Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Supreme Court denies stay in Kansas marriage case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The Supreme Court has denied Kansas’ request for a stay in the challenge to its same-sex marriage ban. The state is appealing the case to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they wanted marriages to be placed on hold until the case was heard.

The order notes that Justice Sotomayor referred the request to the whole Court. Justices Scalia and Thomas noted that they would grant the stay request.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    The 10th Circuit is now COMPLETE!

  • 2. Steve27516  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    That's 33 stars, Rose, 33 stars!

  • 3. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm


    Love it!!!

  • 4. BaronDrei  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    34, I think, if you count DC, yes? (And why not count DC?)

  • 5. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    DC is not a state though. It will be 34 once South Carolina falls in line, which is certain now, given that the 4th will deny their stay (SCOTUS will as well of course).

  • 6. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    Don't forget Missouri as number 34…I think:-)

  • 7. weaverbear  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Unfortunately that is stayed on a statewide basis, isn't it? (Only marriages are going forward in St. Louis – or am I wrong here) Shades of New Mexico all over again.

    But when Montana and South Carolina all come on board, I think that'll be 36.

  • 8. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:17 am

    St Louis (city and county) and from what I've read here, Jackson County are issuing licenses. MT and SC would push the number from 33 to 35, no…?

  • 9. Pat_V  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Yes, that would be 35, without counting Missouri.

  • 10. DeadHead  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Only two of the Justices wanted to grant the stay, hmmmm

  • 11. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Yes, hummmm

  • 12. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    No, only two wanted it on record that they voted to deny the stay. That does not mean that others did not vote to grant the stay.

  • 13. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    I see that Justice Scalia is STILL trying to prevent Gays and Lesbians from marrying……but what I DON'T understand is WHY now? Why NOT grant cert before if this was how they felt? I mean they OBVIOUSLY didn't have the votes to go with them, but it seems odd that some of the Justices would want to delay this issue when they KNOW good and damn well it's a coming!!!

  • 14. Rick55845  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    I think Scalia, in particular, will try to the bitter end to keep us from every being able to marry. So no surprise there.

    Perhaps Scalia, Thomas, et. al., wanted to grant cert in one or more of the previous 7 cases from the September conference. We can't know that unless one of them spills the beans some day. But if any of them wanted to grant cert, they clearly didn't have the votes to do so.

  • 15. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    They did not want to grant cert because they know that in an actual ruling they would lose 5-4. They do not want a definitive ruling establishing that gay people have a fundamental right to marry. They have been playing a waiting game, hoping perhaps that one of the Windsor 5 will step down and be replaced by a Republican president. That is why the Sixth Circuit ruling is a mixed blessing for them. If cert is granted in DeBoer and/or other Sixth Circuit cases, SCOTUS will issue a definitive ruling.

  • 16. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Precisely. Rock and a hard place. Bitter feelings beginning to leek out..

  • 17. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    "Bitter feelings beginning to leek out" sounds like a headline from the Onion…

  • 18. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Bon mot! Guess I’ll get back to making vichysoisse.

  • 19. montezuma58  |  November 13, 2014 at 5:59 am

    Scalia is the justice overseeing the 5th Circuit.
    Thomas is the justice overseeing the 11th Circuit.
    There may be a bit more than just wanting their vote on the record.

  • 20. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:19 am

    Great point.

  • 21. Retired_Lawyer  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Great news at the end of the day. One can't help wondering what it was about this particular case that attracted the attention of Justices Scalia and Thomas (but not Alito). All the other stay decisions involving marriage equality cases have been rendered by the Supreme Court without (written) dissent.

  • 22. yyyAllenyyy  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    The decision in the 6th makes it a different situation. I can see the argument being made that everything should be put on hold until it's all decided once and for all.

    That said, I am very happy for KS and what we will soon see in SC and MT.

  • 23. Fledge01  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    True. I find this who topic most fascinating from a legal perspective.

    The thing that I want to know is, Is there any specific point of law that says once cert is denied by SCOTUS on a circuit court case, must SCOTUS always deny stays of future district court challenges that raise no new legal arguments, even after a new split develops at the circuit level? Is this new legal ground for SCOTUS. If so, they are not only make new law on marriage equality, but also new law on procedural issues as well. Those procedures can set precedent on issues not related at all to marriage equality.

