Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

South Carolina same-sex marriage ban struck down

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Fourth Circuit map
Fourth Circuit map
A federal judge hearing a challenge to South Carolina’s same-sex marriage ban has issued a ruling striking down the ban. South Carolina is in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is bound by the decision in Bostic v. Schaefer.

From the opinion:

The Court finds that Bostic controls the disposition of the issues before this Court and establishes, without question, the right of Plaintiffs to marry as same sex partners. The arguments of Defendant Wilson simply attempt to relitigate matters already addressed and resolved in Bostic. Any effort by Defendant Wilson or others to overrule Bostic should be addressed to the Fourth Circuit and/or the United States Supreme Court.

There is a temporary stay until November 20.

EqualityOnTrial will have more on this developing story…

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. ericshoot  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:39 am


  • 2. LK2013  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:45 am

    Great news! Now we just need to hear from SCOTUS today!

  • 3. Pat_V  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:50 am

    OMG, another 8 days of delay? Sigh…

    Meanwhile, any action in Montana? Seems awfully quiet there compared to the other 2 final holdouts KS and SC which are about to get finalized.

  • 4. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:17 am

    November 20 is the hearing date in Montana.
    Today is the hearing in Mississippi.

  • 5. AndresM11  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Excellent!! Another ban struck down and we're well on our way to our 33th (hopefully Kansas today) and 34th States (SC once the temporary stay expires).

    I see there's a temporary stay issued, so this means the outcome of the Kansas case stay request that's pending before Justice Sotomayor is now even more important. If it goes in our favor (which I really think it will, because of the Cert. denials and the outcome of a similar request in Hamby, the Alaska case), I guess it's safe to assume that Nikki Haley and company will go through the same path Parnell (and probably Brownback) have gone (Stay pending resolution of appeals request to the Circuit Court —> denied. Emergency stay request submitted before SCOTUS —> temporary stay issued —-> referred to the whole Court —> denied) and marriage equality will finally arrive to the last remaining State in the Fourth Circuit. Congrats to the plaintiffs and everyone in the Palmetto State!

  • 6. Silvershrimp0  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:11 am

    If we're counting Missouri, it'd be #34 and #35! 😀

  • 7. BillinNO  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:01 am

    I'm with Andres- congrats to all our friends in SC!

  • 8. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:02 am

    Love how Judge Gergel continues the tradition of trolling Scalia: "Although the Windsor holding dealt only with the validity of certain provisions of federal statutory law, Justice Scalia, writing in dissent, correctly predicted that an assault on state same sex marriage bans would follow Windsor."

    He also decisively rejects Sutton: "The Bostic Court rejected that argument, observing that the 'very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"

  • 9. MichaelGrabow  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:07 am

    "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

    What a crazy concept! Love it.

  • 10. Eric  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:43 am

    That quote should come as no surprise to any jurist in the 4th Circuit, Justice Jackson wrote it in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, Majority Opinion, item 3 (US 1943).…

  • 11. andrewofca  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Wow.. nice find. I hope posterity remembers the names of current anti-gay AGs/defendants e.g. "Schaefer", "Herbert", "Bondi", "Otter", etc. in the same light we remember names like "Barnette".

  • 12. Eric  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:23 am

    Justice Kennedy has used it in the past.

  • 13. Steve84  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:50 am

    That line isn't quoted enough among all the "let the people vote" BS and given that direct democracy has run completely amok in the US.

  • 14. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:09 am

    Finally Gergel shows some judicial principle, because if we waited for Childs..

    As Andres noted above, the decision of SCOTUS in Kansas definately controls the outcome here. Haley and Wilson will viciously fight and will ask for stays from the 4th and if they are denied, then from SCOTUS. With a virtually identical situation with Kansas (unlike Montana), the outcome in SCOTUS today (most likely) directly controls the SC case.

    Nov. 20 becomes a full day apparently, doesn't it ? With the stay in SC ending then and with no less than 3 hearings..!

    An early congrats to the couples living in SC!

  • 15. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:23 am

    Apparently Alito will make remarks at a Federalist Society convention this week…Why am I not all ?

    Also we will probably wait for any decision on the Kansas stay today, since the court is hearing arguments at the moment, and to two important cases nonetheless about the gerrymandering by republicans in Alabama and the rights of states to tax all the income of its residents.

  • 16. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:20 am

    And it will be closed to the public.
    Propbably because they don't want people to hear Alito talk about how the right wing's plan to alter the courts has worked.

  • 17. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:27 am

    Actually that's the twist here and that's how I learned about it from SCOTUSblog :


    From linked article :

    "..reports on the controversy surrounding the scheduled remarks by Justice Samuel Alito at the Federalist Society convention this week; a publicist originally indicated that the event would be closed to the press, but later clarified that “pen and paper” media would be admitted to the event."

    So journalists can listen to Alito and write down what he says…Is he scared of his remarks going on the media and the initial report was that it would be "closed to the press" ? The Federalist Society seems to work like an underground cult mostly and if Alito is to prove his loyalty and prove his credidentials to the influential groups that led him to such position of power, I guess he is going to say things many will not like, things that will show his true intentions, even more than his decisions do.

  • 18. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:05 am

    The Federalist Society's goal is to turn back the clock on any and all progressive legislation.
    I imagine it would look bad on them and Alito if he is recorded talking about that.

