Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Injunction sought in Mississippi marriage case, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

BREAKING UPDATE: This was expected, but Wyoming has notified the court that it won’t appeal the marriage case. Here’s the order lifting the stay.

– In the federal challenge to Mississippi’s same-sex marriage ban announced just yesterday, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a memo in support.

– There’s a motions hearing set for November 20 in the federal challenge to Arkansas’ same-sex marriage ban.

– The plaintiffs challenging South Carolina’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of the state have filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Fourth Circuit’s Bostic decision controls the outcome.

– A hearing is set for Friday, October 24, in Kansas on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order barring the state from enforcing its marriage ban. (The order was text-only, so no link.)

– In another text-only order, a federal judge has set a November 20 hearing in the challenge to Montana’s same-sex marriage ban.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. brandall  |  October 21, 2014 at 8:05 am

    Slate: No ME Case May Ever Reach SCOTUS Again

    I seriously doubt this will stop any state intent on holding onto its ME ban, but it certainly would be highly amusing and enjoyable to see this happen. I wonder if or when was the last time SCOTUS even invoked Rule 11.

    "Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, attorneys must certify that any motions they file are “nonfrivolous” and aren’t designed to “cause unnecessary delay.” If you violate that rule, you might face sanctions—a pretty embarrassing and sometimes expensive penalty.”

    From here on, attorney’s for the ME Plaintiff’s should include a statement on Rule 11 in their filings to SCOTUS.

  • 2. ragefirewolf  |  October 21, 2014 at 8:13 am

    Just a minor thing, but I believe the Slate article mistakes South Carolina for North Carolina…

  • 3. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:03 am

    Actually, the Gov. and AG of NC have conceded the fight and SSM are now legal and taking place on NC. That said, the republicob NC house speaker and senate president are pursuing a hopeless appeal of the now settled law of the circuit. This is simply a frivolous grandstanding ploy to draw in conservative voters on Nov. 4th. The Gov and AG of SC, however, are actively fighting the 4th circuit ruling, also grandstanding, as they have no chance at reversing at the fourth or obtaining certiorari from the Supremes.

  • 4. ragefirewolf  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:10 am

    That's exactly what I'm saying. The Slate article confuses the two and doesn't even mention North Carolina…did you read it?

  • 5. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:43 am

    I did, and he's discussing SC, appeal by the official defendants continuing to fight an unwinable battle. The NC republicans are intervenors, not the defendants. The article refers to future battles by official state defendants, not after the fact intervenors. The battle in SC is on because ME. is still illegal, and that's what the author meant to discuss, not after the fact law suits that won't even clear the circuit courts.

  • 6. ragefirewolf  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:20 am

    I give up LOL

  • 7. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:49 pm


  • 8. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 21, 2014 at 8:33 am

    Mark Joseph Stern at Slate ought to know better. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 11, control litigation in the U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, and only them. Rule 11 of its own force does not apply to writs of certiorari, nor does it apply to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

  • 9. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:11 am

    He may be wrong about his legal speculation, but I give him koudous, on what the purpose of his article is really about, not schooling lawyers or trying to talk them out of sending up appeals, but to demoralize the other side. Demoralize those lay people who fund the lawyers, the Organizations like NOM, AFC, et al, and those that fund attys and scholars who give credence to amicus briefs for the inequality side. I'll support that type of propaganda anytime.

  • 10. franklinsewell  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Retired_Lawyer – But, could our folks file motions for Rule 11 sanctions in US District Courts like in SC, MT – places where these lawsuits are futile? Just a question … IANAL (and not even a RL)

  • 11. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:12 am

    The short answer is no. The defendants are entitled to their "day in court," their opportunity to respond to the claims made by plaintiffs. Are defendants likely to win? No. Is time (in our opinion) being wasted? Yes and no. As long as proper procedures are observed, the results will have legitimacy and be seen as legitimate by the public, who we expect will adjust to marriage equality, because it has been brought into existence by institutions, the courts, that they respect. That respect would be undermined by any suspicion of corner cutting. And, yes, the time all this takes frustrates people, including me.

  • 12. Japrisot  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

    FRAP Rule 38, "If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee."

  • 13. Steve84  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    I call Rule 34

  • 14. Steve27516  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:00 am

    I think it's time to say, "Welcome, Wyoming!"

