Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Puerto Rico marriage case heads to the First Circuit, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

1st– Lambda Legal has filed their notice of appeal in the Puerto Rico marriage case. The case will be appealed to the First Circuit.

– Rhode Island has adopted new guidelines that will make it easier to change one’s gender listed on their birth certificate.

– The opposite-sex couple who tried and failed to intervene in the Kansas marriage case has filed an amicus brief in the case.

– A report on upcoming January arguments in Texas’ marriage case.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. dlejrmex  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:27 am

    What a great lawyer Unruh is! I cannot believe that on page 3 he starts a statement with irregardless. I think he needs to meet up with Orly Taitz… they are birds of a feather.

  • 2. Randolph_Finder  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:31 am

    Too bad Wierd Al didn't put that in his Word Crimes

  • 3. MichaelGrabow  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:40 am

    That is wild.

  • 4. ragefirewolf  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:43 am

    Maybe she could clean his teeth while she's at it. What a dynamic duo!

  • 5. hopalongcassidy  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:48 am

    In his application to intervene last week, he wrongly used "principal" instead of the correct "principle"…the guy is not only an asshole, he's a very stupid asshole.

  • 6. A_Jayne  |  October 29, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Perhaps he used the word as meaning "expose" – trying to assert that his statements did not indicate the law was due to any animosity toward gay people.

  • 7. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Frankly, the man's an idiot and to say that the State of Kansas DOESN'T need to follow the new precedent proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt!!!

    Again, we are NOT asking for a new right….we are simply asking to be included in the same right as opposite-sex couples are allowed……and this is why EVERYONE needs to start referencing this fight for what it is….the RIGHT to marry is FUNDAMENTAL!!!

    Oh and referencing Bible quotes is as IRRELEVANT as this couple is!!!

    And whether the Unruh's like it or not, the courts have already ruled on this issue and again, regardless of whether children can or can't be produced is NOT a requirement to obtain a marriage license!!!

    It appears that the Unruh's are unaware that Marriage Equality has come to Colorado as it will be coming to Kansas as well!!!

    Boy, the Unruh's are brilliant to notice that Gays are different than Lesbians and that both will be covered by this issue….again, really…what a moron!!!

  • 8. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Prior to your post, I was going to offer you a "penny for your thoughts" about the Unruhs. You just gave me $100 worth! You're sure you not holding back anything? 😉 Love 'ya!

  • 9. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Nope, I think I covered everything about the idiot……unbelievable that he is a lawyer and if this is how he fights his cases…..he should sue the school that granted him his Law degree….lol!!!

    Love ya back:-)

  • 10. dlejrmex  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Or as Unruh would say… Irregardless of whether children can or cannot be produced…

    Not to mention the whole marriage property rights idiocy.

    I just find it incredible that he actually has a law practice.

  • 11. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Like I said, he should sue the school who granted him his Law Degree…….the man should know by now that quoting the bible in one's brief is NOT good law….oh well, when the State of Kansas starts issuing Marriage licenses to Gay and Lesbian couples……..let him scream bloody murder……STUPIDITY should hurt!!!

  • 12. Fledge01  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    There are law schools out there that market themselves as teaching law based on church teachings like Ave Maria law school. Many start their classes in prayer etc. Its ok if they try to teach ethics and faith based mission in what your desired outcomes are. However, they fail their students when they teach proper legal outcomes based on faith rather than on…. well, what the law says is the proper legal outcome.

    We had a student from one of these schools on a study abroad trip with us and the head instructor said he would never accept a student from one of these institutions again. They just don't know how to make sound arguments based on real legal principles and fact.

    They think they can try to bring in other values where the law has already clearly spoken. A judges response to their lame arguments is often, "Councelor, are you asking me to overturn SCOTUS?" Reply is something like this "But their ruling isn't fair" Judges response "Do you have anything new to raise that isn't in your brief, because there is nothing legal in your brief." Response: "Can't you just rule my way please, its the right thing for you to do please." Judges reply "Get out of my court room and don't waste my time again with out a legal based argument."

  • 13. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    I totally get your point……..I got my AS degree in Electronics and went to work for a Timing and Frequency Company……there were other techs who had attended schools like Heald and ITT who didn't understand some of the basics like Omh's Law and things like that…….those types of schools promise many things in a short period of time….but in the end, all they are good for is taking money and not delivering anything of value…….this stuff is also starting to affect those who want to go into Therapy or Counseling…..these religious schools teach them things that are NOT worth anything in the real world!!