  • 24. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:46 pm


    Does Kansas have a waiting period? Can marriages begin immediately? Have they already begun? Please let us know.

  • 25. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    There is a 3 day waiting period. No one is sure how that will apply to the folks who received their marriage licenses before the federal case began.

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Yes…! I was so relieved..! That means SC as well at the very least will definately have ME in short time ! SCOTUS has spoken again !

  • 27. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    But will Sutton EVER get the message?

  • 28. DeadHead  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Sutton gets the message, I think he is just pandering to his base. He wants to pass the buck to SCOTUS, he has no brass.

  • 29. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    And the first time we have noted dissents. Scalia and Thomas dissenting here is not surprising, they probably would have granted the stay based on the decision of the 6th which created the split.
    Still Alito and Roberts not voting to grant a stay ? A very surprising split in the conservative wing here. We should not get ahead of ourselves but is it possible to have any kind of surprise when the ruling from SCOTUS comes ?

  • 30. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    We do not know that Alito and Roberts did not vote to grant a stay. We only know that they did not join Scalia and Thomas in wanting their dissent noted.

  • 31. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    And I repeat my question from below : Why would they do that ? Maybe they do not fill that strongly about the issue or simply they realized that by the time they denied cert to Kitchen and Bishop, they settled the law in the 10th circuit.

    Anyway the positive here is that South Carolina will be the 34th state after Kansas becomes the 33rd for sure.
    Montana is a different story..

  • 32. Rick55845  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    We don't know that Alito and Roberts didn't vote to grant a stay. All we know is that no justices other than Scalia and Thomas made their preferences known.

  • 33. JamesInCA  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Does the notation by Scalia and Thomas definitively tell us there were 7 votes against the stay? Or could it have been 5-4, with two choosing not to make their vote public?

  • 34. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Others could have chosen to make their votes private. I imagine it was a 5-4 decision.

  • 35. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Or, on the other hand, Roberts could have voted against the stay, as well.

  • 36. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Why would they not have their dissents noted if they did indeed disagreed with this ? Still even if Alito and Roberts did want to grant the stay, they must not fill hat strong about it given that they did not want their dissent to be noted.

  • 37. Rick55845  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    This is the first time in any of the ME cert denials or ME stay requests that any justice has chosen to comment. What is unusual is that Scalia and Thomas chose to make their dissents public this time. So the better question is why would they have wanted to have their dissents noted this time around?

  • 38. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    Because of the decision from the 6th, that's pretty clear imo. It's the only major difference in the judicial landscape since they denied the stays to Idaho and Alaska.

  • 39. SteveThomas1  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSblog speculates that Justices Scalia and Thomas may have been persuaded by Kansas' attempt to distinguish their case from the others in the 10th Circuit:

    "Kansas officials had attempted to show that their case was different from others that the Supreme Court had chosen to leave undisturbed, arguing that the federal judge’s order was an invalid attempt to second-guess a Kansas Supreme Court order delaying the issuance of same-sex marriages. The federal judge had rejected that claim, but it may have been the one that drew the implied support of Justices Scalia and Thomas."

    The entire blog entry by Denniston is at:

    I myself am somewhat skeptical about this speculation, but as with all things about the US Supreme Court, a cryptic order leaves ample room for speculation and provides little support for knowledge about what it means.

  • 40. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    I think it is much simpler than Denniston: Scalia and Thomas wanted to indicate that they are dead-enders and will be vocal and obdurate opponents of same-sex marriage (and gay rights in general) as long as they are on the Court. I suspect that Alito and Roberts are also dead-enders, but they prefer to operate under the radar at this point.

    I think that we will have a definitive ruling in favor of marriage equality issued on June 29, 2014 in the case of DeBoer v. Snyder, authored by Kennedy, and joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, with an inflammatory dissent by Scalia, joined by Thomas, and a slightly less inflammatory dissent by Roberts joined by Alito and echoing Sutton, with lots of handwringing about the democratic process being subverted.

