Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Ninth Circuit news, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
– Governor Otter in Idaho will seek en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Latta. (In most circuits, en banc review means review by all circuit judges, but the Ninth Circuit is huge, so they have 11-judge en banc panels, when they do grant them. The linked story notes that the state attorney general won’t join the governor in the filing, but that he’ll file a petition for review in the Supreme Court.

– UPDATE: The request mentioned above was filed last night, along with a request to file a longer than normal brief. UPDATE 2: The motion to file the oversize brief has been granted, and the plaintiffs have been asked to respond to the request for en banc hearing in 21 days.

– Along with the update noted above re: responses in Idaho, the Ninth Circuit has also just asked for responses to the en banc petition in the Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, in 21 days.

– A group who supported North Carolina’s anti-gay marriage amendment is saying that state officials can refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

– LGBT groups are asking the federal government to include LGBT people in its forthcoming policy on profiling of minority groups.

BREAKING UPDATE: There will be a hearing in the Mississippi marriage case, on the motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcing the ban, on November 12.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. ragefirewolf  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:15 am

    So this group who's telling these state officials they can go against the judges' orders…one would hope they know they're just going to get them fired or worse. This is especially after magistrate judges were told they would be sanctioned/terminated if they refused to marry these couples.

    Wow, these bigots won't get a clue will they?!

  • 2. Zack12  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:19 am

    They are called Alliance Defending Freedom which is ironic since their goal is to basically push a Christian theocracy on everyone.

  • 3. robbyinflorida  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:45 am

    I thought Monte Stewart of Idaho and Nevada fame was working for the NC repubs.

  • 4. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:45 am

    Alliance Defending Freedom to Discriminate, Segregate, and Hate.

  • 5. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    And they lose more cases than win…wonder why?

  • 6. Leo  |  October 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Haven't you heard? They think "Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but the ability to do what we ought."

  • 7. Eric  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:30 am

    I really do hope that someone relies on their legal advice, for both parties' sake.

  • 8. ragefirewolf  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:32 am


  • 9. hopalongcassidy  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:44 am

    To get their dumb asses fired. Duh.

  • 10. ragefirewolf  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:45 am

    I'd prefer they just follow the law, honestly

  • 11. Eric  |  October 22, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Because when the bigot loses their job, they will have a malpractice claim against ADF. And the anit-gay aren't exactly known for turning the other cheek.

  • 12. Jaesun100  |  October 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Imo if your job interferes or conflicts with your religion it is time for a career change ….

  • 13. F_Young  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Why change your career, when it's so much easier and cheaper to change your religion?

  • 14. Waxr  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    The Alliance Defending Freedom is claiming to be protecting Religious Freedom.

    While looking over the constitution for North Carolina, I found the following:

    We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.
    . . . .

    Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.
    We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.
    . . . .

    Sec. 13. Religious liberty.
    All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
    . . . .

    Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
    The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
    First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

    As you can see, they claim religious freedom, but to them that only pertains to those who believe in "Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations." This religious freedom does not extend to those who do not profess in the existence of a god. And obviously the Alliance does not accept that part which says, "all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness." They will not admit that Gays and Lesbians have the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • 15. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    It's OBVIOUS what is wrong with North Carolina………'s their Constitution and basically DEMANDING that every citizen of that State believe as they did when it became a State……..sorry, but that's EXACTLY why our founding fathers opted NOT to give this Country a National Religion!!!

  • 16. ragefirewolf  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    I'm sure North Carolina is not alone in its wrongness, but yes, I can see where the bigots get their theocratic ambitions now…

  • 17. Randolph_Finder  |  October 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    Maryland (that bright blue state) has it written into the state constitution that you have to believe in god to be elected to state office. That was knocked out a judge *quite* some time ago. I'm in Montgomery County, MD the voters would probably forgive getting around that with the FSM.

  • 18. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Remember also that Maryland was originally founded as a refuge for Catholics (and Protestants), but Catholics NEVER were a majority of the population in the colony or state. And during the 1650s, the colony of Maryland was invaded (and taken over) by religious zealots from Virginia.

    Also remember, when the original state capital was set up in St. Mary's City, the governor set up the Governor's mansion halfway between the legislative house and the Catholic church. Lord Baltimore constructed the Governor's House so that no one could look from the chapel to the legislative house (or vice versa) without the view being blocked by the Governor's House, in effect, blocking church and state from interfering with each other.