  • 14. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    For everyone’s benefit, one dictionary definition of irregardless is: a Midwestern colloquial redundancy meaning regardless.

    It would appear Unruh himself is a colloquial redundancy!

  • 15. FredDorner  |  October 29, 2014 at 9:08 am

    I love the part just before the conclusion where he states that male couples have no standing because this case involves female couples…..

    Unruh also seems quite concerned that gay men might have sex.

  • 16. StraightDave  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:27 am

    I'm not sure how marriage figures into his concerns. Anybody know any gay men that might suddenly put on the brakes for lack of a ring?

  • 17. ragefirewolf  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:27 am

    Hasn't stopped me so far, hehehe

  • 18. sfbob  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Apparently there are some very religious gay men who are "saving themselves for marriage." I recall seeing an article about that on some news site or other. While I respect trying to be consistent in one's beliefs, it hardly seems like something that's likely to provide for an expanded dating pool.

  • 19. jcmeiners  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:13 am

    I don't think that citing the bible as legal authority in federal court is a winning move. But then, it's Kansas, so who knows…

  • 20. Eric  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:50 am

    It worked in Plessy.

  • 21. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 29, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    And through a series of court decisions, Plessy was tossed out and shown to be completely out-dated and incorrect.

    In the 1960s, the state of Virginia in the 'Loving' case used the bibble to attempt legal authority in state court. It worked until it reached Federal court (SCOTUS), where it didn't work.

    And Maryland has beaten Penn St. in football. Trouble is MD beat PSU once, while PSU has beaten MD more than 35 times.

    So yes, sometimes a strategy will work once, but that does not mean it will always work.

  • 22. tornado163  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Also, if someone cites the Bible, shouldn't they specify which version? It seems like "Bible, see Matthew 19:4-5" is a bit vague as most legal citations go.

    Somehow I think the Judge is just humoring them. The Judge's note that they needn't repeat any arguments they already made kind of sounded like a parent telling a 5 year old "Yes, I heard you before, now go play in the sandbox".

  • 23. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Exactly, I mean with 88 different versions of the bible…..which one is this idiot truly quoting from……I mean, there's got to be a proper citation somewhere, right?

  • 24. Eric  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    88, try over 300 versions. Christians are the new pagans.

  • 25. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Damn, I can't keep up with this stuff…..ugh….lol:-)

  • 26. F_Young  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    That's why I make a point of never referring to the bible in the singular; I always refer to "some translations of the bible" or ""some biblical translations." I mean, the bibles don't even agree on how many commandments were handed down to Moses (the Catholic bibles have only nine commandments).

    Oh, and every single Christian is a cafeteria Christian. It's unavoidable because the bibles are so self-contradictory. You necessarily have to choose between "Though shalt not kill" and numerous injunctions along the lines of "surely they shall be put to death."

  • 27. davepCA  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    Hey I didn't realize that …. so which 'commandment' do the Catholics get a pass on? : )

  • 28. StraightDave  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    #3 (or 4, depending): "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy".
    The NFL would go out of business

  • 29. Randolph_Finder  |  October 30, 2014 at 10:34 am

    Everyone uses 10, but both the listings in Exodus and Deuteronomy don't includes specifics on the numbering. That's why *anything* which does the 10 commandments in any form other that Roman Numerals isn't neutral. For Example: Honor they mother and father is #4 to the Catholics and the Lutherans and #5 to everyone else. (But the Catholics split neighbor's wife out of the other covets and the Lutherans split neighbor's house out of the other covets)

    As for "Though shalt not Kill" vs. "Surely shall be put to death", that's the type of split that no book translated through 3 other languages before it gets to English is going to get right.

    "Shalt not kill" is 'Lo Retzach', where Lo is Not and Retzach which refers to a killing which includes bloodguilt for doing so and is *never* used in the context of war. Being on the Battlefield and sticking a sword into a Philistine isn't part of that.

  • 30. bayareajohn  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Which version of the Bible? The correct one, of course. Silly question.

  • 31. sfbob  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    I rather like the version I use. It's shorter; only one testament. On the other hand it's been translated from ancient Hebrew so its meaning is subject to interpretation. And lots of debate.

  • 32. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    I know that if I had turned in my thesis with this sort of reference on my bibliography page, it would have been kicked back to me and I would have had to fix it……this clearly shows the man must have had issues in school…….and these folks think somehow they're way is the only way……lol!!!