  • 15. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:09 am

    Congrats Wyoming! Finally the Equality State. 32 bans down, 18 to go. Montana, we're coming for you!!!

  • 16. DrPatrick1  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:14 am

    I will bet money we get a few more before the Nov 20th Hearing in MT. I think it is absurd to have the hearing scheduled so far into the future. I even expect finality in FL before Nov 20th…

  • 17. MichaelGrabow  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Definitely farther away then I expected given the ninth circuit's ruling and the speed of the other related cases.

    I would love if FL and their nearly 20 million people jumped on board before then!

  • 18. DACiowan  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:19 am

    I'm hoping Florida sparks a pretty speedy hearing and decision in the 11th Circuit, which is dominated by Obama appointees, and would give us the 15 million people in Georgia and Alabama, besides the 19 million in Florida.

  • 19. StraightDave  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:49 am

    KS would feel especially sweet. My only regret is that Fred Phelps is dead now. I.Can't.Believe.I.Just.Said.That.

  • 20. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    I know how you feel, because I am sorry that this year could not have been enjoyed by Senator Jesse Helms, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, and Chuck Colson, as well as the Reverend Fred Phelps. However, we still have the Reverend Pat Roberts with us.

  • 21. josejoram  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    I'd would rather count in on territory but not population.

  • 22. josejoram  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:40 am

    I think on Friday Hinkle will seat on a hearing. What this has to do with 11th Circuit opinion?

  • 23. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Congrats to Wyoming ! It may not have that many same sex couples (it is the least populated state after all..) but these few fought fiercely for their rights ! I hope Matthew is watching and smiling 🙂

    On other notes nothing from the 6th today. I thought this might be the week but I do believe any delay is in our favour.

    I doubt any preliminary injunction will be issued in Mississipi but it's nice to see things intensifying even in this state.
    There are currently only 6 states without ME,a federal or state district court ruling in favour of ME or a binding circuit decision that will eventually compel them to embrace equality : North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Mississipi, Alabama and Georgia. The trend is obvious. Either 8th circ states with late filling of a lawsuit or states in the very Deep South (two of them being the ones expected to be the only ones opposing equality by a majority of the public opinion by 2020).

  • 24. Zack12  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Bottom line, the only way much of the 8th,5th and 11th circuits see marriage equality is when Scotus rules against them.

  • 25. MichaelGrabow  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:17 am

    It seems like many here believe the 11th circuit will not be much of an issue…

  • 26. jdw_karasu  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:57 am

    The 11th is a dunker for us. We completely dominate it:

    I'd like to see them rule before the 8th and 5th since it's a pair of deep south Red States, and one high population Purple State.

  • 27. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    That would would be great. I wouldn't be surprised if the 5th drags out the ME challange as long as possible, well into next years. And while I hope I'm wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if the sixth doesn't hand down it's ruling after November 4th. Still hoping the sixth is reading the smoke signals from SCOTUS, that those mini DOMAs are all full of holes, like their federal big brother DOMA.

  • 28. FredDorner  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Actually the 5th circuit recently fast-tracked their two marriage equality cases.

  • 29. DrBriCA  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Well, the Texas appeal has been dragged out, considering it was a preliminary injunction issued (and stayed) in February. From what I read here earlier in the year, preliminary injunctions typically are already on expedited tracks, but the 5th circuit had no problem acquiescing to TX's requests for extensions (hence why it won't even finish briefing until almost 10 months after the ruling). It still hadn't had any hearings set by the time of the Louisiana ruling. So really LA is the fast-tracked one that was added to the slow moving Texas.

  • 30. FredDorner  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:56 am

    That's why I said RECENTLY fast-tracked because they've been dragging their heels until now. That said, they haven't yet scheduled oral arguments.

  • 31. Zack12  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Bottom line, they are going to rule against us but want to wait until it is too late for SCOTUS to take it up this term.
    Hence why they've dragged it out for so long.

  • 32. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 22, 2014 at 10:07 am


  • 33. MichaelGrabow  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Wow! That six state number is something I had not thought of and is great.

  • 34. dorothyrothchild  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Could someone tell me the name of the case we are waiting on in the 6th? I'd like to read up on some of the historical background. Thanks.