    (Disclaimer – some of my ancestors were on the Ark and the Dove, and were thus among the first colonists of the colony. They also were Protestants, not Latin Rite Catholics.)

  • 19. Dr. Z  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    Oregon's Constitution used to forbid Negros and Chinamen from establishing residence here.

    Now it still says same-sex couples can't marry. All these provisions are equally unenforceable.

  • 20. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 22, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Growing up, I lived near a large town that prohibited blacks from even being within the city limits after dark. The ordinance was taken off the books in the mid-1960s. And this was in NE Indiana.

  • 21. RemC_Chicago  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:23 am

    Yikes. I'll have to check with my husband and find out if there was a similar ordinance in his north Indiana hometown.

  • 22. RemC_Chicago  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Good sleuthing. Thanks!

  • 23. Jaesun100  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:18 am

  • 24. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:27 am

    Yeah that's about a week old or so..Quite inexplicable that lgbtqnation only reports it now..

  • 25. Zack12  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:28 am

    Not as bad as the bigoted judge from yesterday citing it in his ruling.

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:32 am

    He cited Jackson ? I guess I missed that part…Did not read it line to line, made me physically ill. Well apart from the whole Baker, twisted Windsor thing what did he have ? Jackson, Sevcik on district level, Robicheaux and the dissents in Kitchen and Bostic.
    I still remember how only citing the pro-equality opinions took a whole page of his opinion. And the he goes on to the next page to say essentially "All those decisions got it wrong and I got it right".

  • 27. robbyinflorida  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:49 am

    What ruling? I didn't see it. Do you have a link?

  • 28. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:52 am

    Previous article, the ruling upholding Puerto Rico's ban. Caused quite an uproar.

  • 29. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:59 am

    The silver lining in this bigot judge's ruling is he made his animus toward non traditional marriage couples crystal clear. Hopefully the 1st circuit will slap this rogue "judge" down swiftly and sternly. He's also going to raise the ire of the Freedom Five… Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg. This judge is the type that would like to take the country back to the 19th century… gays not allowed in society, women with no vote staying home barefoot and pregnant. Yeah, that's going to fly with the women of SCOTUS and Breyer and Kennedy.

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

    "And it is even worse policy, creating enormous risks to Idaho’s present and future children — including serious risks of increased fatherlessness, reduced parental financial and emotional support, INCREASED CRIME, and greater psychological problem — with their attendant costs to Idaho and its citizens. "

    Otter should have kept Monte. Sticks and balls had a much better chance convincing the 9th to grant en banc than this. I mean..Ok the increased "fatherlessness" and other nonsense, we have heard it before. But increased crime ?! Really ?
    They even bring Brunning as an argument ! I mean even if Brunning is still relevant in the 8th what does it have to do with the 9th ? The 9th is not binded by an opinion by the 8th ! If that was the case then having 4 circuits on our side should compel Sutton to rule in favour of ME.
    I suspect even Bybee and Bea may reject it this time around, leaving O'Scannlain screaming and dissenting alone.
    They are becoming more ridiculous the more they lose.

  • 31. Zack12  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:42 am

    No option is too anti-gay for the bigots.

  • 32. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:47 am

    Of course not. But by showing a descending intelligence in their briefs they only make it easier for the judges. I want to see O'Scannlain defending the "increased crime" thing to convince the rest of the circuit to grant en banc. Fingers crossed they answer this one fast. Also the AG filing for cert seperately only helps us, they may get slammed simultaneously by both the 9th and SCOTUS, without wasting any more time.

  • 33. Steve84  |  October 22, 2014 at 11:41 am

    I'm sure he can find something in the Regnerus "study" to back that up.

  • 34. davepCA  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Yeah. Gangs of gay criminals terrorizing citizens with their fabulous jazz-hands-y dance moves. Haven't you ever seen 'West Side Story'? : )

  • 35. TonyMinasTirith  |  October 22, 2014 at 10:03 am

    and dont forget Drive by hair stylings. Lions and Tigers and Gays… Oh my! Lions and Tigers and Gays… Oh my!

  • 36. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 23, 2014 at 11:20 am

    Old joke:

    Q. What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, bang bang, clip-clop, clip-clop?

    A. An Amish drive-by shooting.

    Oh, and wasn't the basis for 'West Side Story' from the 1950s (with a bit of 'Romeo and Juliet' thrown in)?