  • 33. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:42 am

    FL – Brenner v Grimsley. Plaintiff's filed their response to last Friday's Bondi filing concerning the stay. This should be the last filing before Judge Hinkle makes a decision. This is the first Federal District case to deal with a stay where there is no AC decision since SCOTUS denied cert. So, we are in uncharted waters.

    "Even if that were not the case, Defendants’ case is far from “substantial.” Defendants point to courts that have granted stays in marriage cases, Motion at 6-7, but those stays were all issued prior to the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for certiorari in marriage cases. While it is true that the denial of a writ of certiorari does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case, these denials of certiorari effectively overturned constitutional amendments banning marriage for same-sex couples in eleven states in one day. Even if the denials are not considered to shed any light on the Supreme Court’s views on the merits of the constitutional questions involved, the denials make clear that the Supreme Court no longer considers the possibility of reversal of an injunction to be a basis for granting a stay in a marriage case. "

  • 34. brooklyn11217  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:53 am

    Yes, will definitely be interesting to see what happens here., as you have accurately pointed out the distinction. Would be great if stay got lifted, giving momentum to plaintiffs in other states to file motion to lift stay…..not sure what the judge will do…..

  • 35. davepCA  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:27 am

    In other words, the days of "gay means stay" are OVER, so say SCOTUS.

  • 36. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Fascinating that basically not one court of justice – state or federal – seems to be paying attention to AG Bondi (I know I am not voting for her hypocritical self next Tuesday).

    Judge Hinkle should proceed to rule on the motion to lift the stay of the injunction in Brenner v. Scott (which is also Grimsley v. Scott, although now for the purposes of appeal to the 11CA is now Brenner vs. Armstrong as the Governor of Florida is removed as a defendant). While this was the plaintiffs if Grimsley filing their response, I'm not sure if the plaintiffs in Brenner have also filed or not. But the defendant's have, and enough is enough – rule on the motion. Furthermore, all sides agree to allow a temporary stay of 7 days once the stay is lifted to allow a filing to the 11CA to place a stay on the injunction as they see fit given their current schedule in Brenner v. Armstrong. I wonder who will get to oral arguments first, the 11CA or the early January date set for the 5CA.

  • 37. KACinSTL  |  October 29, 2014 at 9:05 am

    The straight couple from Kansas wrote that because of what's written in Genesis and what Jesus said in Matthew blah blah blah we can't be married. Also, that if we can get married it takes away straight people's property rights afforded by the 5th and 14th amendment. Oh a bunch of Maggie Gallagher references too. These are not the arguments of serious people.

  • 38. davepCA  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:27 am

    Doh! You beat me to it : )

  • 39. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Serious. . . maybe. . . intelligent. . . not so much.

  • 40. Eric  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:54 am

    Now why would good Christians reference a fornicator like Maggie?

  • 41. davepCA  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    aw snap…! : )

  • 42. SWB1987  |  October 29, 2014 at 9:25 am

    When will we know who the judges are when it comes to the 5th circuit?

  • 43. BenG1980  |  October 29, 2014 at 9:30 am

    "The court does not release the identity of the panel members until seven days before the beginning of the oral argument session. We make this information available on our 5th Circuit internet home page, seven days before the oral argument session begins." (p. 73)….

  • 44. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Does anyone know if the "seven days" are calendar days, or Federal work days?

    If calendar days, then the judges will be announced on December 29, 2014.

    If work days (weekends and holidays not counted), then the judges will be announced on December 23, 2014.

    I'm hoping the expected announcement is a New Years Day nasty surprise, not a Xmas nasty surprise. I'd prefer my birthday not be littered with such nasty surprises.

  • 45. BenG1980  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    According to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:

    When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

    (A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

    (B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and

    (C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

  • 46. franklinsewell  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Then Rule 26 says it will be 12/30?

  • 47. BenG1980  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Yes, assuming the Jan. 6, 2015, oral argument date that Lyle reported here sticks.

  • 48. Steve84  |  October 30, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    As if it matters.

  • 49. davepCA  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Wow, right up there at the top of their crazy Amicus Brief, they quote this from Windsor:

    "That power [regulating marriage] is reserved to the states, albeit consistent with federal Constitution guarantees"

    …. And then use that quote to conclude THIS:

    "Windsor recognized the authority of the states to redefine marriage and stressed the need for POPULAR CONSENSUS in making such a change".

    This idiot doesn't know the difference between 'Constitutionally guaranteed rights' and 'majority rule'.


  • 50. JohnF234  |  April 10, 2021 at 2:51 pm

    The Oscars will air live on Sunday, April 25, 2021, on ABC, beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern Time (5 p.m. Pacific Time).