  • 41. weaverbear  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    I suspect you're correct in this analysis, except I'm not willing to place a bet on Roberts. My suspicion as to Roberts is he is a more political animal than some on the court, and just might make it a 6-3, rather than a 5-4. I certainly woundn't stake my life on it, but it wouldn't shock me.

    I would not expect him to be the 5th vote in favor, (as in a deciding vote) but I wouldn't be shocked to see him the 6th.

  • 42. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:12 am

    I think it is delusional to believe that Roberts will ever join an opinion in favor of gay rights, especially the right of same-sex couples to marry. If I am wrong, great.

    But Roberts' record on this issue is clear and unambiguous. In his Windsor dissent, he said that DOMA was constitutional and then tried to limit the majority opinion to mean that the federal government had to follow the lead of states, the very argument parroted by the defenders of state bans. How he could go from believing that the federal DOMA is constitutional but that state DOMAs are not is beyond me.

    It is also beyond me that people persist in thinking that this bigot is a closet supporter of gay rights.

  • 43. Fledge01  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:04 am

    Very few rulings are 5-4 (13%) this past term versus the 63% that were a unanimous. Since Roberts came on the court he has pushed for consensus on the court.

    Roberts has pushed the other judges to limit the scope of the issue or to outright change ideas to try to get to that point. Just because a judge rules in a majority does not mean that any of those judges believe that what they right is the proper decision. Its just the best one they can all agree on that also brings along the most judges. After they get 7 judges on a majority, they start to become less willing to change their views just to grab an extra 8th or 9th vote.

    Roberts dissent on DOMA was at the time that ruling was written. Now with that case done and its ruling being the law of the land, that change in law can be the basis for Roberts determining he has no choice now but to rule the other way.

  • 44. JayJonson  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    I agree with Wes. It is likely that the vote was 5-4, with Roberts and Alito choosing not to make their votes public.

  • 45. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Well, this is the first time Alito and Thomas made their votes public. Perhaps the two of them decided that they want to send a message, and the others aren't yet ready to do so.

  • 46. Rick55845  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Scalia and Thomas

  • 47. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Oh, right.

  • 48. peterplumber  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I offer another point of view. As asupreme court justice, one should not let his personal preferances or religious beliefs dictate his interprtation of the constitution. Perhaps Justice Roberts and/or Alito know that, while they may not like the thought of same sex marriage, the state bans are truly unconstitutional and agree with the more left leaning justices. Just perhaps….

  • 49. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    I think you're being too optimistic, but it's possible that they could think the bans are constitutional but realize that until they have a case properly before them and decide so, it's settled law in the 10th that they aren't.

  • 50. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:17 am

    peterplumber's view is not only too optimistic, it is beyond credence. These justices were placed on the court solely because they are ideological; they will hardly abandon their ideology in the middle of an ideological struggle.

  • 51. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    OOH, you would bring up religion, and I will bring up the fact – faintly troubling – that ALL Scotus is Roman Catholic save RBG.

  • 52. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Actually Breyer and Kagan are also Jewish. Still not a lot of religious diversity, to put it mildly.

  • 53. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    The ONLY thing this tells us is that there were as few as 2 to as many as 4 for a stay, and as few as 5 to as many as 7 against a stay. And that Fat Tony and Pubic Hair Clarence didn't care that their advocating for a stay went public. Zero to two chose to not make their dissent to the decision public.

    If there were five votes for a stay, then there would have been a stay. The only thing this tells us the highest number in favor of a stay was 4, or the stay would have been extended to some future date.

  • 54. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Wohoo about time we need to get SC in before the 6th files for cletori

  • 55. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Does anyone think the circuit court will grant a stay while they appeal en banc?

  • 56. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    The 10th has already denied a stay, that's why they went to SCOTUS.

  • 57. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    O good that's the end of the delays then :))))))
    Are they still trying to go en banc?

  • 58. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    Yes they do, but their realistic chances are few if not non existant imo. It's a mostly liberal court and the bans were struck down from a panel which had two republicans. I don't see them granting en banc here.

  • 59. redletterday  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    They already denied it once, so can't imagine they would grant now.

  • 60. Rick55845  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    No, they already denied a stay request from Kansas.

