Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Wyoming barred from enforcing same-sex marriage ban

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

UPDATE: There will not be an appeal in this case. The state will implement the ruling.

In an order just now, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

The decision is stayed, so marriages can’t begin immediately. The judge is giving the state until October 23 to either appeal or announce their intention not to seek an appeal.

The opinion notes that the Tenth Circuit decisions in Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith require a ruling striking down the ban.

Wyoming’s governor said last night in a debate that the state should not appeal a ruling in favor of same-sex couples.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Not sure why a stay was granted seeing that the 10th has already ruled on this issue and that ruling is binding precedent…….ugh…hate these stupid stays!!!

  • 2. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    I have been wondering if it is the upcoming election. Pols get to show they are "fighting for the rights of their voters." It will be interesting to see if new decisions post-11/4 get the same treatment or the states more quietly say OK, that's it.

    And I hate the stays as much as you do. At least they seem to be very short now.

  • 3. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Well, that makes sense I guess, but in my opinion they've already lost and they know it and so do the people….at least I would think they do.

  • 4. BenG1980  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Speaking of the election on 11/4, I think the closer it gets, the less likely the 6th Circuit is to rule until after that date. The Ohio governor's race looked competitve for a while and obviously the Kenteucky Senate race remains competitive. I doubt Sutton would want to put any Republican candidates (e.g., Kasich, DeWine, and McConnell) on the hot seat between now and then.

  • 5. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    Indeed, this is all politics.
    IMO, he very well might have already ruled against us but is holding off the ruling until after the elections to save the Republicans from backlash in swing states.

  • 6. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    But in Wyoming, the Governor said that he would not appeal; and his Democratic opponent is squarely in favor of marriage equality and has criticized the Governor for not having already capitulated.

  • 7. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    There are 4 Defendent's. 1 down, 3 to go. Laramie County Clerk Lathrop just filed with the court that she will not appeal.

  • 8. RobW303  |  October 18, 2014 at 10:29 am

    The governor has such a lead in Wyoming, he could publicly feed kittens through a woodchipper and it wouldn't impact the results.

  • 9. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    I wonder about that too, particularly since the governor has already promised not to appeal. I assume it is a formality and a courtesy and that the judge anticipates finalizing his order next Thursday. He may be covering his posterior, just so nobody can possibly claim they weren't afforded an opportunity (even a hopeless one) to appeal.

  • 10. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Simple, most courts feel they owe some modecum of deference to elected state officials and allow them to pursue their appeal no matter how unlikely they are to succeed or how illogical the pursuit. The great news is that SCOTUS is sending smoke signals that upholding these unconstitutional bans ain't going to float. The marriage equality boat has left the harbor and is half way out to deep sea, never to return to the port of inequality, bigotry and prejudice ever again. If the remaining circuits are ignoring SCOTUS's smoke signals, they're free to come down on the wrong side of history and have their decision vacated (slapped down), with the knowledge that their bad decision opened the door for SCOTUS to affirm all Americans are entitled to marry the one person of their choice, with no "gay" exception.

  • 11. SoCal_Dave  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    I think some of them feel they have to appeal in spite of the huge odds against them because a lot of their base believes in miracles. They hold out hope that the evul gayz will be miraculously knocked back down (by a higher power).
    Doesn't make sense to those of us in the reality-based community, but that is not where they live.

  • 12. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Wyoming: "The Almost There Equality State"

  • 13. Terence  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    One by one, the scarlet dominoes on the Wikipedia map are falling – that's three in just today, that have turned to a shade of blue!

    Just three more to go – SC, MT, and KS.

  • 14. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    I like how you put that 🙂

  • 15. Terence  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:28 pm


  • 16. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    I wouldn't sending too big of a thank you note to this judge.
    You read the ruling and it's quite clear he would have ruled against us if not for Kitchen being binding to the 10th circuit.

  • 17. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    That's what I got out of reading the ruling……it was almost like he wanted to say something else, but after seeing Arizona drop and the Stay in Alaska fall…..he felt obligated to rule in accordance with the 10th……choking on that crow with every word……lol!!

  • 18. Rkchicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    What parts of the ruling sounded that way? Was it the fact that he really only discussed the legal precedents binding it as opposed to the big question of a constitutional right to marry?

  • 19. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Read the last 3 pages, especially the last paragraph before the orders and you'll understand.

  • 20. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Same question here. It seemed to me that he was a big fan of making these changes via the legislature rather than the courts, but I don't see any comment that seemed to imply that he thought same sex couples should not be allowed to marry…?

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    If you read it carefully you'll see that if it wasn't for Kitchen and Bishop he would rule against ME. What's the difference between "same sex couples not being allowed to marry' and "making these changes via legislature" ?

    That's the line of argumentation of every anti-equality opinion (read Feldman's for instance). To put it more clearly this is the opinion Feldman would write if the 5th had ruled in favour of ME before he ruled.

  • 22. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Indeed, and it totally ignores the fact that for LGBT couples in these states, they don't have the luxury of a legislature that will do right by them.
    Hence, the judicial branch has to step in.

  • 23. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    And it's funny because a few lines before that talks about minority rights. Nothing more than the usual contradictions and historical and judicial inaccuracy of anti-equality opinions.

  • 24. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    I was struck by his reference to a judge's stroke of the pen. Yes, he ruled as he did because he had to.

  • 25. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    I thought he was pretty fair until the conclusion, where he sounded too much like Sutton in the oral arguments in the 6th Circuit, worrying about unelected judges overruling the vote of the people.

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    He was pretty snarky at the introduction about the opinions from the 10th if you notice more carefully. He weighs in, in a very professional way during the analysis of whether the plaintffs qualify for a preliminary injuction and seems rather sympathetic at points when he talks about heartache and dignity. But then the last 3 pages, beginning abruptly after he ends the conclusions that provide his personal insight on the issue.

    The analysis I read on him on a local news site was pretty accurate : Strict professional who will rule not according to his personal opinion but according to what's right under constitutional law. He was doing that, till he got to the last pages.

  • 27. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    I took it as snark at the Legislature, which not only enacted the bans across several pieces of legislation across several decades, but all pissed all over an attempt last year to remove the ban. Likely also aimed at Gov Mead being a dick earlier this month: the rulings in the 10th and SCOTUS weren't going to stop Wyoming from fighting to the death.

    I think his repeated trolling of Hobby Lobby in the opinion is his equiv of others trolling Scalia.

    My thought is that if this got to him ahead of Kitchen and Bishop that he likely would have ruled in our favor, pointing to Windsor as others have. He wouldn't have written the most eloquent ruling on the matter, and would have pointed as well to it being something that the Legislature should have handled. But he would have found for us under Equal Protection and Due Process.

  • 28. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    I think you read a different ruling. In his last paragraph before the order he made it pretty clear that he would have ruled the other way if he was not binded by precedent.

  • 29. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    No, I read the same opinion. I simply read it differently:

    He would have preferred that the Wyoming Legislature overturn their Ban as other states did. They didn't, so they're forced to live with Kitchen and Bishop.

    He's trolling them, and the Gov. Not us.

    Well… and trolling Hobby Lobby repeatedly.

  • 30. seannynj  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    This is a pretty f-ked up ruling coming from an Obama appointee.

  • 31. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    As I noted earlier: he clerked for Rhenquist.

  • 32. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    That's Brian Morris, the judge in the Montana case, you are talking about. This is Scott Skavdahl, the judge in thr Wyoming case. He never clerked for Rhenquist.

  • 33. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Skavdahl did not clerk for anyone at SCOTUS.

  • 34. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Exactly. He's been a long standing Dem. He clerked for a Clinton judge, was appointed by a Dem Gov of Wyoming to the court, and then appointed by Obama to the District Court.

    His snark is aimed at the Wyoming Legislature and the Gov.

  • 35. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    OOPS, you are right, I am very wrong.

  • 36. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    I said everything I had to say on the previous thread. Thank god for the binding decision by the 10th or else Skavdahl made it clear which way he would rule. He is so strongly against the ruling he issues and makes it very clear in the last pages. But he is right, that ship has sailed and he at least has the decency to apply precedent as he should. This is definately not going down as the best pro-equality decision (the exact opposite) but it's serves it's practical purpose with all its stays etc. Let it be I guess.

  • 37. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    A win is a win. All the rest will be forgotten tomorrow and has zero lasting impact.
    When we can afford to be nit-picky about *how* we win……………

  • 38. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I agree, we might be getting too spoiled at this point that we look at small details. But still it should be theoretically noted that this would be the first Obama appointee to rule against equality if he could. He could have left the 3rd and 2nd to last pages out of the opinion though. As I said, it is what it is and let's move on.

  • 39. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Indeed, he is nothing but a mere footnote after this.

  • 40. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Footnotes play their role though. He did not include these last pages in his opinion just out of spite imo. He wanted to give something for judges in other cases to quote imo if they are inclined to rule against ME, to lay some "precedential" (though not binding in any court of course) ground. He hopes that SCOTUS will overturn such decisions and wants in his limited way budge towards that direction. That's what these last pages serve imo.

  • 41. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Indeed but Chester Straub of the 2nd circuit already tried that in his dissent in the Windsor case and it was rejected by the Windsor five, jsut as this option along with Feldman's and the 5th will be.

  • 42. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    I do hope you are right. The thing is he adds something more to the (small) pile of anti-equality forces to quote (they already quote Feldman, Kelly, Niemeyer and even O'Scannlain's dissent in the SmithKleine en banc request). Whether it will be of value or not remains to be seen.

  • 43. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    I'm not worried in the least.
    The events the past few weeks would NOT have played out the way they would have if the bigots words had any away over Kennedy.

  • 44. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    Remember the blue slips. It's WY. A name has to proposed through the Senate delegation. We are lucky someone who reads more than the comics and sports sections got through.

  • 45. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Doesn't have to be a Senator. Representatives can also propose them – from what I gathered, Judge Childs in SC was proposed by Clyburn. If the Senator from the state objects he could blue slip the nominee, which can slow or derail the nomination. In Childs case, she developed a reputation for bipartisanship and didn't get blocked by the Republican Senators from SC.