  • 51. Ragavendran  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:48 am

    "Fla. Attorney General Pam Bondi breaks silence on gay-marriage ban"

    "That "it" was her desire to get the state Supreme Court to weigh in on Florida's gay-marriage ban, a move a state appeals court blocked Monday."

    Where did Local 10 get the information that a state appeals court blocked on Monday? Which appeals court is this?

  • 52. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Reporter: Carlos Suarez

    Do you want to write or call her…or should I?

    Unless the docket is out of date, we both know the last entry was the 10/24/14 Misc Order saying thanks for the suggestion. I will write to EQFL right now. They are great at following up on this type confusing information.

  • 53. Ragavendran  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:07 am

    I'm writing to the reporter right now. But it can't hurt that you write too. The more, the better.

  • 54. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:52 am

    Off topic:

    Baby steps for ME, but a major change in the Southern Baptists' thinking:

    From the 'Advocate': "Southern Baptist Leader Renounces 'Reparative' Therapy"

    The 'Advocate' also says "Russell Moore acknowledges that so-called ex-gay therapy is “severely counterproductive.” "

    (… )

    (Russell Moore is president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, not the denomination's top person, but what he says carries a tremendous amount of weight.)

  • 55. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 29, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    We should celebrate small steps but keep fighting for bigger ones. Still this may help lots of at risk Southern Baptist kids.

  • 56. Steve84  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    This is just about dressing up their hatred and disdain more nicely. They still demand that gay people are celibate. What this is really about is making themselves feel better about their bigotry and finding new ways to justify it.

  • 57. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 10:55 am

    NV – Sevcik: Remember the filing claiming the 9th AC does not fairly rotate their 3-judge panels (calendaring process)? Today, CPM filed with the 9th AC to make their database available via a new website:

    Sounds great. Sounds fair. go to the website and find out the access to the data is restricted, you have to submit your REAL name, a bunch of information and the name of your first born child (OK, I made up the last part). Sounds fair. Until….you have write your software code that you will use to exact the data and submit it to them for review…Pure PRBS.

  • 58. guitaristbl  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:05 am

    So they ask a federal appeals court, the largest in the country, to submit such information to a website branded from top to bottom with the name of their coalition for them to use and distribute at their own will (since its not quite "public" as you describe). Can't just the court take some action against them at this point ? They have even created a whole SITE to promote their lunacy for rationality's sake !
    This (asking a federal AC to submit such information to a site created by a 3rd party) must be a first.

  • 59. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:37 am

    The 9CA could do an end run, and on it's own site list the criteria for selecting judges for panels. Since I presume such selection is in accordance with rules of the 9CA, it would be difficult for anyone to successfully sue the 9CA for publishing and explaining its own rules. (And if they did win in District Court [I presume it would have to be in the 9CA], which Appeals Court would the appeal [if any] go to?)

    Might teach the CPM that public means public (as in available to anyone, without restriction of any kind).

    By the way, no one stated it, but are there 'suggestions' that people donate money on that CPM page? If so, then that would go a long way in knocking the 'public knowledge' from CPM's argument.

  • 60. wes228  |  October 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    No need to do an end run around them. There's no reason to give them any attention at all. They have no standing to appeal or otherwise contest the ruling of the 9th Circuit. Someone needs to give them a nice, hardbound copy of Hollingsworth v. Perry.

  • 61. franklinsewell  |  October 29, 2014 at 11:12 am

    I wish Governor Sandoval would hurry up and write his brief telling the court that he opposes CPM's continued intervention, which he promised he would do. I'm almost certain he's waiting until after next Tuesday.

  • 62. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    "I agonize over the [Supreme] court not making a decision," said Olson, an attorney on one of the cases. "We give them lifetime appointments, and you’re supposed to make hard decisions. It brings tears to my eyes, actually physically, when I see people suffering … It seems inhuman to make people wait just for the Court to decide."

    Just released Olson and Wolfson interview from The Atlantic.

  • 63. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Believe me, love what Olson is doing for the rights of marriage equality. Just being from Florida, I still can't let go of Bush v. Gore in 2000 and the eight years that came after that. Aside from that though, I truly do admire his stance amongst his fellow conservatives for putting as much into the fight for marriage equality as he has and is doing.

    Someone is going to have to argue in front of SCOTUS for one of these cases though (if not the 6CA or 11CA which we may not need to appeal, then either the 5CA or 8CA, or even now maybe the 1CA!), as there will be a circuit split, as much as SCOTUS would like to avoid it.