  • 37. franklinsewell  |  October 22, 2014 at 10:35 am

    guitarist – I guess this is no shocker, but the attorney filing the request en banc is a Mormon, and left his law firm so that he could help Utah in their appeal and now, I suppose he's moved on to Idaho. How fun.

  • 38. RobW303  |  October 22, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    So, he hasn't got any facts to back up his assertions, but they come from deep moral convictions, so they must be right. Got it.

  • 39. jpmassar  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:37 am

    along with a request to file a longer than normal brief.

    After all, convincing 11 judges of illogical arguments takes more words than convincing 3 judges.

  • 40. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:50 am

    And they are getting their guns ready :

    They want to bring back the vetoed bill. That should work well 2nd time around *rolls eyes*

  • 41. davepCA  |  October 22, 2014 at 9:31 am

    From the article:
    "Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said consideration of a new version of the vetoed bill would be contentious but necessary.

    “But there has to be some kind of acknowledgement that we have to develop the right kind of policy to handle situations that may arise when one person believes something should happen because of equality, and someone else on the liberties side of the argument says you shouldn’t force someone to do that,” Mesnard said. “We’re going to have to have that conversation.”

    First task, Rep. Mesnard, would be to explain how a same sex couple getting a marriage certificate 'forces' anyone to do anything. You can't, because it doesn't. End of "conversation". What a moron.

  • 42. StraightDave  |  October 22, 2014 at 10:59 am

    I love the way he casts "equality" on one side vs "liberties" on the other, as if they were somehow in conflict or inherently different concepts. What about equal liberties for all? Oh no, can't have that. This is such a lame attempt to elevate "liberty to deny equality" to the same stature as the equality itself. In other words, I deserve to be equal to all my friends, but I should be allowed to deny the same equality to the people I don't like. That's what he is saying. Good luck selling that one.

  • 43. RemC_Chicago  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Um…in this case, it's "moran"

  • 44. Jaesun100  |  October 22, 2014 at 10:52 am

  • 45. RQO  |  October 22, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Wow, I thought all the people with 2 years worth of food and 20,000 rounds of ammo in their basements would be otherwise occupied with Ebola and End Days. I can imagine Idaho's "longer brief" will include the Book of Mormon in it's entirety. The liberties vs. equality note is just confused argfle-bargle, but stirring up civil disobedience on the part of magistrates is a warning shot. I wouldn't mind it so much if it were a "safe" public provocation amongst "nice" people, but I wonder: is that is covertly encouraging UNSAFE activity by NOT NICE people. Gay bashing as protected protest?
    My rainbow painted fenceposts in a Red county have been around for over a year with no consequence, and in 6 years only one piece of hate mail. We'll see what happens next.

  • 46. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 22, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Stay safe.

  • 47. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 23, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Before I retired, I laughed at all the houses in NoVa whose owners flew the rainbow flag right next to a flag or banner that showed they were RW religious nuts.

    When asked about the rainbow flag, the response usually was in the 'I fly it because it's pretty' range. Shows how much intelligence the house owner has.

  • 48. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 11:32 am

    So the Mississippi case gets a hearing on the issue of the preliminary injunction before the Montana case gets a hearing on summary judgement and lets not even go to South Carolina…right. I wonder why things have picked up such a fast pace in Mississippi. If we are able to get a preliminary injunction here, the state will then appeal it to the 5th and ask for a stay. I hope the 5th follows the example of the 6th in Tanco v. Haslam and sua sponte assign the case to the same panel as DeLeon and Robicheaux so that all states in the 5th have a ME case before in a 6th circuit style. It will make things a lot easier procedurally once ME comes there possibly through SCOTUS. If we assume the 6th rules in favour of ME, then the 5th will rule against in a ruling that will cover all 3 states in the circuit thus making implementation easier when time comes (not all the nonsense we witness now in SC, KS and MT).

  • 49. Fortguy  |  October 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    I would think that is very likely since the DeLeon appeal is on a preliminary injunction that hasn't proceeded to trial yet, either. Likewise, I would expect a stay in the Mississippi case if ruled in our favor. The disadvantage here is that it would also set the clock back on the proceedings. DeLeon is fully briefed, and Robicheaux is supposed to have final replies by November 7. The 5th was expected to have oral arguments in late November or December, but that may be backed into next year if the Mississippi case is combined.