  • 46. SoCal_Dave  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    I think as ME advances further into redstate territory we have to expect reluctance and resistance, even when they know they've lost.

  • 47. hopalongcassidy  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    I have been VERY surprised by the almost muted response here in Oklahoma (one of the reddest of red states, the only one AFAIK in which not even one county went for Obama) since the first marriages about a week ago. Oh, the usual breast beating from a small gang of loud and obnoxious fundies…a few letters to the newspaper editors, that sort of thing but not the hysterical End of the World screeching I was expecting. Go figure. 😉

  • 48. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    You can expect the legislature to change that when they come into session in the next couple of months.

  • 49. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    Agreed, they're not done yet. Lets not kid ourselves about that. National Marriage Equality is only going to set the stage for the final act to this drama, the resolution of the Hobby Lobby issue. But if SCOTUS rules against us on "religious liberty" they're in for a VERY BIG backlash that will make Roe pale by comparision. The LGBT community will not take that lying down.

  • 50. JamesInCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I haven't read it yet, but based on your description, I'm fine with that.

    If anything, it puts even more pressure on judges who have yet to rule, e.g. South Carolina, and even perhaps the 6th and 5th circuit judges. They don't have to like it, but the ship has indeed sailed.

  • 51. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    I did think of Sutton while I was reading it. The only difference is Sutton, no matter how many things are pressuring him to rule in favour of ME, is not bound by any precedent.

  • 52. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Indeed and I think his Federalist Society views are too strong to rule in our favor.

  • 53. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    SCOTUS is sitting there looking over the shoulder of all the other courts, ready to correct them if they don't follow the game plan. Any brief satisfaction a judge might get out of ruling the way he wants is offset by the knowledge that he will get reprimanded in public.

  • 54. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    At least he didn't decide to be the George Wallace of marriage equality. Actually I'm surprised Jan Brewer didnt decide to be the George Wallace of Marriage Equality and order out the AZ national guard to block gay couples from entering the county clerks offices. She of course had to make a typical Jan Brewer snarky remark.

  • 55. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    I thought Mary Fallin or Gary Herbert might try it.

  • 56. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:55 pm

    People have been comparing Gary Herbert to George "Segregation Forever" Wallace for months.

  • 57. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Arkansas: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker rejected AG McDaniel's request as moot for a delay in the case pending SCOTUS.

    Geez, I'd hope so.

  • 58. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    I think we have more to expect from the state case here. It will be more difficult to prevail in federal court in the 8th circ, where Arkansas belongs, given Brunning is likely still binding.

  • 59. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Even if it wasn't, the Republicans dominate this court and not the kind that would rule in our favor either.
    They are far right wingers all the way.

  • 60. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    As I have said it's irrelevant what happens in the 8th imo given how much behind every other circuit are the cases there.

  • 61. Pat_V  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    So what's the states ranking, if we order them according to when they started issuing licenses (without being subsequently interrupted by a stay) ? Is the ordering below correct?

    25. Colorado
    26. West Virginia
    27. Nevada
    28. North Carolina
    29. Idaho
    30. Arizona (are there reports on the ground of people actually getting marriage licenses this afternoon?)
    31. Alaska (seems the stay was dissolved just after Arizona's ban was stuck down, so it's number 31?)

    What about the future? Does something like this seem plausible, assuming the 6th circuit doesn't rule before these?
    32. Wyoming
    33. Montana
    34. South Carolina
    35. Kansas

  • 62. BenG1980  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Yes to Arizona — a friend there texted me a pic of his friends' freshly minted marriage license right after the ruling.

  • 63. brooklyn11217  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Arizona/Alaska – hard to place – In Alaska, couples got licenses but couldn't use them because of the three day waiting period. Also a few Alaska couples did get married after they got their licenses and had the three day waiting period waived…but, for the majority of couples, Arizona probably precedes Alaska.

  • 64. Rick55845  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    It's just when the first marriage happened that counts, not when it's available to the majority of couples seeking it. So I would say Alaska, then Arizona. Just my opinion, and not that the order really matters much. The most important thing is that ME has come to 31 states, and more states are waiting in the wings to come on board (even if kicking and screaming along the way).

  • 65. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    This is why they should be grouped by year: the Class of 2014 have been the legacy of Windsor. 20 years from now no one will care their relative order within the year.

  • 66. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    From NCLR, who represented the plaintiffs: "Marriages will begin in Wyoming at 5:00 pm on Thursday, October 23, or as soon as the state officials defending the challenge inform the court that they do not intend to appeal, whichever is sooner."

    So NCLR is holding out the possiblity that the defendants may not appeal and thus marriages may come to Wyoming earlier than the 23rd.

  • 67. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Actually this is written in the opinion/order about the state not appealing.

  • 68. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:03 am

    I shed a tear this morning when I realized that after this ruling Ennis and Jack could now be married in Wyoming. Funny how much I came to love those fictional characters. And I still believe that we were all robbed when Brokeback Mountain did not win the Academy Award for best movie.

  • 69. Jen_in_MI  |  October 19, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    I shed a tear for Matthew Shepard and his family. What happened to him was a huge catalyst for our community. I am sure none of them saw this coming out of the dark days of the end of the last century!

  • 70. seannynj  |  October 19, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    I haven't watched the Academy Awards since 2006. Both BBM and Heath were robbed!

  • 71. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Most Americans back the US Supreme Court, including a bare majority in the 11 new states that the Court let lower court rulings stand last week:

    Note that supporters of same-sex marriage could have opposed the Supreme Court's move because they wanted the Court to take up a case and affirm marriage equality nationwide. And vice versa.

  • 72. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    I am sure Nevada, Colorado,Wisconsin, Virginia and to a lesser extent Alaska raise that percentage in favour of SCOTUS's action while Oklahoma, West Virginia,Idaho Utah and to a lesser extent North Carolina bring it down. Indiana should be somewhere in the middle. It's very representative of the perfect divide that exists. 5 of these states have a plurarity or majority of voters against ME, fine have a plurarity or majority in favour of ME and one lays in the middle.

  • 73. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Meanwhile, in SD:

  • 74. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    The judge in the SD case is Karen Schreier, a Clinton appointee.

  • 75. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Nice to see the lawyer for the Good Guys pointing to the notion that Windsor trumps Bruning. Schreier indicated she would rule soon, so it's likely that she's given that specific question some thought.

    It would be fun to see her toss a ruling at the 8th striking down the Ban and saying that Bruning, like Baker, is old dead law post-Windsor. That would be a great flipping of the bird at Loken & Smith (who are still on the Circuit) and Bowman (who is Sr), and a nice tip of the hat to Judge Bataillon who way back in 2005 was way ahead of the curve because those three asshats slapped him down. In turn, it would be a hoot if one or more of those three ended up being on the panel for the appeal again, and if they overturned Schreier that things would come full circle with this being the case the SCOTUS took up… and slapped down one or more of Loken, Smith & Bowman.

    Have I sad before that I'm a bit meanspirited and don't forget past actions on these things? 🙂

  • 76. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    I don't think you are being mean spirited. I think you are helpfully suggesting an avenue by which several judges can reconsider their past errors in thought and further the cause of peace, justice, and inalienable rights in the 21st Century. (Snort.) I totally forget and forgive every hare-brained scheme to restrict my rights for 59 years, too!

  • 77. Ryan K.  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:21 am

    This judge really is in a fascinating legal predicament. While technically bound by Brunning in the 8CA (which used Baker as rationale), but has the ability to use Windsor (albeit not a ruling requiring states to allow marriage equality) to say procedural developments have occurred since, with the backing of four CCofA behind it along with a SCTOUS denial of cert to support her. The 8CA can (and will) simply say that Brunning controls and Baker has not been overruled and is binding, ignoring the procedural developments. Can a 3 judge panel of the 8CA overrule Brunning or does it require en banc? I assume it can using the same procedural developments logic any district court judge does to unbind itself from Baker.

  • 78. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Plaintiffs-Appellants' Opening brief filed in the Louisiana appeal today:

  • 79. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    I really enjoyed that brief, very well argued. I wonder if it will find any rational judge to resonate with n the 5th.

  • 80. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    My guess is no.
    After all, this is a court that has ruled a woman having to drive 200-300 miles to get a legal abortion isn't an undue burden, that a defendent whose lawyer slept through his capital murder trial got adequate representation, that a cheerleader was wrong to protest cheering for the man who raped her and the fact one of the judges on there is a racist.

  • 81. Rick55845  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    Excellent brief. It is thorough and direct, and it incorporates all the most recent judicial developments in constructing its arguments. The lawyers for the appellants did a great job of laying out the issues, and they made compelling arguments in favor of overturning the lower court judge's ridiculous oddball decision.

    I also enjoyed reading it because it comes across with a slightly foreign flair, as seen from an outside perspective. The style and language used is refreshing and colorful. But that's Louisiana for you, almost a foreign country within the country. I never realized that until I moved away.

  • 82. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:59 am

    A long gone friend who moved from Kansas City to New Orleans always called Louisiana — the Northern-Most Banana Republic. Such a poetic nick-name.

  • 83. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Kind of like the Mid-Atlantic being called the Northernmost of the South, and the Southernmost of the North. Baltimore has been (IMO) accurately described as the Northernmost Southern city and the Southernmost Northern city.

    (I originally grew up in NE Indiana, so I was unaware of the attitudes of Baltimorans (the name many 'natives' of the city prefer to be called), and their quirky sayings, such as 'down to/on/at the ocean' when they speak of Ocean City, MD. [especially when going to OC], 'Natty Bo' when referring to the brand of beer otherwise known as National Bohemian, or reference to anyone female as 'Hon'.)

  • 84. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    (1) Arkansas Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs-Appellees' request for oral argument, which hasn't been scheduled yet.
    (2) Plaintiffs-Appellees have asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to expedite the appeal. They are asking the Court to "calendar this case for argument at the first available setting after" October 22, which is when briefing is scheduled to be completed.
    (3) The Pulaski County Clerk, Larry Crane, is a Defendant-Appellant, but takes the side of the Plaintiffs, agreeing that Arkansas's ban should be struck down. He has asked the Court to expand the time allowed for oral argument and allocate a portion of that time for his argument, since the other Appellants are unlikely to share their time with him.