  • 35. Silvershrimp0  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Deboer v Snyder (MI), Tanco v Haslam (TN), Bourke v Beshear (KY), and Obergefell v Wymyslo (OH).

  • 36. StraightDave  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:56 am

    I thought Bourke in KY was the out-state recognition case, later replaced by Love v Beshear for full ME when it was argued at the 6th.

  • 37. DrBriCA  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    The Love case was expedited into the briefing with the other cases, as it was issued just as briefing was going for the rest of the states in the circuits. So the 6th heard both cases for KY; therefore, they reviewed full ME for Michigan (one ruling) and Kentucky (2 rulings), and reviewed recognition bans for Ohio and Tenn.

  • 38. SeattleRobin  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    The Michigan case is a really good one to focus on because it included a full trial. The only other case to do so was the Prop 8 case in California. The transcript of the trial are really interesting reading, especially as background to the district court opinion, where the judge smacked down the "experts" for the defense.

  • 39. R_A_J  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Off topic, but for anyone interested in Regnerus.

    He presented at an event yesterday sponsored by the Wheatley Institute at the BYU campus in Provo. Conference title is:

    "Family is Crucial: Views from Law and Social Science"

    link at:

    Regnerus appears at about the 2 hr and 10 min. mark and concludes at about 2 hrs and 48 min.

    (He does participate in 2 panel discussions, one before his presentation, and one after. I found the Q & A after his presentation more interesting).

    Some points from his talk:

    1.) Objects to having society "esteem" gay relationships. (He says this more than once).
    2.) Feels he is bravely asking questions that other sociologists can not (or will not) ask.
    3.) Says becoming a pariah in his profession has been "remarkably freeing".
    He comes off as somewhat bitter and definitely feels persecuted, but wears his status as a pariah proudly.
    4.) Hi-lights a statistic claiming to question whether youth today have already made up their mind about Marriage Equality. "I'm not sure it's true" he says. (He does this poorly in my opinion).
    5.) References his dismissal in the Michigan trial at about 2hrs: 32min – (warning: a few air quotes around this time).
    6.) He comes from a Dutch Calvinist background – but is now Catholic.

    I found his manner to be goofy and self-conscious, but am glad I watched because I feel I have a better sense of him now.

    (Other presenters include: Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson).

  • 40. sfbob  |  October 21, 2014 at 9:52 am

    He views himself as a martyr; the reality is he is an incompetent hack.

  • 41. JayJonson  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:10 am

    He is worse than just being "incompetent." He has deliberately falsified research for political or religio-political goals. He has betrayed the academic values he is supposed to profess.

    He is lucky to have tenure, though his hiding behind tenure is yet another betrayal of academe. Tenure is supposed to protect truth-tellers. He is using it to protect his ability to lie while claiming the prestige of a university position.

    I wish he were just an incompetent hack. He is much worse than that.

  • 42. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Agreed. And these conclusions are not opinions. They were found as facts by a Senior Federal Judge, Hon. Bernard Friedman, following a bench trial in DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014).

  • 43. sfbob  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:52 am

    I agree. His actions make him nothing more than what, in my profession, we call a "liar for hire." Still, one would assume that someone who's competent would not need to place himself in that position since he or she would be capable of forwarding their career by publishing research that is both meaningful and defensible.

  • 44. JayJonson  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:09 am

    I think he is competent enough. His research and teaching earned him a tenured position at the University of Texas. He could have gone on to a very respectable career as a sociologist. Now that he has betrayed the ethics of his field and of academia general, the only places that would give him a job are places like Brigham Young or possibly Notre Dame (where the director of his dissertation teaches), so he has f____d up his career not due to incompetence but due to his failure of integrity.

    Other sociologists are implicated in the Regnerus hoax, especially W. Bradford Wilcox, who probably recruited Regnerus for the study the Witherspoon Institute commissioned in order to influence SCOTUS. (Wilcox teaches at the University of Virginia, but serves on the board of the Witherspoon Institute, which is a Roman Catholic think-tank.) It didn't work out the way they thought it would.