  • 64. franklinsewell  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Attorneys on ME-Side in Alaska asking for fees:… $257,000 plus

  • 65. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Sooooooo… indefinitely waiting on the 6CA to rule on those four cases (TN must not have been much of a win for us given the wiki map shows it in dark red, as if not even any case was won on our side). We know that the 5CA is set for orals in Jan'15, and awaiting briefing to be completed and a date to be set in the 11CA for the Florida federal case. We now need briefing schedules and a date in 1CA for Puerto Rico, and who knows when the 8CA will get a notice of appeal.

    Leads me back to the three states that have laws on the books contrary to federal circuit court precedent: Montana, Kansas, South Carolina. I think I read that hearings are scheduled in Kansas this Friday, and forthcoming in SC in a new district court case? Not sure I've recall much on Montana. Who has the best latest and greatest on these three to give a recap?

  • 66. Ragavendran  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Technically, many more states than three have laws on the books contrary to circuit precedent. It's just that the three you point out are still enforcing them. Kansas hearing is set for this Friday, as you've observed. Montana hearing is on November 20. There is not a hearing set for South Carolina, as far as I can recall – the court has shortened the time allowed for response briefs to the motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment, and has taken under advisement a motion to expedite ruling, which is good news – this lawsuit is moving quickly and a hearing could be scheduled for mid-November.

  • 67. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Sorry should have been more specific to say the three states that have laws on the books contrary to federal circuit court precedent within their own circuit.

    Thank you for the insightful response on the dates for those three states. It would be nice to have all the states in the circuits with precedent with marriage equality by Christmas.

  • 68. Ragavendran  |  October 29, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    Hey no need to apologize – I'm just being anal about it. But it's still technically wrong to say, for example, that only Kansas still has a law on the books contrary to Tenth Circuit precedent. Because Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma also have their marriage bans on the law books – they haven't been erased. It's just that there are federal injunctions in place against enforcing those laws. The reason I'm pointing out this important distinction is that in the future, should the US Supreme Court uphold state bans on gay marriage (unlikely), these states with the bans still on the books could start enforcing them again. It's important, therefore, to continue getting more of the public opinion on our side to repeal those laws from the books.

    Yeah, that'll be great to get to 35+ states by Christmas!

  • 69. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Ah, even better understanding of what you mean – and a very important distinction. Thank you for pointing that out. I should have definitely used different terminology as the amendments and laws are still "on the books" but simply unenforceable.

    So I should have said the three states that remain enforcing laws contrary to the federal circuit rulings in the circuits they belong to.

  • 70. guitaristbl  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Tennessee is red on the wiki map because the district judge who handled the case did not strike down the whole ban, she just issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from enforcing the recognition ban for the three couples – plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Tanco v. Haslam). The state of Tennessee appealed that injunction to the 6th and asked for a stay. The 6th granted the stay and sua sponte (which means by acting on its own will without being asked to do it) took the case off the hands of the district court judge as a whole (who has indicated she would strike the whole ban down most probably) and assigned it to a 3 panel judge to decide on the merits on an expedited schedule (and it was heard along the cases from every other state at the end as we saw).
    So it was a victory and the ban would have been struck down in district court as a whole anyway (making Tennessee the same colour as Michigan and Kentucky) if the 6th had not acted in such a determined way here. It just wanted to have all the cases before it.

  • 71. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Guess I just need the 6CA to rule in our favor so all four states can change to the color where circuit court ruling in favor is stayed pending an appeal to SCOTUS (I still think there is some sort of gay = temp stay if the 6CA rules in favor of ME in the four cases).

  • 72. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    WIKi-MAP QUESTION: Follow-up on my last post regarding the wiki-map and Tennessee. Given the following statement regarding a federal case in TN: "Tanco v. Haslam seeks to require the state to recognize their marriages established in California and New York. On March 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiff couples. The state defendants appealed Tanco to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which granted a stay. A three-judge panel heard oral arguments in the case on August 6, 2014, along with same-sex marriage cases originating from Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky."

    Why in the wiki-map would show just burnt red indicating that same-sex marriage is banned, versus being like Ohio which shows banned and a "Judicial ruling(s) overturning the ban on recognizing same-sex marriage performed elsewhere stayed indefinitely pending appeal."

    Any reason that Tennessee doesn't match Ohio on the map?

  • 73. BenG1980  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    I believe the Tennessee court issued a preliminary injunction which was appealed to the 6th Circuit, whereas in the Ohio case, Judge Black issued a final order that was subsequently appealed.