  • 85. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Have to love Crane. 🙂

  • 86. SethInMaryland  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    man i really starting to like the arkanas supreme court, how did this ever get be this way in such a conservative state?

  • 87. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    By Southern standards Arkansas has always been regarded as a bit unpredictable.

  • 88. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    So now we have one state per circuit that still hasn't given up despite binding precedent – SC in the Fourth, MT in the Ninth, and KS in the Tenth. It's a race to the finish!

  • 89. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    My money will be on KS.

  • 90. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    They HAVEN'T a clue that time has actually run out on them………they have NO where to go and should read the writing on the wall from SCOTUS!!!

  • 91. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    I thought I had deleted it because I did see the date after the fact.

  • 92. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    In Montana, the plaintiffs in a federal case there filed a motion for summary judgment on October 15.

  • 93. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    I can't see Montana putting up a fight if Utah's gone, Idaho got nowhere, and Wyoming folded.

  • 94. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:01 am

    I have to agree here. I don't see it nearly as conservative as those. It has elected democratic senators and governors after all who have publicly supported ME. And it has also bothered to get out of the books those sodomy laws, something the southern hellholes were still unwilling to do.

  • 95. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    I don't get what's "preliminary" about the Wyoming injunction. Don't tell me that the judge will next ask the parties for a briefing schedule on summary judgment, which could take months, then optionally schedule oral argument, and then decide whether or not to strike down Wyoming's ban – that'll be such a colossal waste of time and resources, right? Did the Governor say whether he is going to continue fighting the lawsuit towards summary judgment or concede and consent to the entering of final judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor?

  • 96. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    I don't think that is what he is doing. He already reached a decision and is boxed in based on the AC's ruling. He's stayed it until next week (as mentioned above). He gives up after that and issues a permanent injunction.

  • 97. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    I'm not sure that he can issue a permanent injunction without the Plaintiffs (or someone) filing a motion for that. For example, the first judge in NC filed his own motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted that motion. Perhaps this judge can do something like that, but I'd rather the Plaintiffs move immediately for final judgment.

  • 98. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Raga … As you say, IANAL, but, I think the permanent injunction follows from the preliminary one from reading this article:

  • 99. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Hmm… I don't see it though… well, let's just wait and see.

  • 100. Ryan K.  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:28 am

    I was mentally stuck on this as well. If his is a temporary injunction, what triggers the permenant one? Why wasn't this a permenant injunction with a temporary stay giving the week for appeals? I would think a temporary injunction would be to provide immediate relief while THIS judge makes a definitive ruling on the merits. Doe he have to write a longer opinion with reasoning to give the final permenant injunction order? Or once his temporary stay pending a week for appeals is over, does he then issue a new order for permanent injunction?

    No lawyer here, so I'd love to be educated to remove my ignorance on this!

  • 101. RobW303  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:58 am

    The injunction from the federal district judge in the Colorado case was also a preliminary injunction. How did that one get converted?

  • 102. Ragavendran  |  October 18, 2014 at 10:42 am

    Yesterday: ORDER granting Defendants Joint, Unopposed Motion to Make Preliminary Injunction Permanent; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado; John Suthers, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado; and Pam Anderson, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder for Jefferson County. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 10/17/2014.

    Perhaps the Wyoming Governor would do something similar – file a joint/unopposed motion to make the preliminary injunction permanent.

  • 103. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    "It's dead, Jim."

    Honestly, I think that's what the Judge was trying to get them to do: given them time to give up the ghost. I think people are misreading his comments down the stretch of the opinion. They weren't aimed at our side, or really trying to get across that he would rule any other way had there not been the actions of the 10th already. Instead, they were aimed at Mead & Co. to get across that the issue is dead.

  • 104. Rick55845  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:45 pm

    My impression when reading Judge Skavdahl's decision was that he would rather not have decided in favor of plaintiffs, but was required to do so because he was bound by established 10th circuit precedent. He ruled as required under the circumstances, abding by the rule of law. He made the right and legally correct ruling, but not because he agreed with it.

    As long as he does the right thing, that's good enough for me. But I would not count this judge among my friends.

  • 105. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Florida next week: The delightful Federal Judge Hinkle had requested Plaintiff's briefs for the Motion to Lift the Stay be filed by next Friday, 10/24. We could see him lift the stay by EOB Friday, over the weekend (how fun) or the following week. An appeal to the 11th AC would be obvious just before the election.

    On the other track Bondi is pursuing, there has been no reply to her Tuesday filing with the FL State Court of Appeals to bypass the CA right to the Supreme Court of Florida. I can't help but wonder if this is election time politics at play from that court at the state level.

  • 106. Randolph_Finder  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Theoretically a State Supreme Court decision would get appealed to the US Supreme Court and if Florida's Supreme court upholds the ban, this would force the US Supreme Court to take arguments to override it, I think…

  • 107. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Florida won't appeal to SCOTUS on the issue if there's a SSC ruling. This would be like New Mexico: a SSC ruling ending the game in the state.

    Does anyone have a read on the FL SSC? Are those Crist appointees conservatives, or more moderate GOP?

  • 108. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    I posted a summary of the Florida situation about two days ago. That is now like 1,000 comments back since everything is moving so fast. Here is an excerpt that answers your question:

    The current composition of the Supreme Court of Florida (SCF) is 3 appointed by Democratic Governor Chiles and 4 by Republican Crist. They are appointed by a governor for 3-years and then granted an additional one-time 6-year term if confirmed during the next state-wide election. None of the current bench is subject to a reelection They are subject to a recall by the two-thirds of the legislature or the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The current bench serves until between 2017-2019.

  • 109. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    New Mexico was different – it neither allowed nor prohibited same sex marriage explicitly in its Constitution. The Florida Constitutional Ban would have to be upheld or struck down based on the US Constitution, so there is a federal question which could be appealed to SCOTUS.

  • 110. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    To reply to the first part of your comment. Florida is not quite like New Mexico. In New Mexico, there was no federal case in play at the time of New Mexico Supreme Court decision.

    Pam Bondi is betting on a horse race that the Supreme Court of Florida will rule before Federal Judge Hinkle. Unless Judge Hinkle pends his stay decision on the outcome of the SCF, I believe Hinkle will rule to lift the stay which then gets appealed to the Federal AC.

  • 111. RobW303  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Bondi has been implying that she'll abide by the Florida Supreme Court's opinion (if that horse comes in first). Not being a Floridian (which would make me take a different view), I'd rather see an appeal to the 11th Circuit, since that would establish a circuit precedent and force Georgia and Alabama kicking and screaming to stop enforcing their bans. On the third hand, if we get a circuit split out of the 5th, as expected, the Florida appeal would likely be halted pending the resolution, with a stay on Hinkle's injunction, so a decision out of the Florida Supreme Court (whether appealed or not by Bondi) could be the best resolution for Florida, with not much significant delay added for Georgia and Alabama. I don't trust Bondi to be a good loser—she wants the egg on her face jammed down every pore.

  • 112. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    I checked PACER and found nothing about replies requested by 10/24 in the federal case. What is your source of this information, brandall?

  • 113. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    I believe the court filings are messed up. They keep consolidating the cases and changing the defendants. Gov. Christie was dropped in this last round.

    Plaintiffs final filings were due last Wednesday and there was a small supplemental filing citing Tuesday's Ninth Circuit decision

    Here is what I found this afternoon since I was trying to understand the status of the case:

  • 114. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Ah, I see. FRCP says that the default time to file a response (unless it is shortened or lengthened by the judge) is 14 days. The motion to dissolve the stay was filed on October 7, which means the deadline to respond should be Tuesday, October 21. As far as I can see, Hinkle hasn't extended the time or explicitly ordered responses by a certain date. So the October 24 date mentioned by ACLU in the article remains a mystery:

    "We filed last Tuesday [7th] to have the stay lifted, so [the state] has until next Friday, the 24th, to respond," said ACLU lawyer Daniel Tilley. "And we certainly hope that we'll have an answer then."

  • 115. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    I completely agree with you. It is like there is a court order missing somewhere in PACER specifying what dates the plaintiffs and defendants had to file their replies. I will do some more work on this tomorrow and post links to the chain of events that I can find.

  • 116. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    And that is just the action going on in the federal district court. What about appellant's brief (the State of Florida) which was due on October 15th to the 11CA? I'm sure I missed something about an extension or othrewise, but I can't find anything on if the brief was filed on time or an extension granted.

  • 117. Ryan K.  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:46 am

    Significant amount of renaming given consolidation of cases and removing of defendants at the federal district level. There was a Brenner v. Scott and Grimsley v. Scott, which were consolidated at the federal district level and basically proceeded as Brenner v. Scott to the public. Then when Judge Hinkle ruled to strike the ban in August while placing it on stay pending petitions of cert to SCOTUS for the cases in the 4CA & 10CA), he also agreed to drop certain defendants, including our infamous Governor Scott (not Gov. Christie who is the NJ governor, nor former Gov. Crist who was likely the original defendant back in the day when he was Gov. Of Florida, and coincidently, now running as a pro-marriage equality Democrat against Gov. Scott after being the Govnornor that pushed for the state DOMA amendment in 2008). Upon appeal to the 11CA from AG Bondi, the case is now titled Brenner v. Armstrong, with Governor Scott removed as a defendant, John Armstrong, the state's Surgeon General and Secretary of Health became the lead defendant and the case (Wiki).

  • 118. flyerguy77  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Wowwwwww I went swimming and expecting no decision until next week. I think the plaintiffs should ask the 10th Circuit to lift the stay …… not 23rd……. Wyoming attys can't appeal..

  • 119. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    WY: Governor…here it is….he will NOT appeal. Good move Gov!

    "The Equality State"

    Source: FTM tweet and now Scottie posted an update to his article above.

  • 120. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    SWEET! Ready?

    A-wiggle, wiggle, wiggle!!! Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle!!!!!

  • 121. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Are you dancing shoes worn out yet?