  • 19. LK2013  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Alito is speaking at the Federalist Society's 2014 National Lawyers Convention in Washington on Thursday evening at the Mayflower Hotel. Initially it looked like he was banning all media, but now will allow "pen and paper reporters" to cover his talk. I would love to hear what he has to say …

    Scalia is also speaking to the Federalist Society very early on Thursday morning, and reportedly is allowing everyone in:

  • 20. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:35 am

    At least they have the decency to invite an ACLU member for a debate.

    Scalia is Scalia, he will say anything he wants, no matter how enraging, and at this point in his life will suffer no consequences. Alito on the other hand..Well I don't know what ambitions can a man who is a SC justice have (become chief justice maybe ?) but he definately does not want to appear as bigoted and irrational to the general public as Scalia but at the same time he wants to lick those who made him what he is today.

    Weirdly enough ME does not seem to be on the agenda..They have Hobby Lobby, CO2 emissions and regulations, bashing Obama (ME may come in play here) and something about International law..

    We'll see what the two right wingers will have to say at the event, especially the sneaky Alito.

  • 21. davepCA  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Although the Federalist Society meeting will be closed to the public, our team of clandestine spies for the Gay Agenda has recently infiltrated a secret meeting of the Federalist Society and have provided us with this hidden camera footage of what goes on in their meetings. The footage is supplemented with subtitles which are being sung by none other than the Los Angeles Gay Men's Chorus, because as everybody knows they are the people in charge of managing the Gay Agenda. Enjoy.

  • 22. dorothyrothchild  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Great video! Just what I needed while hitting refresh for news out of Kansas. Thanks for posting.

  • 23. davepCA  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    You're most welcome. Every time I read about one of the various conservative 'think tanks' or behind-closed-door right wing "societies", this Simpson's video springs to mind. The lyrics are hysterical!

  • 24. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:46 am

    I'm wondering how many different ways Alito plans on telling his audience "I hate homosexuals" (except his audience won't understand him unless he says 'gays' instead of 'homosexuals')?

  • 25. Dr. Z  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    There's also the ever-popular "you people."

  • 26. samiscat  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:39 am

    Couldn't find a link in the article above to the order, so here it is:

  • 27. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:54 am

    From the decision :

    "While a party is certainly free to argue against precedent, even very recent precedent, the Fourth Circuit has exhaustively addressed the issues raised by Defendants and firmly and unambiguously recognized a fundamental right of same sex couples to marry and the power of the federal courts to address and vindicate that right. Bostic, 760 F.3d at 377-84. Regardless of the passion of Bostic's opponents, the predictability and stability of our judicial decisionmaking is dependent upon lower courts respecting and enforcing the decisions of higher appellate courts. Not every decision is heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court (in fact very few are), and lower federal courts are not free to disregard clear holdings of the circuit courts of appeal simply because a party believes them poorly reasoned or inappropriately inattentive to alternative legal arguments. Coherent and consistent adjudication requires respect for the principle of stare decisis and the basic rule that the decision of a federal circuit court of appeals left undisturbed by United States Supreme Court review is controlling on the lower courts within the circuit. This principle, along with the foundational rule that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and state laws that run contrary to constitutionally protected rights of individuals cannot be allowed to stand, are among the body of doctrines that make up what we commonly refer to as the rule of law."

    Oh seeing a state attorney general getting lectured on the basics of what the rule of law is…Very satisfying to see that happen with bigots like Wilson.

    Also on the implications the involvment of the South Carolina Supreme Court :

    " It is without question true that the South Carolina Supreme Court could not properly issue orders to a defendant in federal litigation that would have the purpose or effect of limiting the injunctive powers ofthe federal district court or direct him not to comply with a federal court order. This Court reads Wilson v. Condon as having no such purpose and was designed simply to maintain the status quo regarding the issuance of same sex marriage licenses by South Carolina probate judges until a federal district court had the opportunity to address the constitutional challenge to the same sex marriage ban. Any decision to stay the effect of a decision of a federal district court judgment would be the responsibility of the federal trial or appellate courts, and no state court could properly issue any order interfering with that judgment or directing federal court litigants to act contrary to the federal court judgment. Therefore, this Court anticipates that the South Carolina Supreme Court's stay will be dissolved upon notice of this Court's decision, as it has previously indicated its intention to do so. Should this assumption prove incorrect, the parties should promptly advise this Court."

    So it sends a message to the state SC in case it wants to play rogue for some reason and directs them in a straightforward way what they should do after his decision, even if they are not bound to listen to him.

  • 28. DJSNOLA  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Really liking the tone of this judges response. The judiciary is starting to get angry with those playing games with the judicial process. I dont think there has been an issue like this with the courts where so many people have abused the appeals process etc with such disregard. The courts are almost like this issue is basically settled now stop wasting our time since we have plenty of other things to attend to. Oh you renegade judges need to stop posturing for higher office! lol

  • 29. dorothyrothchild  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:30 am

    I was thinking that as well but kind of sends a mixed message about the abuse of the appeals process when at the same time he issues a stay with his ruling.