  • 74. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Concur it was a preliminary injunction. What do you think though, based on the wording of the "yellow" color of the map being: "Judicial ruling(s) overturning the ban on recognizing same-sex marriage performed elsewhere stayed indefinitely pending appeal." Would a preliminary injunction not be a judicial ruling? The ruling required the state to recognize the marriage of the plaintiffs which was performed in another state.

    I know I'm being anal as hell, but the map makes it seem like there was nothing ruled on in Tennessee, let alone achieved there! We have a ruling in our favor just like Ohio, which is on appeal to the 6CA, oral arguments heard, and pending a decision. I fully get why it's not mustard orange, but the burnt red gives an impression it is no different than say Alabama or Nebraska with no rulings in our favor.

  • 75. DACiowan  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Wiki user here (Dralwik). Tennessee is not striped the stayed recognition color because the Tennessee case involves recognition of only the specific couples' marriages, while Ohio would be a state-wide ruling.

  • 76. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Well that puts that question to rest – thank you very much DACiowan/Dralwik. I didn't realize it was such a narrow ruling to just those specific couples. I have to wonder if that was intentional or the lawyers weren't aware that it would be ruled as such.

  • 77. DrBriCA  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    I don't recall all the specifics about Tanco v Haslam (so many rulings ago!), and IANAL but have learned quite a bit from watching everything unfold this past year. What I remember is that Tanco was a preliminary injunction, which would mean that the court still had the final judgment on the topic pending for later date, but the couples in the injunction specifically needed immediate relief (one couple was expecting a baby and wanted both moms on the birth certificate). As far as I've seen, the bigger federal district decision for Tennessee has not had much progress since then. The Tanco decision was, in essence, similar to Ohio with Obergefell when it was specific to that one death certificate before Judge Black ruled several months later that the state had to recognize all outside same-sex marriages.

    Texas is sort of the opposite example…. They started with the preliminary injection for the state as a whole, which is why Texas gets the yellow "stayed pending appeal" color on the wiki map, and now more recently a couple is suing for immediate relief specifically for their personal circumstances.

  • 78. guitaristbl  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Oh sorry just saw your question was answered here.

  • 79. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    I'll take as many correct responses to my question as people want to give! Thank you for your detailed response.

  • 80. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Ranking the most exciting ME news days on a scale of 1 to 10. For example, 10 would be the day SCOTUS denied cert (it WAS exciting, but frustrating). Today is a -1.

  • 81. StraightDave  |  October 29, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Prop 8 passing: -10

  • 82. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    If by shocking you mean exciting, SCOTUS cert denial is definitely a 10. I think very high on excitement for me was the election in 2012 where three states (even though I believe our rights should not ever be voted on) voted to install marriage equality… give that an 8!

  • 83. ragefirewolf  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    Right?! Today's updates in a nutshell:

    Update 1: Knew that was going to happen.
    Update 2: Not an ME topic, but good to know.
    Update 3: Knew that was going to happen, and also HAHA, NICE TRY, IDIOTS.
    Update 4: Not exciting or happy news.

  • 84. JayJonson  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    June 26, 2013: +10.

  • 85. guitaristbl  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    Well things were bound to slow down a bit. And they would have slowed down quicker if the 9th did not rule a day after SCOTUS denies cert.
    It just seemed like a day of stagnation because we have been used for two weeks or so to news coming every minute and the map changing at the blink of an eye. With MT,SC,KS and the 6th dragging their feet we do not have much else to wait for…Only a ruling on the motion to dismiss in South Dakota and a ruling on lifting the stay in Florida (which should be the most interesting development that's very imminent).
    I believe everything has slowed down due to the elections. We will see much more action, both positive and negative, after November 4th.
    Legislatures will be back and ready to undermine ME in every possible way in conservative states, governor seats and AG seats will change hands in some states and hopefully in our favour in a couple of them (KS, FL) and then there is the senate : if the republicans take it Cruz will pull all his anti-LGBT guns out with first and foremost the marriage amendment. And while I trust republicans like Murkowski, Collins, Portman and Kirk will stop such efforts, the danger of radicals entering (Ernst, Cotton etc) is not one to underestimate. Moderates can do as much in a party swallowed by its fundumentalist wing more and more.