  • 45. Steve84  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    He has already abandoned any semblance of an academic career. Instead he does what all failed right-wing hacks do. Work at some backwards "institute", thinking he can accomplish something by writing stupid shit:

  • 46. jdw_karasu  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Part liar for hire, since he's been happy to take money for it. But also a "liar for a cause", one that he feels pretty deeply about. He hates marriage equality, and doesn't care for gays, so he'll lie in an attempt to keep equality from happening.

  • 47. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

    Not intrerested into watching that (don't want to get my blood pressure up plus you pointed out the main contents of his remarks already) but I do have another question of academic nature : Will BYU allow an event with some ACTUAL experts on panel take place and present another view on the issue ? You know, for the sake of academic freedom in exchange of ideas…The fact that we allow people who have graduated from such places hold positions of power, either in the legislative,executive or judicial branch, is infuriating for a supposedly civilized society.How can a man who went in a university where LGBT people are villified to the extent they are expelled if they are found being intimate and supposedly learned about law there sit on bench and possibly have before him a case involving LGBT people ? Based on what judicial knowledge will he judge them, based on the one they received at BYU ? The likes of Bybee should recuse themselves voluntarily each time they are assigned such a case !

  • 48. mworley88  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    BYU Law has numerous times entertained speakers who support same-sex marriage. Mark Strasser and Kenji Yoshino, Michael Perry, etc. have all come and spoken on the same-sex marriage issue over the past 24 months.

  • 49. R_A_J  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Thanks, I knew someone better informed would soon step forward and add to the conversation.

  • 50. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Interesting. I wonder if it was the actual faculty that invited them. Still I find it extremely conflicting to have such hostility as an institution towards LGBT people in your actual policies and invite speakers to speak in favour of ME. Encouraging to know though.

  • 51. Fortguy  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Besides sometimes true gems can emerge from conservative backwaters. Texas politics has seen a number of progressive leaders who hailed from Baylor Law School of all places.

  • 52. JayJonson  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Lots of people who attend a university even as stupid as BYU, Baylor, or Liberty University wind up educating themselves and rejected the indoctrination they experienced. Just as there are a lot of recovering Southern Baptists, there are no doubt graduates of BYU who no longer believe what they were taught there.

  • 53. Terence  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    This could have a very simple explanation. When I was a student at the liberal, English – speaking Johannesburg , I noted that a small minority of my counterparts at the conservative, Afrikaans uni in Pretoria, were far more radical politically than my English "liberal" friends. Years later when I first came out as gay, again in Johannesburg, I noted that some of the most flamboyant, in your face openly gay men about were – Afrikaans men, whether from Pretoria or Johannesburg.

    I suspect that the reason is that once someone begins to reject years of suffocating conservative social conditioning, that quickly leads to a rejection of ALL the baggage.

  • 54. Steve84  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Most of the most hostile judges in same-sex marriage cases recently are BYU graduates though. Most notably in Hawaii and Nevada, and Jay Bybee at the 9th Circuit.

  • 55. FredDorner  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Judge Randy Smith on the 9th CA is also a BYU grad… surprise his bigoted views were in the minority in the Prop h8 appeal.

    In fairness, Judge Dale Kimball is a BYU grad too but seems to be able to keep his religious views and Mormon sharia laws out of his judicial rulings. He ruled in favor of recognizing the 1300+ marriages in Utah.

  • 56. NetAmigo  |  October 21, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    Students do come out at BYU. Gary Horlachor received BA and MA in linguistics, then got a PhD in marriage and family all from BYU. A professor learned he was openly out and spread the news about. Gary has said he spent two and half years after that fighting to survive. It involved 4 different investigations. Ron Schow PhD, a retired professor at Idaho State University, made several videos about homosexuality for Mormons. Gary participated in one of them. Schow succeeded in getting the Mormon Church to put them on their website which at the time had a section for psychological or mental health issues. I used Gary’s video regularly during the Prop. 8 fight linking people to it.

  • 57. R_A_J  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    you wrote:

    "…plus you pointed out the main contents of his remarks already"

    Actually, I just pulled out a few points that struck a wrong and/or interesting note with me. I wouldn't say I covered his main points adequately.

    "Will BYU allow an event with some ACTUAL experts on panel take place and present another view on the issue?"