  • 30. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Gergel is fully aware that a stay is not justified by any means here, but he is right into proceeding carefully and allowing the state to make its claims higher..This way it only legitimizes the equality cause and an eventual denial of stay from SCOTUS. And if SCOTUS grants a stay, at least it does not leave couples married in the meantime in a legal limbo. From the ruling :

    "The Court is mindful that the strict application ofthe four part test for the granting of a stay would result in the DENIAL of even this one-week temporary stay. However, sometimes the rigid application of legal doctrines must give way to practicalities that promote the interest of justice. Providing this Court's colleagues on the Fourth Circuit a reasonable opportunity to receive and consider Defendant Wilson's anticipated petition for an appeal stay justifies this brief stay of the Court's injunctive relief in this matter."

  • 31. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:13 am

    On a very different note, but one I just noticed…Judge Robert Shelby from the US district court of Utah, who was the first judge to strike down a state marriage ban after Windsor, may have been appointed by Obama but, according to his wikipedia page, he is a registered republican ! Did not know that tbh..!

  • 32. andrewofca  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:42 am

    Love the fact that Shelby is a Republican. It added a whole lot more weight to the decision. He couldn't be written off as a Liberal-activist.

  • 33. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:45 am

    And with huge praises from both Utah senators, Hatch and tea partier Lee, saying he will be an "outstanding judge" with great knowledge of the law etc.
    And then the governor goes on to call him the usual : "activist federal judge"…!
    Both senators were completely humiliated by their remarks. Not because Shelby is not an excellent judge, he is, but they said so on very different grounds.

  • 34. ChrysT17  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    That doesn't keep the anti-equality crowd from claiming exactly that, though, repeatedly. Maybe you're assuming these people use reason! ; )

  • 35. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    Here in HATU—The Bass Ackwards State (Utah)—“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.”

  • 36. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:01 am

    One has to keep in mind Leahy is letting Red State Senators abuse the Blue Slip so all you need to know about Judge Shelby is the fact he is on the bench because Lee and Hatch wanted him to be.
    They just didn't count that he would actually do his job instead of being another right wing hack like others they have put on there.

  • 37. andrewofca  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    Amen. Shelby did his job without an eye on whether it would help him get a SCOTUS nomination or his legacy. unlike some 6th circuit judges who shall go unnamed…

  • 38. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    Judge Shelby has many fine qualities. . . including a sharp sense of humor.

  • 39. sfbob  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:30 am

    Note to Scottie: The link at the top of this article is circular; it leads directly back to the article itself, rather than to the decision.

    Has anyone noticed that within the decision itself, several paragraphs appear in a footnote on one page and again in the body of the ruling on the following page?

  • 40. SteveThomas1  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:59 am

    I wrote about that on the Equality Case Files facebook page. Here's what I wrote:

    There's a possibly telling typo in this opinion: the substance of footnote 6, which refers to both the AG and the Governor as defendants, was inserted in the text immediately after the footnoted paragraph but altered to refer only to the AG. This was probably the result of two decisions affecting the draft: (a) the judge presumably thought first to relegate the substance to a footnote but then concluded that it would fit better in the main text, and (b) initially (i.e. in the footnote) the judge refers to both the AS and the Governor as defendants, whereas he ultimately decided to dismiss the Governor as a party and made the appropriate adjustments in the main text. The mistake as to (a) above is just a typo, as it's easy in complicated drafting to simply forget to delete a footnote that you've previously moved to text. (Who hasn't committed similar typos?) The mistake as to (b) is more telling: it may indicate that the judge was initially not inclined to dismiss the Governor as a defendant and then changed his mind. The fact that the judge in the somewhat parallel marriage recognition case dismissed the Governor as a defendant in that suit may have made him inclined to a similar result here. (It doesn't really make a practical difference that I can tell.)

  • 41. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Why is there a stay?

  • 42. sfbob  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:43 am

    it's a courtesy and nothing more. The judge has given the state sufficient time to request stays from the Fourth Circuit Court and from the Supreme Court, knowing quite well that those will be denied. He's telling the state, "Go ahead. Knock yourselves out. Get it out of your system. And then when you've been told to take a hike you can implement my ruling."

  • 43. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:50 am

    The stay is basically a courtesy to the state. It's only temporary, to allow the state enough time to seek a full stay from the fourth circuit or SCOTUS.

    I don't view the temporary stays as a negative, as they are quite short and they also prevent potential messes that we've seen in other states when there are gaps between injunctions and stays in which people marry and then enter limbo. These temp stays keep everything free of chaos.

  • 44. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Ugggg I know you are right but gee we know the case has been settled by the 4th already ….. Glad the clock is ticking for SC

  • 45. Eric  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Unless one's partner dies in the interim.

    The decision to endure any potential chaos should be left to the individuals involved. Besides, it's not like any of these states will have more marriages occur than occurred in San Francisco in 2004. Where was the chaos from those marriages?

  • 46. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    If the stays were longer I might agree with you. But the chances that within a week's time a couple could get a license, marry, and then one of them die are pretty slim. I have no problem with the courts wanting to be orderly, as long as what's being done is reasonable.

    As to the chaos in 2004, I don't live there so I dunno. You can't tell me that it didn't cause at least a few problems, not to mention the heartbreak of getting those letters nullifying the marriages.