  • 122. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    Never. :OD

  • 123. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    We must be able to add another star to the flag……yeah<dancing>

  • 124. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    I believe that makes 32, yes? :O)

  • 125. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    I'm dancing to this music:

  • 126. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    That's a little slow for my happy dance, Rose, but it brings a smile to my face nonetheless :o)

  • 127. DavidAZ1  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    I'm old school. Literally. 🙂

  • 128. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Love this song……got the CD for my birthday last year……..our GS love this song as well!!!

  • 129. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Another favorite of mine:

  • 130. DavidAZ1  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Cece Peniston former Ms. Arizona…I think it's a GREAT dance song. Even for ragefirewolf 🙂

  • 131. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:20 pm


  • 132. DavidAZ1  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Not familiar with this artist but a really great song. Love the violin. For reasons unknown, as I listened I had an image of Ireland and their own quest for marriage equality. Go figure. I must be worn out from today. Time to ungird. 🙂

  • 133. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    My brother-in-law told me about her…….this is the only song of her's that I have heard………but it really is a great piece of music:-)

    Yep, time to unwind with the family…..watching Harry Potter and having some homemade stew!!!

  • 134. Rick55845  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:54 pm

    I dig that, man. Kool and The Gang. But then, I always liked bands like the Commodores, the Isley Brothers, etc.

  • 135. Steve27516  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    I would like to SEE this happy dance, buddy! YouTube is calling your name …

  • 136. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:54 pm


  • 137. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    That's cool…….I'm a ELO fan:-)

  • 138. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Here ya go:

  • 139. nightshayde  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Since they're not appealing, does that mean marriages will start before 10/23 in Wyoming?

  • 140. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    The State must file a notice of intention not to appeal. Then the court will issue an order to lift the stay. This could all happen Monday morning if everyone follows up quickly.

  • 141. Fledge01  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    Rep. Gerald Gay, R-Casper said this about it…

    “We have a constitutional argument that’s based on the morality clause of our constitution,” he said. “Same-sex marriage would violate that constitutional provision. We’re going to have to do something about that, whether that’s an amendment or to decide to change how we look at something that has for 4,000 years been considered immoral. I don’t know how we’ll go about that.”

    I suppose Mr. Gay was teased quite a bit as a kid for his name and maybe thats why he will have such a hard time changing his views. I see a need for some therapy in his future

  • 142. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    He could always change his name to Gerald Homophobe Bigot. I will pay his $100 court fee.

    BTW, we pronounce that Bee-GO.

  • 143. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    I'll split it with ya….lol…..stupid should hurt!!

  • 144. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    What does this mean? Who decides what is moral? Certainly NOT the religious folks who have adulterous affairs, right?

  • 145. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Those folks are true idiots……they will have to change the words in their Constitution……they DON'T have a choice and I'm sorry, but Federal laws trump the State laws!!!

  • 146. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    Suggestion: delete "and I'm sorry but"

  • 147. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:22 pm


  • 148. sfbob  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:34 am

    In other words you don't need to apologize.

  • 149. RnL2008  |  October 18, 2014 at 11:17 am

    Thank you for explaining it to me…….it was one of those days yesterday!!!

  • 150. RemC_Chicago  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Sfbob gets the ding-ding-ding award!

  • 151. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:36 am

    Morality clause ? Really ? Have at least some basic respect for Matthew there, you bigoted republicans !

  • 152. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:03 am

    He does realize a ban has no chance now in the 10th, right?

  • 153. SeattleRobin  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    I get so tired of sloppy reporting like that. The article should have cited whatever this morality amendment is so that readers know WTF the guy being quoted is talking about.

  • 154. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Couple applies for license, can't get it until the defendants tell judge they won't appeal:

  • 155. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    My favorite passage from page 15: "The preferred forum for addressing the issues presented by Plaintiffs in this case is the arena of public debate and legislative action. However, that ship has sailed…."

  • 156. Rick55845  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    "Public debate" is a smokescreen. There is no universal forum that everyone participates in, public sentiment cannot be accurately measured because polls are not conclusive, and not everyone votes. "Legislative action" is purely political, not truly representative. It's all BS.

  • 157. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:40 am

    Indeed, it is BS, but the BS has a purpose. The Judge has gone out of his way to offer solace to those who claim to be able to exercise a tyranny of the majority, sorry, ahem, to have their votes count as a matter of democracy. But, the Judge points out, no legislation by any majority can deprive people of their fundamental rights, including the right to marry–a decision already made by the 10th Circuit, and no longer in dispute in his Court. That, I take it, is what he meant by, "that ship has sailed."

  • 158. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    The press release says "[t]he Attorney General will file notice with the court that the State will not appeal before [October 23]." So they're not saying they'll do this asap. Just sometime before Thursday. What's the hurry, eh?

  • 159. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    (1) MONTANA:

    The Governor supports us, but he is not a defendant in the lawsuit. Defendant Kadas, director of the Montana Department of Revenue, appointed by the Governor, is also on our side. The remaining two defendants are AG Fox and Cascade County Clerk of Court McWilliams. Fox is against us, and I don't know what McWilliams's position is.

    The judge assigned to this case is Brian Morris, an Obama appointee. Before this, he was an Associate Justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 2005-2013, where his ideology has been described as liberal-leaning. Between 1992-1995, he clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist of the US Supreme Court and Judge Noonan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He graduated from Stanford Law School in 1992. He also got his BA and MA from Stanford.

    Last we heard from the Judge Morris was on August 21 when he scheduled a status conference for 6/29/2015. On October 15, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (thanks, Shaun) that there was no more reason to delay. No word from the judge or the Defendants yet.

    (2) KANSAS:

    There is a state court lawsuit called Nelson v. Department of Revenue, where briefing is complete on a motion for judgment on the pleadings and oral argument is scheduled to be held on November 14.

    A federal case, Marie v. Moser, was filed last week, where there is a pending motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Daniel Crabtree, an Obama appointee, has been assigned to the case. Briefing hasn't begun yet. Hopefully, this can proceed as quickly as the Wyoming case did.

    A related issue is pending at the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Moriarty. The question is whether a lower court judge abused his authority in issuing an administrative order requiring issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. In addition to temporarily staying the lower court's administrative order, the Kansas Supreme Court said in its order that the following question is also before the Court: "Even if the Tenth Circuit rulings on federal constitutional law are supreme, whether Kansas' state constitutional, statutory, or common law bans on same-sex marriage are permissible under the United States Constitution," which would seem to indicate the Court's openness to directly ruling on the merits on the federal question concerning Kansas's ban. The Court set an expedited briefing schedule that ends on October 28, and a hearing is set for November 6.


    A federal case, Bradacs v. Haley was filed last year and is pending at the Columbia Division of the District Court for South Carolina. Judge Michelle Childs, an Obama appointee, has been dragging her feet. On October 14, she ordered that any motions (e.g., summary judgment) were due by 10/23/2014, responses due 14 days after filing of the motions, replies due 7 days after the responses. And if the court decides to have a hearing, it will be scheduled no earlier than 14 days after the filing of replies. (Another order on the same day smacked down a motion to intervene by Chris Sevier.)

    Another federal case, Condon v. Haley was filed on October 15 at the Charleston Division of the District Court for South Carolina. Judge Richard Gergel has been assigned to this case. There are no pending motions at this time. I am not sure what the point of this second federal lawsuit is.

    Last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court temporarily stayed all probate courts from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until Judge Childs decides the Bradacs case.

  • 160. DrBriCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    Thanks for the thorough recap of the final 3 states that have yet to fall in line with their circuit rulings!

    I believe Condon v Haley was filed to have a different judge rule on the topic, as it was filed after Judge Childs outlined the briefing process with potential for a hearing that would go well into November. So, it's kinda like how Judge Cogburn swooped in to rule more quickly on his case than Judge Osteen did with his own cases for North Carolina.

    Also, from what I've read, Bradacs v Haley is about recognition of out-of-state marriages, whereas Condon v Haley addresses the denial of licenses (especially since the denial of a license happened when the state Supreme Court stopped the one county from issuing licenses last week). So, the second lawsuit allows for tackling the ban on the issuing of marriage licenses head on, just in case the apparently very meticulous Judge Childs rules only on the recognition ban (sometime in November). Of course, either judge can likely rule on both topics, as the 4th Circuit decision has already set the binding precedent on both issues at hand.

  • 161. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:37 pm

    Ah yes, you're right – Bradacs is only a recognition lawsuit. And the judge will not be able to rule on the licensing part of the ban directly as there are no plaintiffs that such a relief would apply to.

  • 162. seannynj  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:29 pm

    I think I read somewhere that Bradacs v. Haley is a recognition only lawsuit. Condon v. Haley is the full monty i.e. marriages recognized and being able to take place in SC.

  • 163. Ragavendran  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:38 pm

    You got it – my bad. I didn't look into the cases in more detail!

  • 164. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:55 am

    I believe the ruling and its implementation in Montana will be smooth, I don't see the reason for this athletic jock who is a judge on this case to delay things any further. Also even Fox will know better than to appeal I believe.
    On Kansas, equality seems to be approaching from 3 different routes but everyone is taking their time obviously. I believe we won't have a final ruling till early November at best, which suits the governor who is having a tough time getting re elected. If he loses to his democratic opponent I expect less opposition.
    Sout Carolina will probably be the last of those three to have ME imo (given that the judge in Montana does something finally)

  • 165. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:05 am

    It should also be noted that Senator Jon Tester has a son that is gay so this will be good news for him and his son.

  • 166. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:26 am

    Really ? I did not know that, nor did I find any other public announcment from either on that. I have to say though his son is smokin hot..!

  • 167. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:36 am

    Shon actually lives in D.C. where marriage equality has been legal since 2010, but still it will be great news whenever Montana also has full marriage equality!

  • 168. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:46 am

    Seriously?! What does the judge's being or not being "athletic jock" have to do with anything here? Does having played college football almost 30 years ago mean much now? All I really hope is that his intelligence and logical reasoning skills lead him to the right conclusion in this case. lol

  • 169. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:51 am

    He was a hurdles runner and I meant to make a pun about him running fast but being slow in this case, but forgot about it while writing the comment I guess..