    No. Was that a trick question? 🙂

    As for BYU, in general — I'm no expert on the institution, but I would say questions of quality regarding the school depend on which disciplines you're discussing. Areas such as medicine, law (LGBT issues notwithstanding) and athletics, for instance, (endeavors that require a high level of discipline and structure), produce achievement at fairly high levels. In other areas, the Arts for example, where BYU's culture of conformity is hostile to exploration and independent thought, achievement is not going to be at the highest levels.

    Anyway, just some quick thoughts.

  • 58. JayJonson  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    BYU is an academic backwater. It does not even pretend to respect academic freedom. It does not hire faculty members who disagree with LDS teaching and prohibits faculty members from contradicting LDS beliefs. They will occasionally allow outsider "experts" to speak, but always to be countered by official LDS points of view.

  • 59. Steve84  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    "Academic freedom" and "BYU" are two terms that should never be used in the same sentence except with "there is no" and "at" in there too.

  • 60. StraightDave  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    "remarkably freeing"?? I'll bet!
    He has no reputation to live up to anymore.
    Zero expectations, guaranteed income. What's not to like?

    Pond scum, in my book. Sold his soul for $700K.
    I hope UT uses every legal path to squeeze him out of every possible perk, access, invite, seat, exposure that are solely at their discretion. He embarrassed his employer.

  • 61. franklinsewell  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Intriguingly, the judge in the Arkansas federal case is Kristine G. Baker, an Obama appointee, who is roughly my age (slightly older) – early 40s.

  • 62. dorothyrothchild  |  October 21, 2014 at 10:49 am

    Off topic but as someone who is not LGBT I'm curious what the readers of this site do when they come across polls on the internet asking whether one approves of SSM? My first thought is that it's important to show public support wherever possible but at the same time, other people's civil rights are not something to be voted on so I feel like I should boycott these questions. Then again, even unscientific polls with a lopsided negative result would seem to send the wrong message so I'm never sure what to do…

  • 63. SteveThomas1  |  October 21, 2014 at 11:03 am

    I expect that pretty much everyone knows that internet polls in general mean nothing, so I don't see the question of whether or not to "vote" on them as something requiring much analysis. I don't generally participate, and I also never draw conclusions based on the "results". But that's just me, and folks who enjoy participating in such things can do so without guilt, in my opinion.

    There does seem to be a more serious question behind your query, however: what message does it send when something that shouldn't be up for a vote is nevertheless put to a vote with real consequences? I'm fortunate enough to live in NY, so I've never had to face a referendum or initiative which asked the question of whether I and my ilk "deserve" rights. But although I find the very notion of voting for the stigmatization of a group of folks based on homophobia (or any other illegitimate grounds) profoundly troubling, were I in a state where something of that sort was actually placed on the ballot, you can bet that I'd make very sure to vote in that contest.

  • 64. Fortguy  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    The poll couldn't be more meaningless if the query was Ginger? Or Mary Ann?

  • 65. SteveThomas1  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Oh, that one matters! Mary Ann all the way!

  • 66. Dr. Z  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    is The Professor an option? Seeing as how the Skipper and Gilligan are taken (with each other)

  • 67. Randolph_Finder  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Unfortunately not all of the Giligan's Island slash agrees on that.

  • 68. Fortguy  |  October 21, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Too bad the island didn't have a relationship counselor. If someone could have showed Gilligan how to extract himself from his physically and verbally abusive Skipper, Gilligan and the Professor had very complementary opposite personalities and skill sets.

  • 69. sfbob  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    These polls can readily be gamed. There's even a word for it, which I'm sure any reader of JoeMyGod knows.

  • 70. F_Young  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:06 pm


    A poll is not a vote. So, I don't have any problem with participating in polls. They can be an important tool to advance rights, even online polls. Many human rights issues could never have progressed without polls, eg the prevalence of bullying, support for marriage equality.

    In any case, even if one disapproves of voting on rights, when a vote is in fact happening, it is self-defeating not to vote. In addition, there are cases where there is no other legal mechanism to reverse a human rights infringement, eg the heterosexist marriage definition in Ireland's constitution.

