscat1  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:35 am

    Just a couple of questions as I try to keep from scouring the web for something from Kennedy.

    1. Can the 9th deny a request for hearing en banc flat out, or do all justices vote on it?
    2. Does Monday's blanket denial of cert give us any reason to think that gay=stay is over for the Idaho case, or is our hope that Kennedy will lift the stay when he reads plaintiffs' response and decides there are no issues different from what the previous cases presented?

  • 429. wes228  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:42 am

    1. All active judges (only members of the Supreme Court are called "justices") must vote on it, with a majority required to grant the en banc hearing.

    2. I think Kennedy issued the stay because the 9th really should have waited for the normal 21 day period. A Circuit Court ruling isn't supposed to go into effect until there is no longer the possibility of a re-hearing en banc.

  • 430. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

    That was the kind of explanation I was hoping for. Makes a lot of sense. Sounds like the 9th didn't really follow the rules or at least "standard practice". If I were AK, I might have the done the same thing, but I would have told everyone why.

  • 431. Ragavendran  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:35 am

    The Ninth didn't do anything technically wrong. Circuit rule gives the panel discretion to lengthen or shorten the time after which the mandate is issued, when good cause exists. I think Kennedy is simply trying to make sure the Ninth didn't abuse it's discretion.

  • 432. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:45 am

    kinda getting long here, a new tread

  • 433. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:20 am

    Yes, please. Unless something big breaks, at least a daily "Futher Fallout, chapter nnn" blank page would help keep us sane and much more willing to read/contribute.

  • 434. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Scottie – Just noticed you did that. Thanks very much!!!! I'm sure you're burning the midnight oil a fair amount and it's very much appreciated. The fact it's so chock full of good news lately makes it even sweeter.

  • 435. tushargoyal357  |  October 15, 2014 at 2:43 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

  • 436. the fastest way to learn &hellip  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    the fastest way to learn guitar

    Equality On TrialEven more fallout from the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s actions this week ยป Equality On Trial

  • 437. wedding planner book etsy&hellip  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:19 am

    wedding planner book etsy

    Equality On TrialEven more fallout from the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s actions this week ยป Equality On Trial

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