  • 170. RQO  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:35 am

    Thanks R for this clear update, impossible to find in one place in the media. Since you're here in CO, do you have any comments on AG Suther's office refusing to tell me if my Vermont marriage license is now recognized in CO? They want me to hire an attorney – and presumably sue – to find out. Suspect there will be lots of housekeeping legislation needed in a lot of states next legislative session(s), and I'm sure there will be rearguard harrassment from the anti's making it very hard to get done.

  • 171. Ragavendran  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:46 am

    Oh, I have no idea. Since the injunction enjoins him and other state officials from not recognizing your marriage, I should think you're safe. Is there a way for you to try to have it recognized somewhere (e.g., filing taxes jointly, but something else, because that'll have to wait until next year) without much hassle, and find out? It could be complicated if you got it recognized as a civil union here earlier. Sorry – I have zero knowledge of the implementation issues 🙁 IMO, the cost of hiring an attorney and/or suing would far outweigh the cost of getting a fresh marriage license again, here in CO, but would it be illegal to get married twice? I don't know…

  • 172. sfbob  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    If you're marrying the same person you're currently married to, I can't imagine that would be illegal. On the other hand it shouldn't be necessary either, nor should it be necessary to sue for what ought to be an automatic right. The state has already been enjoined from enforcing its marriage equality ban, whether in the form of performing marriages or recognizing out-of-state marriages. Should it prove necessary, any competent attorney should ask not only for recognition but for attorney fees but for damages on top of that. It would be a manifest violation of the law for the state to refuse to recognize a marriage which the federal court has already told the state it must recognize and any entities which refuse to comply with that order ought to be made to feel some pain.

  • 173. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Do you live close to a law school? Many (most) law schools require that students take up, on a pro bono basis, cases that need answering, but might be too expensive for the 'common citizen' to pursue. Sometimes, the school can respond to the question without going to the state, city, etc.

    A phone call to, or visit to, a law school might be in your future. (And law schools are not necessarily at the main campus – the main campus for the University of Maryland is in College Park, but the law school is in Baltimore; Indiana University's main campus is in Bloomington, but the law school is in Indianapolis, about 80 miles from Bloomington.)

  • 174. RQO  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone! Never did the civil union in CO, and just filed joint return state income tax return on Wed. Marrying, like voting, is easier here than just about anywhere – $30 and don't need an "officiant" – so if push comes to shove we'll do that.
    But in case you have somehow missed it, I am a pissy old queen. I want equality recognition for everyone. Have contacted the denver Post, my state legislators, One Colorado, the gov's office, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, etc. The idea of a law school class, Mike in Balt. is brilliant. Well see what it takes to clear this up. Coy, devious roadblocks by recalcitrant Republicans does not go unnoticed.

  • 175. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:22 pm

    Boom! Pope Francis busts outspoken American homophobe Cardinal Raymond Burke, removing him from the Vatican 'Supreme Court' and reassigning him to head the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. "ANYBODY ELSE HERE GOT ANY BRIGHT IDEAS FOR IL PAPE?"

    This ought to be an interesting twist for NOM.

    PS. To Burke: don't forget to pack your toothbrush!

  • 176. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Let us hope that Francis turns his attention next to Cordileone of San Francisco and Lori of Baltimore.

  • 177. Dr. Z  |  October 19, 2014 at 2:08 am

    If Francis genuinely does want to reform the Catholic Church he's going to have to sack half the college of cardinals, not just one or two. John Paul II and Benedict spent years packing it with the most extreme right-wingers they could find.

    If Francis ever really gets serious about reform he'd better hire a food taster. There are deep and extensive Mafia ties at the Vatican..

  • 178. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 12:56 am

    Off topic.

    Recently some questions were raised about the status of a Federal law suit in Puerto Rico. This report from the 'Washington Blade' might answer some or all of the questions raised:

  • 179. wes228  |  October 18, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    It just bugs me that we can't technically check off the 1st and 3rd Circuits until we win Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands…and no one wants to seem to do anything about the Virgin Islands.

  • 180. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    It would really be "fresh" circuit cases in the 1CA and 3CA, right? I can't recall any action in the 1CA with respect to ME given the states went at it via state courts/legislatures. For the 3CA, PA got the district ruling they wanted and the state opted not to proceed (3CA had to deal with that one county clerk who wanted to intervene/stay but even Alito would have none of it – the man of Article III standing). So without any binding rulings by a three-judge panel in either CA, while they could get a summary judgement at the district level, it would need to go through both CAs to get a decision to mandate it back in the district court. You have to wonder which clock is faster at this point, that or SCOTUS doing it for all the remaining states.

  • 181. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    "Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)"
    (… )

    SCOTUS held Gill until after the Windsor case (and also Prop H8) was decided, then dismissed Gill (along with several others) the next day.

    In 3CA, the Federal courts (District AND Circuit) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, THEN the state (one of the defendants), along with the other named defendants decided to not appeal. For information on the Federal District case, look up Judge Jones III for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

    Both Circuits have precedent on which courts can rule, but to date no case from PR or the US VI has arrived at either Circuit Court, and no lower court has ruled to date.

  • 182. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Would you consider Gill binding (nullifying a federal statue on recognition) on a state-level marriage ban? I get that federal and circuit courts are using their discretion to interpret Windsor as rationale for overturning state-level marriage bans, but I wouldn't consider the 1CA having had ruled on it in a manner that a federal district court would give summary judgement based on that (like the NC federal judge easily did given the binding precedent of Bostic in the 4CA). I could see summary judgement based on the judges determining that him/herself, but then there would be an appear to the 1CA and that circuit court would have a briefing schedule and oral argument, just as the 4CA and 10CA did. As you said, no lower courts have ruled yet.

    My memory of the PA case in the 3CA doesn't align in Whitewood v. Wolf. I recall Judge Jones III ruling, but I don't ever recalling it being appealed to the 3CA, but the state not appealing and it went into effect (there was some requests for a stay only by one of the clerks which the 3CA and SCOTUS, Alito in fact, denied). I'll have to look it up again, but I can't recall reading any opinion of the 3CA on state-level marriage equality affirming Judge Jones (just the 10CA, then 4CA, then 7CA, then 9CA).

  • 183. RQO  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    US Virgin Islands is dominated by protestant "sects" that are panicked by homosexuality. but they are friendly people. My husband and I recently attended my son's wedding to a VI woman. Interracial was just the beginning of the potential issues, to say the least. It was lovely, and everyone was a LOT more than polite. One by one, person to person, civility increases.

  • 184. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:54 am

    And since I think some of us (and I include myself) have not been appreciative enough of the massive changes happening currently in the USA in terms of ME here is the map only a year ago :

    Just put them side by side with the map today

  • 185. sfbob  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:41 am

    As was noted over at JMG yesterday, in just thirteen days, the ratio of equality states to non-equality states flipped from 19:31 to 32:18 (if one includes Wyoming).

    My own observation is that once Montana, Kansas and South Carolina are dealt with we will be slightly ahead of the point where interracial marriage was when Loving vs Virginia was decided. At that time (1967) 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws.

  • 186. franklinsewell  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:25 am

    SFBob … That's not an observation, it's really a fact.

    But, when Loving v. Virginia was decided 17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books, according to wikipedia.

  • 187. cpnlsn88  |  October 18, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    My analysis? SCOTUS is lining up the ducks and may be in a position to bring 15 states into line with 35 or possibly even a more favourable position. We're on the home strait. Very keen for the 6th Circuit to rule but wondering if they are awaiting for the states in question to be resolved (where a ruling has already been given at Circuit of appeals) and to take a moment to survey the new landscape….. then rule. In such a scenario it would be over to the 5th, 11th and 8th Circuits….

  • 188. sfbob  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Definitely a fact. The observation consists in pointing out the parallels.

  • 189. Ryan K.  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:17 am

    I really, really want an animated gif that shows a map of states as they got amendments and statues banning equality (seen one of those) and continue to show those states flip to marriage equality. If I could do it, I would! Just flash though dates since 1998 when Alaska put the first state amendment on the books through each day that a ban or ruling was instituted or struck/voted down. Would be an impactful display!

  • 190. Dr. Z  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:21 am

    It would have to start in 1996 when Congress passed and Clinton signed DOMA. That was truly the first such law.

  • 191. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    True point…to properly include federal cognition officially being against the law in 1996 and then recognition the law of the land in 2013. I also wonder how many state statues were on the books against marriage equality before 1996. For instance (from wikipedia), in Florida: "The state banned same-sex marriage by statute in 1977 and added a prohibition on the recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions in 1997." So while a lot of state DOMAs were put on the books in the late 1990s and the decade to follow to not have to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, many states may have had statues forbidding marriage equality from being performed in their own state.

    The animated gif's timeline could go back quite a bit in time…

  • 192. wkrick  |  October 19, 2014 at 12:22 am

    Here's one showing marriage equality over time. Not exactly what you asked for, but still pretty cool…

  • 193. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 19, 2014 at 6:08 am

    That is a pretty cool one, showing both the year it happened, but also by the day it occurred and showing the percentage of the population it goes up to each time.

    Now I just need a merged one! I guess I need to learn how to do it.

  • 194. wkrick  |  October 19, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    This page has something similar, but with a slider…

  • 195. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:58 am

    What a difference a year makes. By next year perhaps everything will be dark blue.

  • 196. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:56 am

    In another bit of good news from yesterday, the high court in NY state (it's called the Court of Appeals) got a makeover.
    It will very soon be a court controlled by Democrats, not Republicans.
    And to make it even better, the judge will be leaving is one of four who ruled against us back in 2006 saying New York could ban gay marriages unless the legislature decides otherwise.
    Despite a push by Republicans and our state anti-gay group, Cuomo refused to reappoint her and sent her on her way.
    Good riddance to her.

  • 197. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    This makeover may have been just in time for a decision in the Leteisha Green case by that court:

  • 198. franklinsewell  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:05 am

    If anyone wants some reading to raise your blood pressure, be sure to look at Equality Case File's latest uploads on Scribd or on Facebook. The state defendant from Alabama is using a native Egyptian Catholic US citzen's arguments from a book called "Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense."

    Same tired arguments using the same flawed logic. Baker controls, blah blah. Rational basis, blah blah. Right to marry someone of the same-sex, blah blah.