  • 47. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    There was "Chaos" in Utah (according to Guv Gary "Nincompoop" Herbert). The thirteen days of marriage equality before SCOTUS stayed Judge Shelby's ruling made a lot of people happy, but ultimately cause some hardships, for example, adoptions that were put on hold, because the state refused to recognize the legal marriages that had been performed.

  • 48. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:40 am

    All I can say is our side was smart in filing a second lawsuit.
    It got us a different judge who didn't drag his feet.
    Based on all of her actions, J Michelle Childs really wanted to write a ruling like Sutton and Cook did but knew that she was bound by the 4th circuit's ruling.
    Thus she did every thing she could to delay issue a ruling that would strike the ban down and from statements she made, she was only going to strike down the ban on out of state marriages and leave the rest of the ban intact.
    What a loathsome human being.

  • 49. DJSNOLA  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:43 am

    Exactly , I remember posters last month wondering why we filed a second lawsuit… you now have your answer. Before the Circuit Court Ruled you definitely want the right judge but since this is after the circuit ruling there is no risk if childs rules against it. She would just make a fool of herself, so all she was doing was delaying because I dont think she was stupid enough to rule against marriage. The other thing is these judges were delaying enough for the sixth to rule because it was clear they were going to rule the way they did. Their hope is the Supremes may halt any further expansion of marriage. I think its unlikely that happens, but the landscape changes once the plaintiffs in the sixth file for petition with the Supremes. As of this moment the Supreme Court still has no circuit split in front of them. So it would be nice to get these few additional states before the Court petition because then I think its a stalemate until June if they hear it this term. Perhaps still gaining Arkansas and Missouri since they are state courts.

  • 50. Dr. Z  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Maybe she wanted someone else to strike down the SC ban so she wouldn't have to take the heat. Look at the grief some of those Kansas judges got. So she takes her sweet time on what should have been a no-brainer, hoping a second case would be filed and summarily ruled on in the interim. Which is exactly what happened.

  • 51. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    If she is so worried about taking heat for rulings, then she needs to resign from the bench.

  • 52. Dr. Z  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    She can take Sutton with her.

  • 53. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    Cook as well.
    She has not gotten enough scorn the past week like Sutton has and she deserves it.

  • 54. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:25 am

    OTOH, according to Judge Gergel's ruling, the fact that Judge Childs clarified that her case only addressed recognition is what allowed his court to take up the separate case of the state issuing licenses at all.

    Apparently in part of the state's case in briefs for Judge Gergel's hearing, they claimed the issue was already before a federal court, so could not be repeated in another federal court. Judge Childs saying her case only covered one aspect of it made it clear the second case was appropriately addressed in Judge Gergel's courtroom.

  • 55. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Yes, J. Michelle Childs is a disgrace to the bench and to the cause of justice.

  • 56. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    Childs, Sutton, Cook, Feldman, so many bigoted judges that will be remembered in history.

  • 57. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:11 am

    So something I've been thinking about, and it was reinforced while reading the SC decision, is that these court decisions only affect getting marriage licenses and having the status of marriage recognized by the state. The injunctions have no effect on what happens once married, because those issues are not before the court.

    In other words, the decisions require the state to stop enforcing the marriage prohibitions and issue licenses, but they do not require the state to treat all marriages equally under all the other existing state statutes concerning marriage.

    There has been a lot of discussion here that the next battleground will be religious "protection" laws. But I'm wondering if some states might try an end run in order to continue expressing disapproval of gay couples by unequal application of laws, creating second class marriage.

    There are dozens, if not hundreds, of state laws that concern married couples, ranging from common property to child custody. Many of them are written in neutral language, but many still use terms like wife instead of spouse. Take the presumption of parentage for instance. I'm willing to bet most or all states use presumption of paternity.

    I'm just wondering if some states will stick to the letter, rather than the intent of such laws as a way to continue discriminating. Or even possibly pass new discriminatory laws. It won't be constitutionally permissible, but would require yet more money and time spent in court.

    Maybe I'm just looking for trouble when I should just be basking in the glory of the moment. But I think it's something we'll need to keep a close eye on.

  • 58. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:28 am

    Of course certain laws in relation to marriage do not have neutral language when it comes to the gender of the marrying partners, legislators in Utah have already pointed that out.

    But once the right to marriage has been settled legislatures have the duty to change those laws in accordance with the marriage decisions, essentially in accordance with the federal constitution (since that's where these decisions are based).

    Of course some deep red legislatures will fail to do their duty and try to stop same sex couples, even if they are legally married, from getting their equal rights, based on the wording of such laws, instead of changing them.

    Then of course it will be the job of the state judiciary most likely to settle those issues yet again, but it will be highly procedural imo. Once the right to marriage has been established, judges should have no hard time dealing with those side issues, if the legislatures fail to do so.

    It may take some time and a lot of petty at most points litigition but there will be uniformity in the treatment of same sex and opposite sex couples in every aspect of the law in every state sooner than later, after SCOTUS rules.

    No surprises can happen there imo, the bigoted officials will just be dragging the issue by failing to address the changes in certain laws. Given how much money can frivolous litigiton cost to the state, it may even backfire to them, from the people who see the inevitable (no matter if they agree with ME or not) and also see the state wasting tax payers' money to make more of a political rather than a legal point.

    Once the right to marriage has been established discriminatory by-laws won't be able to stand any litigition.