  • 50. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    Wow, Otter is REALLY going to site a case from 1885……things have changed since then and he's not changed as well…..ugh!

    Again with Baker and Bruning, not gonna work here!!!

    Does Otter know that he has almost "ZERO" chance of getting this review?

  • 51. stevew999  |  October 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    I have to admit, that was perhaps the STUPIDEST brief yet…not only sexist, but logically unsound.

    Did he really argue that if same-sex couples can marry, *crime* will increase and the "fabric of society" will "dissolve into a pile of yarn"? Seriously?

    Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

    Good Lord…

  • 52. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    Yep, what an idiot these folks are and if he hasn't been paying attention…is chance for a re-hearing in front of 11 judges with the 9th probably WON'T happen, nor will their appeal to SCOTUS….sucks to be them!!!

  • 53. StraightDave  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    This is what happens when you fire Monte Stewart. You get the next guy down the bench, which is mighty slim pickings these days. Hey, wasn't Gene Schaerr Utah's hand-picked hero? Same church, same delusion, same result. No worries, mates.

  • 54. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    When I was growing up, we had a dog that liked to lie out in the sun during winter. Several times, the (multiple barn) cats would pile on him. If the dog moved at any time until the cats moved off him, the cats claws would suddenly appear and the dog would quit moving.

    Were my dog and cats strange for 'living together'?

  • 55. Fortguy  |  October 22, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Joe.My.God. reports FLORIDA: State Has Until Friday To Oppose Motion To Lift Marriage Ban.

  • 56. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Here's another good one……where do these folks come from:

  • 57. StraightDave  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Oh, that was one of the more sane, rational, and mild emissions from the Honorable Mr Gohmert. He's usually much further off the wall than that. Certified nut case. He really deserves his own category in the DSM.

  • 58. Fortguy  |  October 22, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Listening to Louie is the closest thing we have for entertainment in Texas since Matthew McConaughey.

  • 59. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Wow, you mean this is it…..damn, that sucks……lol!!!

  • 60. Fortguy  |  October 22, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    Mother Jones has a must-read collection of Louie at his most unhinged:

    We gotta keep Louie. He talks so crazy even most right wingers won't take him seriously. He represents Texas' 1st Congressional District anchored in Tyler, and does his due diligence spreading BS around in support of the city's famed roses and azaleas.

    Besides, the best reason for gays to serve openly in the military is that it gives Louie homoerotic thoughts about men giving each other massages.

  • 61. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    I would suggest that you not call Goob … I mean Gohmert's office and ask to speak to the 'red neck' Congresscritter.

    A couple of years ago, I did, and I got promptly hung up on.

  • 62. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    I've NEVER heard of the nutcase……..and now I wish I hadn't……but these folks are really sort of helping us without really knowing it….lol

  • 63. Rik_SD  |  October 23, 2014 at 11:04 am

    haha Tyler, Texas. That's my mom's congressman… though I promise she never votes for him!

  • 64. guitaristbl  |  October 22, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Ok so if we put aside any pro equality bias what are the actual chances for Idaho to be granted en banc review here ? And usually how long it takes for the court to answer on whether its going to hear a case en band or not ? Also for the en banc request to be granted should a majority of all justices in the 9th (minus the senior ones) vote to grant it ?
    My view on this is : Otter makes three claims in his brief based on which the court should grant en banc :
    a) Baker and that 19th century decision are controlling
    b) The court erred when it applied heightened scrutiny
    c) The ban does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in first place

    I already consider b moot by the time the court did not grant en banc to SmithKleine which leaves a and c as points in search of judges to resonate with.
    For argument a I believe most judges will follow the line of thought of the three judge panel and most courts around the country (as laid out especially by Crabb in Wisconsin) citing doctrinal developments. If that does not make a convincing case, denial of cert on October 6 may not overrule baker but severely undermines it and its usage as binding precedent and that may convince even those judges who are on the verge.
    The "strongest" point (relatively to the other two that is) is c, which was rejected by the three judge panel. With how many judges on the 9th will the "gay men can marry women" argument resonate ? O'Scannlain certainly but how many can he influence ? Bybee and Bea ? Bybee already seemed to separate his position from O'Scannlain's in the Alaska stay order so O'Scannlain may need to convince new people on a or most likely c. The dissenting judge in the prop 8 case (one who has offices in Idaho, don't remember his name right now) could be a good ally for him but he'll need more than that. Could he possibly get it ? Could a majority see this as a matter of great importance and grand en banc regardless of Otter's arguments ?
    For the record I believe the chances are slim if this brief is taken under consideration (with all the increased crimes nonsense etc) but I am not a lawyer of any kind so a more experienced view on this in an objective way would be nice.