  • 86. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Well that's the interesting thing about our federal Constitution – it's only been changed (amended) 27 times, of which 10 of them were in 1791 only four years after the Constitution was ratified. So basically 17 times since 1791. Senator Cruz has NO CHANCE at passing his "federal marriage protection" amendment though the US Senate, as there are not, nor will there be 67 Senators to vote "aye" for the amendment I'm not sure if a constitutional amendment is subject to a filibuster, but if it is, not even sure Cruz can get the 60 votes to debate the damn thing. The same is true of the US House… not a chance at getting to 290 members to vote "aye" to pass it. It'll all just be for show.

  • 87. Ragavendran  |  October 29, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    Hear hear! And even if Congress passes it by a two-thirds majority in both houses (already highly unlikely like you point out), good luck getting three fourths of the states to ratify it. People like Cruz are just taking advantage of the ignorance of people who, for example, still don't understand how an unelected judge can overrule their will.

  • 88. Randolph_Finder  |  October 30, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    The only congressional amendment to pass in the age of Television with anything *close* to organized opposition was the ban on Poll taxes (24th).

    There would be organized opposition to this and at *least* 14 states where at least one house would pass a resolution telling Cruz to fold up the proposed amendment and stick it where the sun don't shine.

  • 89. RnL2008  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Hey folks,
    I've got the laugh of the day in this article:

    Make sure you aren't drinking nothing…….lol!!!

  • 90. sfbob  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    I saw that one earlier. Joe Jervis loves to follow that clown and point out how unhinged he is.

  • 91. brandall  |  October 29, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    FL – Judge Hinkle and the Florida Stay

    It is such a slow day today in terms of ME court activity. I decided to reread Hinkle’s Florida Decision. The Preliminary Injunction with a Temporary Stay was issued 8/21 which was, of course, prior to the SCOTUS cert denials. I am looking for hints from that decision on how he might or could handle the Motion to Lift the Stay that is now in his hands to decide at anytime.

    Judge Hinkle was very cautious in his 8/21 order by imposing a 91-day stay post decisions in Bostic, Kitchen and Bishop. He had seen what happened in these parallel cases where SCOTUS granted stays and saw no point in testing SCOTUS yet again.

    Hinkle knew what was going on around the country and at only page 3 states:
    "All of this accords with the unbroken line of federal authority since Windsor. Indeed, except for details about these specific parties, this opinion could end at this point, merely by citing with approval the circuit decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage” Cites Bostic v. Schaefer, Bishop v. Smith and Kitchen v. Herbert.
    Hinkle clearly had a strong (perhaps personal) opinion as to why the Florida ban was created. His ruling did not need to include this statement:
    "The undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice. Properly analyzed, the ban must stand or fall on the proposition that the state can enforce that moral disapproval without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    Hinkle succinctly knew he was issuing a stay that involved fundamental rights:
    1) "the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits”….2) "The plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued”….and 3) "a preliminary injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. Vindicating constitutional rights almost always serves the public interest."
    Analyzing the FL stay post SCOTUS cert denials, #2 and #3 above remain the same, but with Plaintiff’s pain and suffering now elongated. But, in #1, the word “likely” has absolutely and significantly changed. Is the new substitute word now certainly or absolutely or guaranteed? Post the cert denials, nothing new has surfaced either in this case or any other pending case that could justify either the 11th or SCOTUS to issue a stay on this case.

    While both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s have agreed to a one-time 7-day stay, Hinkle has no reason to delay the stay even one day. The word “likely” is now history. I’m hoping his legal championing of fundamental rights backed by the cert denials will lead him to this conclusion: Motion to lift the stay is granted immediately.

  • 92. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  October 29, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    If Hinkle needs some help writing this order, I'm sure he could get help here at EoT! But seriously, he did the harder part with his August opinion. This lifting or retaining of the stay of his injunction should not take a whole lot of time. Hinkle did what he thought was right while SCOTUS conferenced over those cert petitions, but now briefing is underway in the appeal to the case, so let the 11CA decide if they feel a stay is required during the appeal.

  • 93. JohnF234  |  April 10, 2021 at 2:53 pm

    The 2021 Kentucky Derby will air on May 1 from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET on NBCSN and from 2:30 to 7:30 p.m. ET on NBC.

  • 94. F_Young  |  October 30, 2014 at 4:28 am

    Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, finally comes out to the rest of the world.

  • 95. ragefirewolf  |  October 30, 2014 at 7:44 am

    On the Ricky Martin scale of gay obviousness, where 1 is "Wow, really?" and 10 is "DUH", this one gets an 11.

  • 96. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 30, 2014 at 8:05 am

    I guess it depends upon the specificity and sensitivity of your personal gaydar.