  • 59. MichaelGrabow  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Fair point, but I would think that after the Supreme Court rules and marriage equality is nationwide, even the crazies would either be less inclined to attempt to make this an issue or know they would get quickly slapped down.

  • 60. RobW303  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    The problem is that these people pass such laws knowing they infringe guaranteed constitutional rights, but until these laws are enjoined (and any appeal avenues still remain), LGBT people suffer the denial of their rights. We've seen this with sodomy laws and with gay marriage, and we'll see this with "religious freedom" laws as well. Also with abortion and voter registration laws. As long as they can do something—anything—they will, and courts will continue to see no animus on the part of the "public", no matter how loudly opponents pushing these measures vocally scream their hate.

  • 61. FredDorner  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:52 am

    "The injunctions have no effect on what happens once married, because those issues are not before the court."

    That depends on how you interpret the order which prohibits:
    "….or any other state law or policy to the extent they seek to prohibit the marriage of same sex couples"
    "Interfering in any manner with Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry…".

  • 62. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Exactly. Most of the orders strike down all the related laws, and the enforcement of the bans. The great thing is that if you don't think a state is following the order, you can drag it back in front of the same judge to smack down the state.

  • 63. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Read those again Fred, it's exactly why I posted what I did.

    Your first quotation says any state law seeking to *prohibit* marriage. It has nothing to do with laws concerning already married people.

    Same thing with your second quotation. "Fundamental right to marry." The state can't interfere with *getting married*. Once married that order is irrelevant.

    The courts are not ruling on the enforcement of other laws. They can't unless someone brings a suit showing actual discrimination.

    I'm not saying the courts can't easily deal with this if it arises. I'm just thinking that some of these states, like Idaho, Kansas, and South Carolina are clawing at every potential lifeline in order to keep discriminating.

  • 64. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Instead of seeing where the current laws are discriminatory, some legislators are trying to make the laws of individual states even more discriminatory.

    From the 'Advocate':
    'Texas Senator Proposes Another 'License to Discriminate' Bill'
    (… )

  • 65. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:21 am

    And as the article states, conservatives and anti abortion groups are the first to oppose because they see how such a bill, with broad language in order not to appear bigoted, can backfire to them. It stands no chance as it is obviously, it wil face opposition from both sides.

    Now they can go for a bill specifically discriminating against same sex couples and gay people in public accomodations but that would face a hard time to stand in court probably…

    That's the possible problem of such bills :
    Too broad and you have even groups opposed to LGBT rights opposing it since it can backfire.
    Too specific and it will have a hard time surviving judicial scrutiny.

  • 66. sfbob  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:49 am

    As you note they could go for a bill that allows for discrimination against certain groups (us for example), based on "sincerely held religious beliefs." The problem with that of course is that it runs directly into Romer vs. Evans.

  • 67. FredDorner  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    The other problem they have is that the "If you're buying, we're selling" campaign has been remarkably effective in Mississippi, and it would be even more so in Texas. It's really pissed off the bigots since they prefer anonymity under their white sheets.

    A simple sticker in the window has worked wonders.

  • 68. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:44 pm

    If passed…….the Extreme Christian Fanatics better be prepared for the same treatment that they want to dish out……and by the way, SCOTUS already ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that one CAN'T use their religious beliefs as a way to discriminate……..and if these folks think it's okay…….wait until they are the subject of that same reasoning……they won't like it!!!

  • 69. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:40 am

    "but they do not require the state to treat all marriages equally under all the other existing state statutes concerning marriage"

    Were any state to try to apply "the same law" differently to certain couples (gay couples), that would be a blatant violation of "due process and equal protection."

    No matter what else they may try (laws allowing discrimination against gay couples in the private sector, etc), none are likely to be as blatant as your concern about existing laws expresses.

  • 70. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    Well, my point was that some laws by their gender specific wording on their face only apply to opposite sex couples. The state has to make the decision that they apply to all married couples, or the legislature has to do cleanup on language. Which most states will.

    I totally agree it wouldn't fly under equal protection. But that doesn't mean some states won't force it into court, meaning gay people having to waste money.

  • 71. sfbob  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:50 am

    I believe a state legislator in Utah has already tried to get a bill passed that refers to our marriages as "pairages" (sic). That one has about as much chance of withstanding judicial scrutiny as did their original ban.

  • 72. FredDorner  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Ironically that was proposed by one of the supposedly gay friendly Republicans in Utah. Fortunately it hasn't gone anywhere.

  • 73. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    There are no "gay friendly" Republicans in Utah. The Teapublican extremists would eat their spleens for brunch. 😉

  • 74. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    Judge Shelby is a Republican.

  • 75. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    Poe's Law. . . I used a wink to indicate I wasn't being serious.

  • 76. davepCA  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    I was surprised when I learned that judge Shelby was a Republican. He's waaay too cute to be a Republican.

  • 77. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:29 pm

    The Utah state churchislator got so much flack from his constituents that he significantly backed off this "pairage" proposal.