  • 199. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:13 am

    That Egyptian Catholic is Sherif Girgis, whom has told to take a hike earlier this year in the Michigan trial due to the judge deciding that all he had to offer was his option that gay marriage was icky.
    The book is called What Is Marriage and was co-written by Ryan T Anderson and Robert George, whom is a co-founder of NOM and one of the leaders of the anti-gay movement since the 80's.

  • 200. RobW303  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:21 am

    The word is "opinion", not "option". I've been seeing this mistake far too often recently. Where did it start?? An option is one of several choices, an opinion is a view or judgment. I suspect the culprit may be auto-correct gone mad.

  • 201. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 18, 2014 at 10:05 am

    Spell checkers gone wild can sometimes lead to hugely funny sentences. The best one I ever came across was this: "It was so cold there were ice pickles hanging from the trees."

  • 202. RobW303  |  October 18, 2014 at 11:29 am

    That gave me a good laugh; thanks for that!

    ♫ "O the cucumber bough, o the cucumber bough." ♫

  • 203. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    Auto-correct gone made and the inablity to fix a typo when someone replies.

  • 204. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 11:03 am

    It's interesting looking at the wiki map of marriage equality: As of now, you can't go coast-to-coast through marriage equality states as a line of states in the 8CA and 5CA create an anti-equality wall of sorts. Even once MT, WY, and KS GO BLUE (! – that's my University of Michigan alum insert), and if the 6CA gives us MI, OH, KY, & TN, there is still a blockade: ND, SD, NE, MO, AR, and LA/MS. The closest touching point at that point would be Kansas and Iowa – blocked by a small portion of Mizzou.

    Seem the fastest way to get the coast-to-coast linkage of marriage equality states is the 6CA rules in our favor (and no cert by SCOTUS), which joins the midwest grouping with the New England and Atlantic states, and then have the Arkansas Supreme Court rule in our favor, which would then connect Oklahoma to Tennessee via Arkansas.

    Pretty pointless post I know…but was a little puzzle like fun to think through. I'll just be down here in South Florida waiting for Judge Hinkle to remove his temporary stay!

  • 205. Ragavendran  |  October 18, 2014 at 11:51 am

    I posted a similar comment in a previous post, but note that Missouri now recognizes out-of-state marriages, so if the 6th comes down in our favor, there will be a clear path.

  • 206. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    So you can go coast-to-coast and have your marriage recognized, but just not be able to go coast-to-coast and stop along the way and get married. Loop-hole I'd like closed ASAP! Here's the 6CA ruling in our favor soon (so the state I grew up in can have ME – Michigan), and Arkansas Supreme Court being quick on their feet to rule (can't really hold out for the 5CA or 8CA ruling anytime soon, nor in our favor).

  • 207. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Don't get your hopes up about the 6th ruling in favour of ME. It's still quite unlikely, even with all these developments. But honestly the 6th ruling against at this point may speed things up nationwide for marriage equality.

  • 208. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    I can't decide if Sutton has written his majority opinion to uphold the bans as constitutional (going against the judgement of EACH federal district court below him in each of the four states in that circuit) and the dissenting Judge Daughtrey is going to town on her blasting of that ruling, or is it that he either was going to go pro-marriage equality himself and was finishing his ruling (or letting Daughtrey write it) and Judge Cook was devising a dissent in opposition.

    Either way we know it's a 2-1 ruling, which no doubt take longer than any 3-0 ruling. What were the timelines in the 4CA and 10CA from orals to opinion delivered?

  • 209. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    About 2 and a half months in both but they are both known to be speedy circuits and they had only one and two cases before them, the 6th is a slow one and it has 4 and we don't know if it will consolidate them or treat them differently based on the questions they present. The fact that they sua sponte took on the Tennessee case and heard them all the one after the other strongly indicates that they may go for the first option though.

    Yes it will be a 2-1 ruling either way, that's certain and the dissenter will be bitter and vocal whether it is Cook or Daughtrey imo.

    All the indications from oral arguments (and after) have shown imo that first and foremost Sutton does not want this issue in his hands. At all. If some circuit could rule against ME so that SCOTUS would take that case and relieve him of the stress to even decide on that, he would be very happy I think. That said, when oral arguments occured it was clear he was extremely skeptical towards the pro-equality side, thought baker was controlling and said that it would be better for the states to figure this out themselves. Not that he didn't ask hard questions to the states, that's why he is not thought as a certain vote against equality, he did.
    Sutton has shown so far that ,no matter if what he decides is right or not, he is mostly an indepedent thinker, unlike Cook. He was the first GOP judge to break from the line and uphold ACA, basically knowing that such a move may doom him in a future SCOTUS nomination from a republican president. So now ruling in favour of equality would not make him lose something he has not already lost by ruling in favour of ACA.
    The developments since then have only sent him strong messages towards upholding the pro-equality rulings from the 4 states : Judge Posner, a judge he has stated he really thinks highly of and reads what he has to say on a subject he may be dealing with, issued a fast, passionate, scathing opinion in favour of marriage equality lambasting the opponents. Then SCOTUS, which he hoped would take a case and take away the need for him to decide this, denied cert to every case before it sending strong signals on how it may rule once it takes a case on. And the truth is a small number of judges would want to go down in history as the ones who were overturned on such a historic issue.
    Still though Sutton is a strong believer in federalism and states rights (even if the state goes against the US constitution). So while I believe he will still rule against ME, we really can't tell after all that's happened since August 6.
    We can wait patiently. Whichever way he rules though, there are benefits for the pro equality side imo.

  • 210. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Indeed, it's why I suspect Sutton and Cook are dragging it out.
    I will be shocked if Sutton is a yes vote for us, his theory seems to be if the state wants to discriminate against any group of people, it should be up to the voters to hold them accountable and no one else.

  • 211. RQO  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Oh Zack – no one on these pages "gets" the undercurrent of politics behind EVERYTHING better than you. Pessimistic until recently (and raised in Chicago with big ears), I'm am nevertheless thrown a bit here. Consider this – let's just suppose for a minute Sutton is even half-way as much ear-to-the-ground as you. In which case, prepare to be shocked??

  • 212. wes228  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Either way we win, really. There really is no doubt now where the Supreme Court stands on this issue. I'm not worried at all.

  • 213. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    I'm not either.
    The four RATS on the court know there is five votes for equality and no turning back of the clock.

  • 214. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    I completely understand where your optimism and certainty come from but until I see it written on paper I won't declare full victory personally. Even though I do not consider them that sadistic and irresponsible to take away marriage rights from couples in 16 states essentially, I do not trust them to the least. I will still keep my reservations, no matter how irrational they may sound to some.

  • 215. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    Anything can happen but I'm sorry, what happened a couple of weeks ago spoke volumes.
    The only fear I have is one of the Windsor five passing away before the next case is heard.

  • 216. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    Sutton could play out another game though in order to appease everyone : He may uphold the ban on issuing licenses and strike it down on marriage recognition from other states. That would provide an interesting twist, although its unlikely. Who would appeal what and where should have to be sorted out after and it may play out as a good delaying tactic. A long shot but not impossible.

  • 217. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    That could be what he is doing in the hopes the Supreme Court will split the baby but IMO the ship has sailed on that as well.
    It will be all or nothing.

  • 218. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    Immediately after oral arguments in the 6th, I believed the odds were against a pro-ME ruling. However, after the tidal wave that has swept through the country following the denials of cert, I'm cautiously optimistic that ME will be the law of the land in all four 6th Circuit states by the time Ohio State beats the U of M on Nov. 29. Go Bucks!!! 😉

  • 219. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    I tend to agree, I just can't decide if Sutton was already there and the dissent is causing this much time, or he actually changed his mind from oral arguments to now and is rewriting his decision. I'm not sure how you don't see the writing on the wall given denial of cert in those cases, but at the same time, SCOTUS hasn't given a definitive ruling (yes I know they denied all those writs of certiorari) to tell the 6CA to rule a certain way. Sutton could say he's relying on Baker or whatever reasoning the 8CA used or any of the individual circuit judges who dissented in the 4CA or 10CA. If I were him, I'd side on the right side of history.

    And I have ABSOLUTELY nothing to come back with on that. The only thing I can hang my hat on is that it is "The Game" and stranger things have happened. It would be great though if a Wolverine like myself and a Buckeye like you could marry in either of our states, even in that state to the south.

  • 220. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    On that last point we can both definitely agree!!!

  • 221. JayJonson  |  October 19, 2014 at 6:21 am

    Agree that by the time the wolverines upset the Buckeyes on November 29, we may have a good ruling from the Sixth Circuit. If Sutton is as smart as he pretends to be, I can't see that he could sign on to the stupid arguments put forward by the states. Of course, he might say they are stupid but it is up to the voters to decide the issue.

  • 222. StraightDave  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:08 am

    I always read Sutton's signals as him seeing this as a social/political question rather than one of constitutional law. In general, it's OK to have a personal dividing line between the two concepts, we probably all do. But he's not living in Mississippi and he's not living in 1960. If he can't see blatantly unequal treatment for what it is and chooses to vote contrary to a tidal wave of courts, what does that say about the man?
    George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus?
    Or Judge Richard Posner?
    Your choice, your legacy.

  • 223. Zack12  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:16 am

    His record speaks for itself which is why he was blocked when Democrats controlled the Senate back in 01/02 and why he was a party line vote.

  • 224. guitaristbl  |  October 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Did not work too well to the ACA case for the republicans did it ?

  • 225. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Off topic:

    Several posters here at EoT have made non-complimentary remarks about a certain attorney named Monte Stewart.

    Seems the people at EoT are not the only ones to notice how ridiculous Stewart's filings are becoming:

  • 226. RQO  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    Mr. Potato Head, one of Idaho's most (in)Famous. Can we play with him and add the moustache?
    Oh that was cheap, but not below the level of panel rigging and bonding rights, oui?

  • 227. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:20 pm


    Below the belt?

    In my opinion, everyone should express their opinion about Monte. I'm sure the people who don't like him and make non-complimentary remarks about him far outnumber those who say kind things about Mr Potato Head.