  • 71. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    Apparently the federal case in Mississippi has been assigned to the only Obama appointee, and only judge (both district and senior) appointed by a democratic president in general, in the southern district of mississippi, Carlton Reeves :

    I do not have a link to that though , I read it on wikipedia. Maybe CPM could go there to present the same arguments it did in the 9th while asking for en banc..Maybe that mississippi republican dominated court is corrupt as well 😛

  • 72. davepCA  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    That seems encouraging in general, but I haven't been able to turn up any references to any decisions or comments from him that might give a clue about how he might rule on ME. Anybody find anything?

  • 73. seannynj  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    It seems like none of the conservatives in this circuit want to be the one that issues a pro-marriage equality decision so the senior judges just tossed it to the democratic appointee.

  • 74. DACiowan  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Does anyone know if there are plans for a federal court case in Nebraska? With Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant being filed in Mississippi, Nebraska is the only state left that does not have an (active) case of any kind, let alone in federal court. There is the divorce case in state court, but I haven't figured out whether the state Supreme Court dismissal sent that case back to the lower levels or ended the case.

  • 75. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    It has not ended the case, they can file it again once some procedural nonsense ends in district court. The truth is imo that Nebraska's equality supporters took a beating in 2006 after the decision in Brunning so I don't blame them for being hesitant to file another federal lawsuit now. Brunning set the LGBT movement back in the whole country but especially in Nebraska.

  • 76. Zack12  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Indeed, that ruling made it much easier for various state courts to rule against us and pretty much ensured that there would be no federal lawsuits against marriage bans in federal court for a few more years.

  • 77. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    Since Nebraska was mentioned, Bataillon, the judge who ruled in favour of ME in Brunning is still sitting as a senior judge. Funny thing that district court of Nebraska. There are 5 judges sitting (district and senior), each appointed by each different president since Reagan.

  • 78. Christian0811  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    Does any one know the list of states with absolutely zero anti-gay legislation on the books (enjoined or not)?

    Right now I think it's: Washington, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Delaware.

    That's only off the top of my head

  • 79. DACiowan  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Iowa has a full set of LGBT protections (marriage, adoption, employment, etc.) but unfortunately the enjoined man-woman definition of marriage is still in our state statutes. Don't expect our legislature to get rid of it any time soon, either.

  • 80. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    Even worse if republicans take over the stage legislature (both houses), there are visible threats they will bring an anti-marriage equality amendment up with hopes to get it on the ballot. Not sure what chances it would have to suceed but Iowa is still not solidly in favour of equality according to latest polling.

  • 81. Zack12  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    I think the backlash against it would be huge and bring out our base (Iowa is split down the middle politics wise) which in an election year would not be a good thing for the Republicans.

  • 82. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    True but religious bigots still have their way into motivating their base (which is bigger – more christians than LGBTs unfortunately) in a more effective, more fanaticized way. Thus a negative result could come, even in a few years if SCOTUS does not make that definitive ruling for whatever reason. We saw what happened in Hawaii during the public hearings. They can do much worse when it comes to voting.
    I believe that if they take the legislature they will definately bring it up and vote on such a constitutional amendment. I don't know how many times they have to vote before it goes on the ballot but I believe they plan to get it there at 2016.
    It's not 2004 when Bush got the conservatives out voting by putting the amendments on ballot but still you never know, especially when we don't know the political climate under which the 2016 elections will take place.

  • 83. Zack12  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    I look to Minnesota in 2012 when Republicans tried to push a gay marriage ban there.
    It blew up in their faces and cost them control of both chambers of the state government.
    Iowa Republicans grip on the State Senate would be a small one and something like would blow up in their faces.
    Hopefully it would be enough to take out Chuck Grassley at the same time.

  • 84. DACiowan  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Support in Iowa is so narrow that if it was in a presidential election year, a ban would fail IMO but in a midterm year or off year it would pass. We were fortunate enough to have a pro-civil rights governor (Chet Culver) and Democratic legislature in the late Aughts to ensure respect of rulings like Varnum, but Terry Braindead is a different story. Ugh. We also have a local hater still whining about Varnum named Bob Vander Plaats who hails from the same blood-red NW corner of the state as Rep. Steve King. But if you want to be inspired, look up Zach Wahls who helped halt the state legislature's last attempt to pass a referendum undoing equality.