  • 78. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:46 pm

    I e-mailed Mr Powell and here it is:
    Dear Mr Powell,
    After reading your idea in the news, I want you to know that to proceed with this ridiculous idea is nothing more than you showing your animus towards a group of individuals who deserve the same respect and right to marry as you enjoyed and to try and call our marriages something else is nothing more than pure Discrimination UNLESS you want to refer to other marriages by different names in order to identify them as different from your marriage. So, here is a list of alternative names for marriages you can use:
    For opposite-sex couples who plan on having children, their marriage should be referred to as "BREEDIAGE"

    For opposite-sex couples who aren't able to procreate, their marriages should be referred to as "BARRENNESSIAGE"

    For EVERYONE else who gets married, their marriages should be referred to as what they are "MARRIAGE"

    Gays and Lesbians AREN'T going to accept your childish terminology just because you CAN'T handle that Gays and Lesbians are American Citizens and deserve the SAME right to marry as you did.

  • 79. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:48 pm

    The Utah State Churchislator who came up with "pairage" (and who significantly backed off of this specific form of stupidity because of criticism from his constituents) did raise some interesting issues. For example, in a heterosexual marriage, when the woman gives birth to a child, her male husband is presumed (according to the rule of law) to be the biological father (until such time as there is a dispute and resolution). If one of the women in a same-sex marriage gives birth to a child, should the law identify her legal spouse as the "father"?

    Change the word "father" to the sex-neutral term "parent," and the law makes perfect sense.

    My comments on the issue. . . Marriage equality has been the law for about ten years in Massachusetts. They probably have had to deal with these issues, so there is no reason for Utah to re-invent the wheel.

  • 80. debater7474  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:27 am

    Eat it, Childs. Eat it.

  • 81. MichaelGrabow  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:31 am

    Does anyone have any new information about any of the states in the Sixth Circuit?

  • 82. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Nothing apart from the fact that they (attorneys and plaintiffs from all 4 states) decided to all go to SCOTUS immediately and petition for cert. They should file by the end of this week or the beginning of the next the latest. The time limits are strict if we want SCOTUS to hear a marriage case in this term.

  • 83. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Indeed, the lawyers for that side better be on the ball for this one.

  • 84. haydenarwen  |  November 14, 2014 at 3:54 am

    My Lawyer friend who partners in an email that they are just about ready to send appeal to SCOTUS. May happen today 11/14/14.

  • 85. jpmassar  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:15 am

    South Carolina will appeal

    South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson says he will appeal a federal judge's ruling tossing out the state's ban on same-sex marriages.

    U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, ruling Wednesday in the case of a couple from Charleston suing to be married, found South Carolina's state constitutional ban "invalid as a matter of law."

    But Wilson says the decision was no surprise and that he has an obligation to defend the state's laws. He says he will appeal immediately to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

    That court has already found a similar ban against same-sex marriages in Virginia unconstitutional. All the states in the circuit, with the exception of South Carolina, now permit same-sex marriages.

    But Wilson says South Carolina's marriage laws are not identical to those in other states.

  • 86. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:22 am

    "But Wilson says South Carolina's marriage laws are not identical to those in other states. "


    Expected but stupid, and the inability to fix it, will never cease to surprise me..

  • 87. sfbob  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    How are they different? Fewer commas? More commas?

  • 88. David_Midvale_UT  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:50 pm


  • 89. StraightDave  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:27 am

    Appeal away, a-hole! Gergel already rejected a stay pending appeal. The 4th and SCOTUS will do the same as they do for KS, same as for ID. Do it on your own time and the marriages will continue, regardless.

  • 90. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:51 am

    So Wilson just wants everyone to ignore the fact that non-identical wording still has the identical effect.

    Not gonna happen…

  • 91. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Quoting another top commentator on this site.

    "A different font!"

    I'm a font freak so I liked that one.

  • 92. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    What is taking so long with the Supreme Court for Kansas?

  • 93. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    My thoughts exactly……this stay should have ALREADY been lifted!!!

  • 94. hopalongcassidy  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Don't worry, Saint Sonia will fix it up real soon…

  • 95. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    I believe she and the Court will….but will they do it at the end of today or the end of the week?

  • 96. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    It's getting redonkulous if you ask me …..I guess they have to follow procedure but delays is about all Kansas has left and I'm ready to see the delays end NOW especially th ones where the circuits have ruled and the SC upheld the rulings

  • 97. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    I know……especially with the fact that the 10th is binding precedent and the ruling from the 6th has NO bearing on the ruling from the 10th!!!

  • 98. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Amen, Rose, amen!

  • 99. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Jaesun –
    Do I recall that you're from NC as I am? Whereabouts?

  • 100. DACiowan  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    I hope they aren't waiting for the Friday conference to hold the full court vote.

  • 101. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Could be……..but somehow it wouldn't seem right to delay this issue when they didn't in Idaho!!!

  • 102. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Or in Alaska…!

  • 103. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    Good News out of Michigan: Another US District Court Judge barred the state from telling local governments that they could not provide benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

  • 104. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    This is a beautiful decision, especially considering that it was written in the face of the Sixth Circuit's ruling in DeBoer. The judge does not flinch in finding the animus that motivated the law in question.

  • 105. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The judge was right to call out the animus behind this bill.
    Dave Agema was the man who wrote the bill and put it on the floor of the legislature to be voted on and he has not bothered at all to hide his animus towards same sex couples during that time or since then.

  • 106. Jen_in_MI  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    The man is a complete asshat who takes pleasure in being quite public in his hatred of all things LGBT.