  • 228. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    And on an irrelevant to ME note, I was reminded once again why I absolutely detest what the Roberts court is doing to this country by allowing the texas voter law go into effect even when the district court found it unconstitutional. And then Abbott will go now to say how he was elected by the people, when more than half a million of them may not have reached the polling station with this suppresing laws. Yuck is all I have to say. But then republicans know this is the only way they can keep winning elections.

  • 229. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Sad to say but gutting the VRA had been a goal of John Roberts since the 1980's.
    He is now getting his wish in doing that.

  • 230. Fortguy  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    A recent report from the Texas Observer chronicles the hardship of a woman who changed her name to that of her wife when they married in California. The woman cannot get a driver's license or state ID issued with her legal name conforming with her Social Security card, medical documents, and the like. The voter ID law effectively disenfranchises her as out-of-state driver's licenses are not a valid form of identification for voting.

  • 231. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    Hmmmm … couldn't she use her passport? The State Department should recognize her married name and that would match her Social Security card and other supporting documentation.

  • 232. Fortguy  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    She could, but requiring her to do so would be expensive and time-consuming and would validate the opinion of the federal judge in Corpus Christi who initially struck the law down as being discriminatory and imposing an unconstitutional poll tax.

  • 233. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    I understand that, but I'm just focusing on the identification required to obtain a driver's license. Typically either a birth certificate or a passport plus a Social Security card are required.

  • 234. Fortguy  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    Doesn't matter. The Department of Public Safety interprets same-sex marriage so strictly that it would consider recognizing her legal married name as a violation of the law. A passport may allow her to vote if she could possibly get one in time, but she would still be out of luck once her CA DL expires. State agencies under Gov. Perry and AG Abbott are required to be complete dicks about such things.

  • 235. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    After reading the requirements on their own website, I disagree that they would deny her a Texas driver's license if she presented a passport and a Social Security card with matching married names on them. However, I agree with you that it's ridiculous that she should have to do so when a birth certificate plus a marriage license (to show proof of name change) and a Social Security card should be sufficient.

  • 236. wes228  |  October 19, 2014 at 5:11 am

    It's ridiculous that you can change your name to whatever you want for whatever reason you want, except if it's because you got gay-married.

  • 237. guitaristbl  |  October 19, 2014 at 5:53 am

    Oh Abbott and Perry know that Texas is turning purple sooner than later and they are trying to stop it using any means they can to stop any minority that most certainly won't vote from them from voting. I do hope that by the time this reaches SCOTUS a different composition than the one today would strike it down. At least they won't be able to treat married same sex couples like that for long.

  • 238. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Some people have an awful lot of time in their hands and choose to invest it in this :

    Expected I suppose, it's rural Idaho, but still.

    I dread what's going to happen into state legislatures in Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, Arizona, North Carolina etc, especially Oklahoma and Idaho. Apart from the license to discriminate bills which will be passed in those states, I really wonder what else they will come up with to make sure LGBT people are reminded that they are 2nd class citizens still in these states…Tough days are coming for LGBT people in some states and once ME reaches Mississipi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas I expect even worse.
    We may be laughing at "pairage" right now but these legislators will do anything they can to get around these decisions and, using them as an excuse, attempt a major crackdown on LGBT people. I don't know if human rights supporters will be able to do anything in the likes of the Oklahoma legislature for example. I wonder if they will try some "gay propaganda" or "don't say gay bill" even. I believe in such cases the courts will be called again to protect the citizens.

  • 239. davepCA  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    You are most likely correct, a lot of that stuff will happen. We can handle it. And we will win.

  • 240. guitaristbl  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Well we may be able to handle it, especially with strong legal protections from marriage now (although I expect some actions to undermine that as well) but I don't see how we can win in the short term. A "don't say gay" bill may not survive judicial scrutiny but a "license to discriminate" may survive it. And these legislatures are not going to get any softer as time goes by. The texas GOP platform just endorsed reparative therapy, most of them can't get to repeal the sodomy laws found unconstitutional in Lawrence even 11 years ago. I hope LGBT people in those states are celebrating now and are happy, they deserve it, because tough times are definately coming imo and there will be little we can do to stop the GOP in these states. Otter and Fallin will be out for LGBT blood.

  • 241. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    I'm sure LGBT folks in those states are well aware of that fact.
    We will tackle those challenges as they come.

  • 242. franklinsewell  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    OH man… these people sound like the Westboro Baptist Church folks.

  • 243. BenG1980  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    I agree we will win; and an unintended consequence may be universal acceptance by the courts of heightened scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In other words, if our opponents go too far in trying to reverse these rulings, it could backfire on them big time.

  • 244. Dr. Z  |  October 19, 2014 at 1:49 am

    Agreed. That's how we got the Romer decision, as a reaction to Christianist overreach.

  • 245. weshlovrcm  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    If they pass such "Right to Discriminate" laws, we need pro-equality Americans who will use their "sincerely held religious beliefs" to refuse to sell an Apple Strudel and cup of coffee or a cup cake to an anti-gay activist. Then watch the howling begin from the sinful right.

  • 246. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 18, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    Someone is going to figure out how to alert potential customers to businesses who pledge not to discriminate. . . . and make a buck selling signs, stickers, or the right to use a "no discrimination" logo in advertising. The smart folks will make the use of the signs/stickers/logos subject to a small annual renewal fee. Don't see the logo? Better ask the business who they hate and why.

  • 247. StraightDave  |  October 19, 2014 at 6:48 am

    I think HRC's '=' sign would be a pretty good place to start. Help fund the org and its work. Perhaps add a tagline "HRC Certified Bigot-free", or a politically-correct equivalent 🙂
    I'm sure plenty of volunteers would be willing to test the places, couples of various combos holding hands, staff response to "disruptions", staff training, etc.

  • 248. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:26 am

    Your suggestion is a good one, but not with the HRC logo. Some members of the LGBTQ-affirming community here in Utah are not huge fans of HRC because of past negativity and lack of support for Kitchen v. Herbert.

  • 249. SeattleRobin  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:48 am

    I saw a link to this site the other day and they do exactly what you suggest. They have stickers that businesses can put on their doors/windows that read: "We don't discriminate. If you're buying, we're selling." The site needs a lot more exposure though, so that their business listings aren't so sparse.

  • 250. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:52 am

    Huge thanks. I've shared the web address with my friends in Restore Our Humanity (the organization that initiated Kitchen v. Herbert).

  • 251. Waxr  |  October 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    On the other hand, we could go the other way. Gays and lesbians definitely do not want to offend a person's deeply held religious beliefs. Therefore business owners who do not want to serve the LGBT community should be required to let their customers know who they refuse to accept..

    It would be easy for a business to place a sign on their door saying "No LGBTs" or "Straights Only." It would be the modern day equivalent of the "Whites Only" signs that used to be so common. My bet is that it would cost the owners more money in lost business than it would pay.

  • 252. Steve84  |  October 19, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    A Jesus fish will do

  • 253. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 20, 2014 at 2:04 am

    Yes, but my Jesus fish has a rainbow.

  • 254. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 19, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    Or maybe do as a friend of mine did in a different situation?

    He wanted to buy a used car from one of (at the time) the DC area's largest Chevy dealers (Ourisman's Chevrolet of Marlow Heights). He explained to the salesman he had the money, but he had to transfer it from savings to checking, and it normally took a transfer like that a couple of days to clear. The salesman assured Wayne that he wouldn't deposit the check for at least two days. That was on Thursday evening.

    On Friday, Wayne got a phone call from a friend at his bank, asking why he wrote a check for more than he had in his checking account. Wayne hid the car, then went to the dealer's showroom, and in the middle of the floor, in a very loud voice directed at the salesman, turned the dealership's saying of 'You always get your way at Ourisman's Chevrolet' to "I did not get my way at Ourisman's Chevrolet".

    The showroom floor customers went from about 40 people to almost none within a few seconds.

    No violence, just a lot of noise might do the trick.

  • 255. StraightDave  |  October 20, 2014 at 5:01 am

    Just as with politics and germs, sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

  • 256. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 20, 2014 at 9:17 am

    So-called Christians who want to discriminate based on so-called deeply-held religious beliefs in their businesses (assuming that said business is a Public Accommodation) are being deliberately disobedient to the principle that Jesus called the Second Greatest Commandment. Sincere religious beliefs should be respected. For example, a same-sex couple should not ask a religious society (e.g., church) to perform a marriage that is against the congregation's practices or policies. HOWEVER, these hypocrites would never put up with the disrespect and incivility they show to their law -abiding, tax-paying neighbors. Sewer-slime-sucking hypocrisy deserves only condemnation.

  • 257. hopalongcassidy  |  October 20, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Some day we will manage to finally figure out whether religion is a result…or a cause… of insanity.

  • 258. RnL2008  |  October 18, 2014 at 10:15 pm

    Frankly, if the Anti-Gay want to pass these Discrimination laws for religious beliefs……they BETTER be prepared to face the same…….I have some deeply rooted religious beliefs that say I CAN'T server fornicators or adulterers……and I'll be asking those questions up front!!!

    What's good for the Goose is also going to be GOOD for the Gander!!!

  • 259. KahuBill  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    I hope some people on the Continental US are paying some attention to what is going on with the the Governor/Lt.Governor and Statehouse elections here in Hawai'i. The Fundamentalist wing of the Evangelicals has taken over the GOP and even some Democratic State Senators and State Reps. A political rally was held for "Duke" Aiona and Elwin Ahu (a New Hope pastor) that was hosted by Transformation International – a very homophobic Christian Dominasionist Evangelical group. They are the antithess of our traditions of Aloha and respecting and celebrating diversity.

  • 260. Zack12  |  October 19, 2014 at 12:56 am

    I have been watching that. It is scary to think Aiona could soon be Governor along with a pastor who has made no secret of wanting to impose his religion on everyone as his sidekick.
    As for the Democrats, the reality is that if some of them were in other states more favorable to them, they would have an R next to their name.
    Mike Gabbard and Karen Awana are two such DINOS, I have no doubt there are others.

  • 261. guitaristbl  |  October 19, 2014 at 5:48 am

    Let's hope that Ige is able to win this after all is said and done. 3 way races can have unpredictable results.

  • 262. franklinsewell  |  October 18, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    And here's one from Las Vegas –

    The ACLU of Nevada will probably file a lawsuit, because we have a public accommodations law that prohibits discrimination by businesses. Wedding chapels are not churches.