  • 97. LK2013  |  October 30, 2014 at 8:17 am

    Thanks. You know, at first I thought "okay, so what," but I just read the piece, and let me just say that was very nice.

    I'm thankful for every brick that paves the road …

  • 98. sfbob  |  October 30, 2014 at 8:26 am

    Yup. It's not like Cook really needed to come out. After all it's not as though he was pretending to be straight or that he was promoting hate, and everyone knew he was gay anyway. And although they do screw up sometimes, Apple's has a long history of supporting their LGBT employees. So yeah, it was a nice thing for him to do; kudos to him.

  • 99. DoctorHeimlich  |  October 30, 2014 at 9:05 am

    I'm glad you reconsidered your first thought, because the truth is it's really important for people to come out in all areas of public life.

    In the corporate world, CEOs (especially of Fortune 500 companies like Apple) are stereotypically thought of as cutthroat, alpha dog, white males. Every example that shows that a woman can do that job too, or a person of color, or someone who is LGBT — they all help break down stereotypes that subconsciously reinforce inequality in gender, race, and orientation.

    Until Tim Cook came out, one could have actually said "gay people can't be CEOs, they're too soft." No specific example existed to illustrate the ignorance of that bigotry. More to the point, someone might have said "well, a gay man COULD be a CEO, but obviously he has to stay in the closet so that he doesn't LOOK soft." That form of bigotry in particular is answered even more by Tim Cook coming out.

    Bottom line, I think it IS important, and it WAS necessary. Every person who comes out helps our visibility in the world. That's how we're winning marriage equality in all these states. It's not like the Fourteenth Amendment has changed since Baker v. Nelson. Instead, attitudes were changed — by people coming out — enough that judges could look at those same facts with true objectivity and integrity.

  • 100. RemC_Chicago  |  October 30, 2014 at 5:40 am

    Assistance, please! Over at The New Civil Rights Movement, in a story where David Badash covered the lies behind the Hitching Post brouhaha, he was accused by a troll for lying about the amount of the fine, that is, that the fine applies every day there is a violation. Like so:

    "Mr. Badash: You need to read the Coeur d’Alene Ordinance a little more closely before you start calling people “liars.” The Coeur d’Alene Ordinance DOES include the penalty that ADF states which is up to a $1000 fine and 180 days in jail for each day the violating party does not comply. Under “Penalty” click through to the Idaho Statute listed; there you will find the legal language ADF is referring to. Mr. Badash, your credibility is severely compromised. Are you man enough to admit you are wrong?"

    I looked up the ordinance and had this to say in response:

    "Just so that there’s no confusion about what the city’s non-discrimination ordinance says, here is the language pertaining to the discussions herein:


    There’s nothing here about a fine “per day.” David Badash didn’t lie. He corrected the misinformation in the lawsuit which was addressed by the city’s attorney."

    To which the accuser replied:

    "Ann Bailey just commented on Almost Everything You've Been Told About The Idaho Wedding Chapel Story Is A Lie:

    Rem Cabrera: Please be more thorough in your research before you make your comments. The Coeur d’Alene Ordinance does, indeed, have the extreme penalty that ADF states. You need to click through on the hyperlink contained in the statue under the Penalty section 9.56.060 Clause A. The hyperlink in that clause will take you to statute. I have copied and included it below: 1.28.010: DESIGNATED B. Each such person is guilty of a separate offense or liable to a separate penalty for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the ordinances of the city is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and he shall be punished accordingly. (Ord. 3361 §1, 2009) That type of a penalty adds up quick! Rem, please don’t appear to be giving clarifications on something when you clearly haven’t done your homework. I hope that clears it up for those who were confused by Rem's assertion. BTW, remind me to never to hire Rem as a research assistant."

    I laughed. Isn't it incredible how often the responses resort to insults?

    Anyway, my morning caffeine hasn't settled in yet. Can someone translate DESIGNATED B for me? Are her claims correct?

  • 101. ragefirewolf  |  October 30, 2014 at 7:39 am

    Each and every person who commits it, when and how long it was committed. In other words, each jerk, each time they are a jerk, and how long they are a jerk. Hardly the fine collecting "per day." Hope that helps, Rem.

  • 102. RemC_Chicago  |  October 30, 2014 at 7:50 am

    Thanks so much, Wolf of the Raging Fire. I'll craft a response. When the gauntlet's thrown down, I can't resist facing the challenge.

  • 103. ragefirewolf  |  October 30, 2014 at 8:08 am

    Hehehe. My pleasure, Rem of Chicago.

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