    I am not even discussing the Nevada petition for en banc, that's dead in the water, I wonder why the 9th even bothers to ask for answer from the plaintiffs. Plus 21 days seems like an awful lot of time for both, that kind of got me worried that they are putting some serious consideration in the Idaho petition at least..

  • 65. FredDorner  |  October 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Idaho's ban is either discriminating on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. I guess Butch Otter can take his pick which version of heightened scrutiny he wants to battle.

  • 66. Jaesun100  |  October 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    The supremes agreed with the circuit ruling or they would have took the case …… This won't get far

  • 67. Jaesun100  |  October 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    I suspect we won't hear much more from Butch after the election and hopefully he gets defeated and loses standing …..

  • 68. Dr. Z  |  October 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    This is hilarious.

  • 69. davepCA  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    Indeed. Some people really have too much spare time.

  • 70. jcmeiners  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    I love that someone actually tried to spell out the "damage" marriage equality does to their marriage – and made a complete fool of themselves. If the very essence of their marriage really depends on not sharing the word marriage with same sex couples, their marriage is doomed. They just don't know it yet.

  • 71. Dr. Z  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    I'm surprised they didn't file a class action lawsuit against homosexuality for misappropriation of the word "gay."

    Amazingly, this Phillip Unruh is an attorney.

    Rose is right. Stupid should hurt.

  • 72. Steve84  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    As someone on JMG said, humanity should file a class action lawsuit against him because he cheapens the entire species.

  • 73. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    I seriously DOUBT this couple will be allowed to intervene at this point, nor do I think that the 10th will overturn their own ruling, which is NOW legal and binding precedent……..and to say that allowing a Same-Sex couple the right to marry will somehow diminish their's is way beyond ridiculous!!!

  • 74. StraightDave  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Was this written by Jon Stewart?

  • 75. Jaesun100  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    I can't take this serious it must be a joke

  • 76. ragefirewolf  |  October 22, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    Here's a question: If he's an attorney representing himself as a client, does that still make it pro se, or just schizophrenic? :oP

  • 77. Dr. Z  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    It makes him an attorney who has a fool for a client. (old joke, yes, but particularly apt here.)

  • 78. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Who the hell is this couple and WHY are they using scripture in their brief???

    I agree….STUPID should hurt and this couple truly CAN'T be this dumb………gotta say, I've NEVER heard this argument before…….and I seriously DOUBT it will work now!!!

  • 79. hopalongcassidy  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:33 am

    He's a mostly washed-up old fart, probably the only attorney in Harper, KS, a farm town of about 1500 people most of which go to some flavor of Baptist church there smack in the middle of (What's wrong with) Kansas…They are the types who drive to another town to buy their liquor so the neighbors don't know…

  • 80. tornado163  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Seems to me that if a bunch of same-sex couples getting married will destroy the Unruh's marriage, their marriage couldn't have been all that strong to begin with.

  • 81. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Exactly…..but I'm still trying to figure out how allowing one type of couple to marry is trampling on this couples property rights to marriage? I mean heterosexuals DON'T own the word marriage any more than Blacks own the word "CIVIL RIGHTS"…..I read to page 6 and was just shaking my head back and forth…….I mean really, we SHOULDN'T allow Gays and Lesbians to marry just so that this couple and those like them can be happy….sorry, but my response would be to tell them EXACTLY where to place their head!!!

  • 82. davepCA  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Yup. This idiot clearly has no grasp on the fact that 'feeling frustrated because people he views as undeserving of Equal Protection are being treated equally by our laws' is NOT "harm".

    And the fact that appeasing personal prejudices is not a valid purpose for a civil law.

    I know it will never happen, but I would LOVE to see this idiot actually stand up in court and try to offer these 'arguments' to a judge, and watch how the court responds. It would be epic.

  • 83. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    It would be interesting to see the look on the Justice's faces when this clown starts mentioning that their property right is being violated……, I've seen some strange garbage the last couple of days!!!