  • 85. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    I have seen Zach's speech so many times and sent it to so many people already, I can literally quote it from heart !
    As I said I am not sure about the procedure to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in your state but they could be aiming for 2016. Since it is presidential they may even go for a totally off time though, like NC did. The clock ticks against them though, that's for sure, which is the only thing that may make them hesitate I hope.

  • 86. DACiowan  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    For a constitutional amendment in Iowa, it must be approved by two consecutive legislatures first so it would be 2018 at the earliest iirc. I'm pretty certain SCOTUS will have overruled a negative ruling out of the 5th well before then, so it's political hot air. But it's still frustrating to see support numbers still stuck in the mid to high 40s.

  • 87. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Oh ok then. Even if it went for a vote by 2018 Iowa will have a safe majority in favour of ME anyway.

  • 88. sfbob  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Even if such a measure were brought and passed, getting it to stick would be a serious and I mean SERIOUS uphill slog. The state will instantly face a federal lawsuit and will place itself in the position of having to justify not GRANTING marriage equality, but TAKING IT AWAY. That one would certainly be subject to intermediate scrutiny, if not strict scrutiny. Quite a way to waste the state's resources and almost certainly doomed to failure.

  • 89. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    Still Iowa is in the 8th so under the current judicial climate, a federal lawsuit would also face an uphill battle given both Brunning and how conservative the 8th is. Of course these are all worst case scenarios and for them to happen SCOTUS has to duck the issue for at least 2 years which seems impossible.

  • 90. Zack12  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    NY has no anti-gay legislation on the books but we don't have statewide protections for transgender individuals.

  • 91. jpmassar  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    LAS VEGAS (AP) — About 255 same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in Nevada in the first week after the marriages were ruled legal.

    They accounted for nearly 11 percent of the 2,344 couples who lined up at marriage license bureaus across the state in the seven days after courts put an end to the state's gay marriage ban. The figures were based on polling by The Associated Press of each county clerk.

    Industry watchers say the impact to Nevada will take time.

    A June study from the Williams Institute at UCLA said the state could expect to see anywhere from 980 to 2,285 Nevada same-sex couples marry in the first year it was legal. The study's authors said the weddings could bring $14.4 million to $33.5 million in spending in that time.

  • 92. jpmassar  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm


    BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Gov. C. L. "Butch" Otter is asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an 11-judge panel to review the three-judge ruling that overturned Idaho's gay marriage ban last week.

    Otter announced Tuesday in a news release that the federal judges failed to use the correct legal standard to Idaho's Constitutional definition of marriage.

  • 93. guitaristbl  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Expected but he stands no chance really. O'Scannlain along with Bybee and Bea will delay the whole thing and make a futile effort to grant the en banc but it's terribly unlikely imo. The full court has already rejected an en banc hearing on the legal standard (aka heightened scrutiny) of judgement on cases involving sexual orientation.

    Otter is also lying in his brief. What chapel was compelled to conduct same sex marriages ? The one currently filing the lawsuit has never showed any actual "injury".

    And of course he is eagerly waiting for the 6th so if they rule against he has a right to stall things. Again unlikely since a ruling from the 6th does not change the laws in the 9th, at least until SCOTUS rules on that.

  • 94. DeadHead  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    He's wasting tax payer dollars for political grandstanding on a lost cause and he is priming the pump on the newest lawsuit on that wedding chapel which has not been harmed.

    "Otter argues that already one Idaho business has been harmed by the judges' ruling."

  • 95. ragefirewolf  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    So much for giving up 🙁

  • 96. StraightDave  |  October 21, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    So the AG isn't joining the Gov's en banc appeal but will take it to SCOTUS instead.
    Does ID just not have their act together at all?

    "Idaho's Attorney General Lawerence Wasden is not joining Otter in the petition, said spokesman Todd Dvorak. However, Wasden's office is planning on asking the Supreme Court at the "appropriate time" to review the lower court's documents and decision"

  • 97. jpmassar  |  October 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – The Arkansas attorney general's office says it doesn't object to the state's highest court moving quickly on a lawsuit challenging a gay marriage ban.

    Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office on Tuesday told the Arkansas Supreme Court it doesn't object to a request by a group of same-sex couples challenging the ban to expedite the case before the high court. The state is appealing a Pulaski County judge's ruling in May striking down a 2004 constitutional amendment and earlier state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

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