  • 61. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    So apart from the whole "who dissented" debate we know that SCOTUS is comfortable with letting more marriages occur, even after the decision from the 6th. Am I reading too much into this or is it really another very positive indication about our chances at SCOTUS ?

  • 62. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    I totally agree they don't have the 5 votes to deny SSM they just showed their hand in my opinion….
    I would feel more confident if they would have done this after they had the 6th "officially" in but to me this is a very good sign of our chance of prevailing. I suspect we shouldn't read too much into it until after we get the 6th officially in the SC is probably when they will start the stays up again on the circuits that haven't ruled .

  • 63. davepCA  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    I think you're reading it exactly right, guitaristbl. And I think this is pretty revealing about what they think of the 6th circuit ruling.

  • 64. F_Young  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    guitaristbl: "Am I reading too much into this or is it really another very positive indication about our chances at SCOTUS ?"

    No, I don't think that you're reading too much into it. SCOTUS would not have allowed marriages to start in Kansas if it thought that the 6th circuit decision might be upheld. SCOTUS has tipped its hand. I think that this is the beginning of the end of marriage inequality in the USA.

  • 65. redletterday  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    One interesting bit of trivia for Kansas is that technically there is still an injunction in effect, issued by the Kansas State Supreme Court banning the issuance of marriage licenses while they consider a separate case. Obviously the Supremacy Clause rules and the federal injunction (now officially in effect, right?) would control, but to dot all the i's the state Supreme Court needs to formally end their case, although my guess is marriages will begin right away.

  • 66. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    I believe anything from the Kansas State Supreme Court would be moot at this point……..especially regarding this issue and SCOTUS keeps letting everyone know that!!!

  • 67. DeadHead  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    I betcha the legal eagles for our side in that suit will file that motion quickly.

  • 68. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    The KSC injunction is only towards Judge Moriarty and his court clerk, not statewide.

  • 69. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    And we've dealt with this before, with the injunctions against Hanes in PA and Hall in CO; those were vacated pretty quickly once the rulings were in place.

  • 70. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    The Kansas SC already indicated that they are looking at what happens with the federal case for guidance on proceeding in the state case. So I imagine the state case is going to be quickly dealt with as moot. And like Raga said, the state injunction is only against one judge. So at worst, couples in that district have to wait a few extra days.

  • 71. Applebear40  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    Its my understanding that if one Justice denies a stay, the State can ask another one to stay the case until review, and if Scalia and Thomas said they would have granted the stay, then the
    State could ask either one of those to do it (grant a stay)

  • 72. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Applebear: It is my understanding that, if the matter is referred to the whole court, as Justice Sotomayor did, the state cannot then justice shop to find another one to grant the stay.

  • 73. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    You are correct……if Justice Sotomayor had denied the stay herself…….then the defendants could have gone elsewhere to see if another Justice might give them what they want and asked for, but as long as the stay request was put before the entire Court……the defendants are shiet outta luck!!!

  • 74. Applebear40  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    OH gotcha Franklinsewell even better man, thanks so much Peace

  • 75. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Read the order. Sotomayor referred the request to the full court, meaning that the state cannot do any judge fishing. By the time it was referred to the full court, they cannot ask a particular justice to grant a stay.

  • 76. Applebear40  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    Thank you so much guitaristbl for your reply. Very helpful Peace my friend

  • 77. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    And that's almost certainly why Sotomayor granted the temporary stay pending referral; if she hadn't, KS could have gone straight to Scalia or Thomas.

  • 78. hopalongcassidy  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    If it had been known that she had referred the stay request to the full court right at the beginning, when she originally granted it, I would not have been so pissed off. Why can't we be allowed to know those "minor" details? Someone dropped the legal/media ball.

  • 79. EllieInMalibu  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    I don't really think you can blame the media for the comments you chose to make.

  • 80. Swifty819  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    But that's the thing. The last many times, one justice has made a temp stay, then refers the whole thing to the court. What gave you any reason to think Sotomayor did otherwise with this stay?

    That's generally what they have to do; make a temp stay themselves first so they have time to refer it to the whole court without the ruling going into effect, then whatever the whole court says goes.