  • 107. jpmassar  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Both sides rest in Mississippi gay-marriage ban case

    Both sides on a federal case challenging Mississippi's gay-marriage ban rested after three hours of arguments Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Carton Reeves…

    New York-based attorney Roberta Kaplan presented a rapid-fire case for her clients, which include two Mississippi same-sex couples with children: Carla Webb and Joce Pritchett; and Rebecca Bickett and Andrea Sanders.

    Kaplan, described by her firm as a "powerhouse corporate litigator and pressure junkie" successfully argued in favor of gay marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. versus Edith Windsor case.

    At times excusing herself for speaking too quickly, Kaplan rattled off her reasons why she believes the state's gay-marriage ban violates the constitution and her clients' rights and padded her arguments with documented case law.

    Kaplan's style was sharply contrasted by that of lead counsel for the state, Justin Matheny, who at times seemed to stumble through his arguments and admitted an unfamiliarity with many of the issues at hand.

    Reeves asked both attorneys several questions, but the vast majority went to Matheny, including this one: "What is the state's rational basis that same-sex couples can't marry … and its prohibition of same sex couples from adopting children when all a child wants is to be loved, and they don't care by whom?"

    Matheny cited "responsible procreation" as his response, meaning that the state wants marriage only between couples who can responsibly procreate.

    "You allow people in prison to be married, and there are no more conjugal visits," Reeves argued. "Old people can marry" and they can't bear children "with the exception of Abraham and Sarah."

  • 108. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Oh Reeves is my kind of judge, stricking that irrationality right from the bench..!

    Oh I expect a fast decision here and an injunction. Of course it will be appealed and stayed in the 5th but it will be another victory nevertheless. And in the most anti gay state according to every poll in the US.

  • 109. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Sounds promising…

  • 110. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    The judge is Carlton (not Carton) Reeves.

    He's an Obama appointee, educated at University of Virginia and Jackson State University in Mississippi.

  • 111. MichaelGrabow  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Joemygod quoted that exchange and then follow it up with "Yeah, we've got this one."

  • 112. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Strom Thurmond is rolling over in his grave today.

  • 113. Brad_1  |  November 12, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Lindsey Graham is secretly smiling.

  • 114. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Not at all. Lindsey will go to his grave in the closet.

  • 115. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    I agree with that JDW for sure

  • 116. palerobber  |  November 13, 2014 at 12:19 am

    not so sure. remember this news story?

    "Casual One-Nighter Gives Strom Thurmond Change Of Heart On Gay Issue"

  • 117. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    Another Ban overturned 🙂 well sorta

  • 118. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Ugh so no word on the Kansas stay…I'm getting nervous now.

  • 119. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    I'm not getting nervous, just frustrated. WTH is going on at SCOTUS?

  • 120. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    SCOTUS can't do anything until the 6CA plaintiffs file for petition of cert. They haven't done so yet. They're working on it though.

  • 121. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    They need to do so ASAP and then work on getting a top legal team.

  • 122. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    They don't need to have anything happen with the 6th appeals in order to lift the stay in Kansas…

  • 123. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Marriage equality is *settled law* in the Tenth Circuit – settled by the US Supreme Court's own denial of cert. The foibles of the Sixth Circuit do not affect that in any way. C'mon, Supremes, enough already.

  • 124. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Not sure what the 10CA has to do with the 6CA, but okay, haha. I'm guessing you meant to reply to Jayne.

  • 125. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    No, that was to you – KS is under jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit, not the 6th.

  • 126. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    I know. I just…nevermind. LOL!

  • 127. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    LOL, ragefirewolf. Wes commented on Kansas; Jayne replied to Wes; you replied to Jayne; I replied to you.
    I just want to see your dance again!

  • 128. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    Wiggle. A-wiggle, wiggle. A-wiggle wiggle, WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE!!!!

  • 129. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    DANCE, ragefirewolf, DANCE!

  • 130. Dr. Z  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    I'm imagining screaming, shouting, papers flying in chambers, then when they come out into the courtroom they're all calm except their hair is mussed and Scalia has a loose collar. Just a fantasy.

  • 131. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:24 pm


  • 132. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    Reply much later: given results, I'd say indeed, things are more than tense up on the Hill. Roberts will have his hands full trying to keep SCOTUS' image up.

  • 133. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    No reason to be nervous…….SCOTUS will either deny the Stay because the 10th ruling is already binding precedent or they will grant it because they've ALL lost their marbles….but that is truly an unlikely scenario!!!

  • 134. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    A-wiggle…a-wiggle wiggle wiggle! WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE WIGGLE!!!!!

  • 135. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Made me smile:-)

  • 136. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Mission accomplished! 🙂

  • 137. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Thanks Sweetie…….I needed that<3

  • 138. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    You're most welcome, love.

  • 139. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    Maybe… Just maybe… Dare I hypothesize… That this time we're going to get some explanation along with the SCOTUS order on the stay? For example, it might be that a dissent is being written by someone?

  • 140. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Dare you, indeed! 😉

    Raga – You have access to PACER. Has Sandoval filed his reply to Petition for Rehearing en Banc in Nevada case? (12-17668)

  • 141. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Right… Today's the deadline. As of now, no. There's nothing there from Sandoval.