  • 84. Fledge01  |  October 22, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    That attorney needs to be publicly mocked. "I was eating a cookie when I heard someone say my computer had cookies. I don't want to share the name of my favorite snack with a bunch of people that use computers. My ability to enjoy a cookie is protected by the constitution. I can sell my right to eat cookies under a contract, so its also a property right. Whenever a computer calls stuff a cookie, it is taking away my right to enjoy a cookie as a snack under the terms that have been around for centuries."

  • 85. Rick55845  |  October 22, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Surely this cannot be for real. As Judge Heyburn said, these arguments are "not those of serious people".

    I've got it! It's SATIRE. It must be. There is no other explanation. This attorney, through his satirical pleading, is demonstrating just how idiotic are the bans prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

    That's it, right? It's satire, it has to be. Do I win? Do I get a prize? I could totally see Dan Akroyd pitching this in a skit on Saturday Night Live.

    Well, whatever, I'm sure the attorney isn't serious. I really mean that.

  • 86. hopalongcassidy  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:34 am

    It could be, I suppose! Poe's Law Writ Large?


  • 87. davepCA  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:40 pm

    Fledge01 – that was priceless. Well done! Have a cookie : )

  • 88. RnL2008  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    I also read that this couple is relying on the dissent from Kelly and the older argument of Baker………this is just goes to show how folks CAN'T accept that which is going to happen……Gay and Lesbian couples and their families DO exist and deserve the same right as this couple has to marry the person they see fit to marry!!!

  • 89. DeadHead  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:10 am

    The lawyer who wrote that must have eaten a cookie laced with a powerful hallucinogenic before he crossed over from the twilight zone.

  • 90. hopalongcassidy  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:13 am

    This is a "lawyer" who does not know the difference between "principles" and "principals". God help us. (So to speak)

  • 91. RemC_Chicago  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    I devoted a bit of time today, in my usual spitting-into-the-wind kind of way, in posting comments on Huckabee's Facebook page, after reading his goading his flock with the "Hitching Post" issue. Outrageous, considering how the local newspaper wrote about how the whole thing is based on misinformation, and the City Attorney has written refuting the charges. I made a point of reading the comments both in the online version of the newspaper story, and particularly those on Huckabee's. I know I shouldn't be, but I was astounded (and saddened) by the comments by our opponents. Not just the irrationality and the illogic. The emphasis on the superiority of Christianity as the only true law in the land by which we must abide was…oh, fill in the blank. God's word, and the Bible, and abomination, and, evil, and sinful. So much ignorance, so much judgment, so much behavior lacking in the empathy, sympathy and compassion that is the supposed hallmark of what it means to be Christian. The Golden Rule, right? I don't consider myself superior, as I noted, to my Jewish neighbor or my Buddhist work colleague, and some of the kindest people I've ever known were atheists. All this alarmist talk about the country going to hell because a small section of the population are being allowed to get married. How does it impact them as they go about their daily lives? Man, I hope this gets better with time…Yes, the younger generation is more accepting but surely the offspring of these people must be impacted by what they hear at home. OK, thanks—I really needed to ramble.

  • 92. Dr. Z  |  October 22, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Put "Inherit the Wind" on your Netflix queue.

  • 93. hopalongcassidy  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:14 am

    The one with Spencer Tracy is quite a bit better than the version with Jason Robards…

  • 94. Zack12  |  October 22, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    Sad to say they are, just like with racists and anti-sexist people.
    That is why there will ALWAYS be people against us.

  • 95. guitaristbl  |  October 23, 2014 at 3:15 am

    Oh that's a typical day on most local Fox News outlets fb pages. Try Fox 8 in NC and look for the news about the magistrates for instance. They are celebrated as heroes, told to run for presidents, how they are doing god's work etc. these are the fundies and that's the reason religion is in decline thankfully in the western world. But you shouldn't do that to yourself, hanging around Huckabee's page. They may still have a voice but they are becoming more and more fringe in our society. Their own arrogance and self righteousness will be their demise.

  • 96. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 23, 2014 at 5:57 am

    “Their own arrogance and self righteousness will be their demise.”

    That is an accurate and wise statement. It will of course take time and some dying out.

  • 97. RemC_Chicago  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:27 am

    Hope you're right, guitarist. Thanks for your responses, everyone!

  • 98. Jaesun100  |  October 23, 2014 at 6:28 am

  • 99. guitaristbl  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:15 am

    Alaska officials have also filed petition for initial en banc :

    So all three ME cases before the 9th have a petition for en banc filed now.
    Let's see how that will play out.