  • 263. Waxr  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    I would like to know why my recent post was deleted. I am a long time reader and commenter on this site.

  • 264. Dr. Z  |  October 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Not sure how much Scotty et al. monitor the threads after they surpass 100 posts. If it happens again you might consider contacting them directly.

  • 265. franklinsewell  |  October 19, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    I would put this on the Idaho feed, but it's long gone… As EoT'ers predicted, here's another lawsuit from the couple in Coeur D'Alene, ID who refused to perform a wedding. The couple is represented by our not-friends, the Alliance Defending Freedom.

  • 266. StraightDave  |  October 19, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    What did you mean by "refuse to perform a wedding"? Who are these people and what did they refuse to do? If it's simple public accommodations about selling something, SCOUTS has already made their views know, via NM. But I suppose people will continue to poke at this until they find some crack they can exploit.

  • 267. JeffnRob  |  October 19, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    I think this is the link to what he's talking about:

  • 268. KahuBill  |  October 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Maybe we should clarify who does what when it comes to marrying. As a priest I preside at marriages. The only time i married someone was when I married my husband at our then home in Massachusetts 10 years ago. People marry people – period! The church or clergy-person blesses it – or not- in accordance with their rules. The State (via the clerk or whomever) accepts for filing the Marriage license – or not – in accordance with the laws of the State.

    To say they refuse to marry same sex couples is nonsense. What they are refusing to do is to attest that they witnessed the marriage of Party A and Party B. That is their sole job. Clergy both witness and bless – so they get the exemption based on faith. Government employees or those licensed to officiate by the State attest to a marriage do not get the exemption from doding their jobs.

  • 269. Steve84  |  October 19, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    They are not clergy. They just run a business.

    The lawsuit is also completely nonsensical because no gay couple has asked to get married there. They are suing preemptively, but aren't even an injured party.

  • 270. Dr. Z  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    Apparently these are the sort of people who've convinced themselves that teh geys are watching them lecherously in the locker room, despite the fact that they couldn't get laid on their Best Hair Day Ever.

  • 271. Mahnahvu  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    Actually they are ordained ministers. They are a business, but they say they are a "religious corporation."

  • 272. Dr. Z  |  October 20, 2014 at 3:58 am

    That just means their money laundering uses holy water.

  • 273. August  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:27 pm

    Remarkable issues here. I am very happy to look your article.
    Thank you a lot and I am having a look ahead to touch
    you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?

  • 274. ragefirewolf  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    Craving more news…


  • 275. Corey_from_MD  |  October 19, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    Greedy, aren't we? There will mot be any updates for a while unless Montana, South Carolina or Kansas rules OR there is a decision from the 6th Circuit. The 5th Circuit is going to take little while. There are 32 states now – Alaska to be uber-official early next week and Wyoming shortly afterwards… Go celebrate, damn it!

  • 276. ragefirewolf  |  October 19, 2014 at 9:35 pm

    I make no apologies for wanting to see more of the same progress ASAP. 🙂

    I am celebrating, hence the happy dance…but resting on our laurels? Never. Even if we had ME in all 50 states, DC, and all the territories, I still would want more and I wouldn't want to wait, and we needn't.

  • 277. bythesea66  |  October 19, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    I hope we hear from the Sixth tomorrow, but I suppose it's likelier a bit later…

  • 278. RemC_Chicago  |  October 19, 2014 at 10:12 pm

    Addictive, ain't it?

  • 279. RemC_Chicago  |  October 20, 2014 at 5:20 am

    Is it unreasonable to expect news at 7 am Central Standard Time? No, because Alaska's ruling was released on a Sunday, so anything could happen, right? We've turned into Pavlov's dogs, I think…

  • 280. JayJonson  |  October 20, 2014 at 6:23 am

    Here is a link to an interview with the Notorious RBG conducted by Nina Totenburg at the 92nd Street YMHA. She says there is no urgent need for SCOTUS to intervene as long as the Circuit Courts rule the way they have been. Hint, no doubt, to Sutton et al. on the Sixth Circuit. She doesn't answer a question about whether there is a possibility that marriage equality might be reversed at this point.

  • 281. guitaristbl  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:04 am

    RGB's statements only make me feel more insecure to be honest that the cases were dismissed only based on the technical issue of unanimity and they may not indicate anything further. Her reluctance on whether ME may be reversed at this point only enhances my point to be honest.

    The only positive note here IMO is that it's clear that her view that Brunning is not considered to have created a split is echoed from at least 5 other people at SCOTUS.

  • 282. RemC_Chicago  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:09 am

    I was disappointed in her "no crying need." I keep thinking of all the folks in those states that are moving too slowly and how to them there is very much a crying need. The comment about future reversals also surprised me, but I find it hard to believe that our rights could be taken away in the future. Plus, acceptance of ME is growing and will only continue to grow.

  • 283. wes228  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:10 am

    The Supreme Court absolutely does not need a circuit split in order to take up a case. People have been placing far too much importance on that. While a circuit split means it is highly likely they will take it, the Supreme Court routinely takes many other cases that do not implicate any sort of circuit split.

    The Supreme Court would not deny review to these three cases, bringing marriage equality to 30 states, only to at some unknown later date reverse them, creating legal chaos.

  • 284. guitaristbl  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:23 am

    I know it does not, I described my best case scenario as an answer to Zack below.
    And that scenario also provides an answer to the reversal and legal chaos speculation. If Kennedy did not vote to deny cert he can claim that he does not have any responsibility for the final result. It may put some pressure on him to vote for ME but who will hold accountable a man who said "look I vote to grant cert the first time around when no marriages had occurred" ;

  • 285. Zack12  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:11 am

    She isn't going to tip the court's hand by stating how they will rule one way or the other but I go back to this.
    If the four bigots on the court thought they had the fifth vote against us, they would have taken the cases up, simple as that.

  • 286. guitaristbl  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:19 am

    I don't think either "aisle" in the court knows what Kennedy thinks right now to be honest. My best shot at this is that Kennedy wanted aggresively to grant cert to a marriage case, the other 8 got scared since they do not know how he might rule and voted to deny cert.

  • 287. JayJonson  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:20 am

    I agree with Zack12 and wes228. As long as SCOTUS is composed as it presently is, there will be no backtrack. Justice Ginsburg is hinting that if a Circuit does not want to be reversed, they should do the right thing. She cannot speak directly how she (or anyone else) would vote in a particular way on a particular case, but I think she speaks this way to encourage the Circuits to follow the lead of the previous circuits. Should the Sixth or the Fifth or the Eighth or the Eleventh Circuit rule against us, SCOTUS will intervene and do the right thing and issue a 5-4 ruling in our favor.

    My fears are that the circuits will delay and stall and it may be two years before those of us who live in hostile states have equal rights, or that one of the non-RATS on the Court steps down and then all bets are off.

  • 288. Zack12  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:45 am

    The 5th is doing everything they can to drag their feet on a case in the hopes the scenario you talk about happens.
    The district court judge in Texas ruled against Texas's ban in February, it should NOT have taken almost a year for the 5th to order briefings and set a date to hear the case on it.
    They want to delay their negative ruling until it is too late in this term for SCOTUS to rule on it.

  • 289. wes228  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:58 am

    Didn't the 5th grant the motion to expedite the oral arguments? They're not scheduled yet but it'll be sometime in November.

  • 290. Zack12  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:15 am

    They did this time after turning down previous requests.
    Bottom line, they dragged their feet on this one.

  • 291. SethInMaryland  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:19 am

    they only did after the supreme court started getting tough

  • 292. guitaristbl  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:52 am

    The 6th is taking its good time to issue opinions today, they are way too late compared to previous days. Also today it is 2 and a half months since they heard arguments. At this point the 4th and the 10th issued their decisions (plus, minus a day).

  • 293. SethInMaryland  |  October 20, 2014 at 7:58 am

    i noticed that too

  • 294. guitaristbl  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Ok it's almost half past 11 now in Cincinnati, something is going on in the 6th..Could it be the day ?

  • 295. wes228  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:29 am

    They just posted. Nothing for now. Although there is a case involving Kentucky senatorial candidate Allyson Grimes. What's that about?

  • 296. guitaristbl  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:41 am

    It's a stay on a district court decision rendering unconstitutional a law about buffer zones around polling places. Apparently the plaintiff has property in such a buffer zone around a polling place and was putting on it material campaigning for this slug, McConnell. Grimes obviously objected to that. The 6th like the good conservative court it is, granted the stay of the decision rendering the whole law unconstitutional when it comes to public spaces but declined to stay it for the plaintiff's private property meaning he can go on campaigning for McConnell in his yard near the polling station. Typical 6th stuff.

  • 297. wes228  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:54 am

    I would actually agree with that. If you happen to live within 300 feet of a polling place that shouldn't stop you from being able to put campaign signs on your own lawn like everybody else.

  • 298. Ragavendran  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:49 am

    If my calculations are right, the Tenth and Fourth took exactly 76 days to hand down their opinions in Kitchen and Bostic. (Bishop took longer, 92 days.) Tomorrow will be the 76th day since the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments.

  • 299. OctaA  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Does anyone know when to expect the Ninth Circuit to issue their ruling in the Hawaii case?

    It has been 42 days since oral argument, the Ninth took 29 days to issue their rulings in Nevada and Idaho and said they would issue the ruling in Hawaii soon. Tomorrow will make 2 weeks since they issued the rulings in NV and ID.

  • 300. wes228  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:56 am

    I thought they did release it??? Didn't they vacate the District Court's decision (against us) and then dismiss as moot? Or am I imagining that?

  • 301. SethInMaryland  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:58 am

    yes they did , they said the case was now moot and vacated the decision

  • 302. Zack12  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:59 am

    They did. Basically the bigoted judge who ruled against in Hawaii has his option rendered null and void.

  • 303. Leo  |  October 20, 2014 at 8:59 am

    That has already happened. They ruled it moot and vacated the district court decision. Link:

  • 304. OctaA  |  October 20, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Thanks, I hadn't realised they had already released it. I had only been checking the published opinions not the unpublished ones.

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