  • 142. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Thank you!!! I thought today was the deadline … but it's only 2:41 p.m. on the West Coast.

  • 143. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Interesting theory, Raga. If so, let's hope one of the Windsor Five are not voting for a stay for Kansas, but that one of the four RATS are being vocal in dissent.

  • 144. DACiowan  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:32 pm


    Scalia and Thomas would have granted.

  • 145. MichaelGrabow  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Yes!! 33+DC! Keep 'em coming!

  • 146. DACiowan  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Equality Case Files for source

  • 147. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Link link link!!!!!!!

  • 148. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm

  • 149. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Thank you!!!

  • 150. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    DAC – where is this?

  • 151. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm

  • 152. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    Scalia and Thomas can just … !!!

  • 153. debater7474  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Perhaps Alito was asleep?

  • 154. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Is it possible he will be a vote for same sex marriage? No judge wants to be on the wrong side of history and he knows same sex marriage will win with or without his vote.

  • 155. debater7474  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    You might think so until you actually read his opinion in the Windsor case. He just can't go back on what he wrote – he wrote explictly like in the first sentence "same sex marriage is a decision for the people and the legislatures." and then expounds for pages and pages on why. He can't flip flop so blatantly on what he previously wrote.

  • 156. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    You're probably right. The only one that would vote for same sex marriage from the conservatives is Roberts since his Windsor dissent was very short and also said that the court might later have to decide whether states can ban same sex marriages. He also refused to joined the "homophobic" parts of Alito's and Scalia's dissents.

  • 157. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    I can't see getting Roberts if there are 13-15 states with marriage bans at the time of the decision, which seems very likely at this point. If the 6th had ruled favorably and then the 11th had ruled favorably before the 5th and/or 8th ruled unfavorably and caused a split (resulting in the issue being heard early next Term) then I could see his concern for his legacy causing him to switch given that the ruling would apply to at most 6 states and an unfavorable ruling would be of Dred Scott proportion. But that scenario is now wildly unlikely; the case will in all probability be decided this Term before any of the 5th, 8th and 11th can rule, and that gives him plenty of cover.

  • 158. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Roberts worked to get a favorable ruling in Romer v. Evans, the gay rights case from Colorado. He also has a lesbian cousin that he knows well enough to give her tickets to court hearings (he gave her tickets to the Prop 8 case), he also refused to join the "homophobic" parts of Alito's and Scalia's dissent in Windsor. And in his Windsor dissent, which was short, he said he did not strike down DOMA because there was not enough evidence that it was passed because of animus and that it furthered no government interest. He also emphasized that the question of same sex marriage bans was currently not before the court. I think it's clear now that state same sex marriage bans further no state interest. So taking all those things into consideration in addition to the not wanting to be on the wrong side of history, I could see Roberts voting in favor of same sex marriage.

  • 159. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    I doubt it. I imagine he also voted to deny the stay but for whatever reason did not want his vote recorded.

    Keep in mind that the fact that Scalia and Thomas wanted it on the record that they would deny the stay does not mean that they were the only Justices to vote that way.

  • 160. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    I think it's because they are getting desperate.

  • 161. Rick55845  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    You mean grant the stay, not deny. The stay request was, in fact, denied. Thomas and Scalia said they would have granted. We can only guess about the others.

  • 162. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Yes that's what I meant.

  • 163. nfernan130  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Well he certainly wanted his name on the order when he declined to stay the strict Texas abortion law from going into effect. But yes, you are correct, not listing your name on the order does not immediately mean that justice voted the other way since I'm sure Justice Scalia and Thomas voted to grant the stay in Alaska and Idaho even though the order from the Supreme Court did not say so. I wonder why they did not list their names those times.

  • 164. ragefirewolf  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    I doubt it. Would be nice, but doubtful.

  • 165. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Kansas stay DENIED!!!

  • 166. jpmassar  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says same-sex marriages can go ahead in Kansas.

    The court on Wednesday denied the state's request to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying while Kansas fights the issue in court.

    A federal district judge last week blocked the state from enforcing its ban, saying it was in keeping with an earlier ruling by the federal appeals court that oversees Kansas that struck down bans in Oklahoma and Utah.

    The judge's ruling was supposed to go into effect Tuesday, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor (SOHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') temporarily put it on hold while the high court reviewed the case.

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have sided with the state.

  • 167. 914guy  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:15 pm

    I waited until Judge Gergel had struck down the ban to make this comment mostly because I didn't want to jinx it. Richard Gergel and I knew each other as teenagers growing up in SC in the late 60's. He was a skinny kid with big curly hair that drove his mom's '62 Comet. Today he would be called a nerd. He was passionate about civil rights issues, those that were treated unjustly, and any social cause for those that were treated unfairly. He came from a very liberal Jewish upbringing and, frankly, I couldn't see him ruling any other way except in favor of marriage equality. One never knows for sure until the ruling is announced. Tonight it's a big hat tip to Richard for coming through for us as I knew that he would. His admonishment to AG Wilson has set the stage perfectly for what happens next. This is bit off topic, but I thought others might enjoy this bit of insight.

  • 168. Brad_1  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Thanks for posting that. That's really interesting. Gergel clearly was raised with good family values.

  • 169. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    I agree and between the two judges hearing this case, it's easy to see which one is the bigot and which one isn't.

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