  • 100. guitaristbl  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Two opinions by Daughtrey today (she seems too active for a senior judge I have to say..) but nothing on ME from the 6th yet again.

  • 101. ragefirewolf  |  October 23, 2014 at 7:53 am

    Oh, they are so doing this on purpose. HURRY THE F UP, SUTTON!!

  • 102. StraightDave  |  October 23, 2014 at 9:20 am

    I don't think Sutton will write this one. It will be hard enough getting him to change his vote. Composing the right words is yet another big leap.
    However, if he does manage to have an epiphany and write a thoughtful and legally correct opinion, he will have earned immense respect. Only a certain caliber of judge can learn on the fly, while under fire and in the public spotlight.

  • 103. ragefirewolf  |  October 23, 2014 at 9:27 am

    So if we win, Daughtrey will write the opinion and Sutton will silently concur.

    If we lose, Daughtrey will loudly dissent.

    Either way, they are delaying justice and it's aggravating…

  • 104. Zack12  |  October 23, 2014 at 10:17 am

    I have a feeling what the court did on Oct 6th turned the ruling the 6th was going to come up with on its head.

  • 105. ragefirewolf  |  October 23, 2014 at 10:28 am

    There's no excuse for further delay. Vote for or against…time's a-wasting. Come on!

  • 106. StraightDave  |  October 23, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    I suspect the vote has already been taken changed. Cook was probably lined up to do the writing. Then when Oct 6 came crashing down, it shifted to Daugherty, who we now see has been extremely busy.

    Even if Sutton agreed to take it on, he would mentally be starting at square one, whereas Daugherty probably had a draft cooked up months ago. This was not a normal situation for them, in addition to wrestling with the details of 4 states at once. Plus, Cook now has to write a dissent she didn't expect to and is pissed that she needs to. I won't get irritated until Nov 1. After that I'll assume Sutton is holding a hard line on wording in exchange for his vote. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

  • 107. wes228  |  October 23, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Just remember…either way we win. The Supreme Court's got this!

  • 108. ragefirewolf  |  October 23, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Hmm, that's better. Thank you for the detailed response, Dave!

  • 109. ragefirewolf  |  October 23, 2014 at 10:36 am

    I wish there was an easy way to email them. I would tell them a couple things, haha.

  • 110. Zack12  |  October 23, 2014 at 8:44 am

    She should have just stayed on the bench.

  • 111. RemC_Chicago  |  October 23, 2014 at 11:26 am

    Where does an elected official—not a religious figure—get off on claiming such hokum (for believers and non-believers alike)?

    And the hypocrisy of not commenting on divorce! Damn, they are REALLY getting carried away.

  • 112. sfbob  |  October 23, 2014 at 11:32 am

    That's okay. I don't expect to be meeting him there either. Because he ain't gonna be there. (Okay I don't actually believe in heaven but if Rep. King wants to use heaven as a talking point, that's my response).

  • 113. StraightDave  |  October 23, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    I'm not sure they'll even let him into Hell. There goes the neighborhood!

  • 114. DACiowan  |  October 23, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Northwest Iowa is a different world from the rest of the state. His district is the most rural in the state and home to multiple evangelical churches. The eastern half of the state shudders at his name. If you look up a presidential election map of Iowa, you'll note the NW corner is 70-30 Republican; that's King land.

  • 115. RLsfba  |  October 23, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    It's all about religion. I was raised republican catholic, what hypocrisy. The catholic hierarchy is all about increasing and controlling the fold. They want women to produce as many children as possible since it is common that children follow the religion of their parents, I did until until got the queer light of day. I think the catholic hierarchy is boxing themselves in. They have dug in their heels and it will take centuries to pull those 5" stainless steel shanks out of the mud, and dang that all those custom made purple and fuchsia garments are going to get soiled. But, the doomsday rhetoric will eventually fail. Lots of people have noticed that the sky has not fallen. And, if they get over their brainwashing, some day they'll realize gay folks are cool!

  • 116. hopalongcassidy  |  October 23, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Inasmuch as all religions are remnants of medieval superstitious nonsense, the RCC is right up there near the top of batshit nuts. Some day we will manage, I'm confident, to figure out whether insanity is the cause…or the result…of religion.

  • 117. CowboyPhD  |  October 23, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Or both.

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