  • 81. SeattleRobin  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    ALL of the stay requests have been referred to the entire court. Why you would think she was doing any differently I have no idea.

  • 82. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:31 am

    I'll make sure to have MSNBC send the Justices a memo requesting they alert you personally of all of their thoughts moving forward, as to avoid upsetting you.

  • 83. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    "Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an order early Monday evening [November 10] that stops same-sex couples in Kansas from being able to marry beginning after 5 p.m. CT Tuesday [November 11}. She added, however, that she or the full Supreme Court could issue an order that changes that at some point in the future."
    (… )

  • 84. Applebear40  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Thanks for your reply Mike. Peace

  • 85. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    I think we can pretty much gather from this that there are five votes to strike the bans down.

  • 86. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    I am with you, this was the final test for me to see where SCOTUS stands. We are 90+ % going to get ME nationwide from this composition of SCOTUS. The plaintiffs from the 6th must file quickly for their cases to be granted as soon as possible.

  • 87. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    I second that we need to get this done under the current courts composition and before 2016 elections I would hate for this to be a political issue then…I'm tired of politicians playing political games off the backs of GLBT enough is enough…

  • 88. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    I agree as well.
    Get this done once and for all before Kennedy or Ginsburg gets replaced by someone like Diane Sykes or Jeff Sutton.

  • 89. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    I understand where you are coming from..On the other hand by 2016 and given Nate Silver's projections for public support., ME as an election issue would only benefit those supporting it in the vast majority of states, which is a good thing for the future.

  • 90. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Yeah but lots of old republicans are mad as fire any right wing districts will turn out a bigger vote if they think the Next President can stop the equality train…..I think they feel emboldened by the whipping the dems got and see that as a reason to keep fighting ME ….I don't think the marriage decisions decided most the races but I do think that was in voters minds …….I do think that's why Kay Hagan lost by 50,000 votes that last minute Ad thing NOM run here for Tillis …The republicans here thought voting Tillis in would somehow stop ME in NC IMO. I think the only thing that could stop it now is a change of the Supreme Court ….. Please get this to the SC ASAP we have fought too hard to lose this in the 9th inning…….

  • 91. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    I do not think Hagan lost because of ME at any case tbh. Tillis would have won anyway imo with this voter turnout, and the profile of the voters that went to vote.

    You put too much power in the old republicans' hands in a presidential election, with a representative sample of voters out to vote.

    Right wing districts will be right wing districts anyway. Purple districts though, with independents being more and more in favour of ME, may be a fertile ground to bring ME on and sway voters the way of democrats, to the extent such an issue can influence the vote. With the voter turnout in presidential elections, where more young people vote, it is definately going to be an issue over which the republican dominance in congress may be threatened to a certain degree.

  • 92. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Polls change, especially on "unimportant", secondary, issues. LGBT are 3.5% to 4.5%, at best estimates, of the population (and we tend not to be the folks with 20,000 rounds of ammo in the basement). We can relatively safely be run over politically at any time – already are judging by latest election results. We need the issue decided in our favor and legally off the table NOW.

  • 93. RnL2008  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    I would agree with you, hell maybe more than 5……but a for sure 5!!!

  • 94. LK2013  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    Fabulous news!

    SCREW Scalia and Thomas.

  • 95. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    "We're bigots and damn proud of it!" -Tony & Clarence

  • 96. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Sooo true Scalia wanted Sutton to know his hand

  • 97. Swifty819  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Tony is Anthony Kennedy. Scalia goes by Nino.

  • 98. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    The 33 states + DC = 197,007,125. South Carolina will put us over 200 million.

  • 99. hopalongcassidy  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    GREAT! But why do they always have to wait until the last few seconds to do the right thing??

  • 100. MichaelGrabow  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Why do you continue to complain about anything and everything?

  • 101. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    This clears the way for SC and MT to soon join ranks as the 35th and 36th states without any nasty stays. (I'm counting in MO as there is no stay there, though the judgement isn't final and is under appeal.)

  • 102. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    The Federal decision in MO is stayed; the State decision still applies only to St. Louis.

  • 103. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    Right, but it's not too far to St. Louis to get married, and then there is an existing statewide ruling that MO has to recognize those marriages.

  • 104. sfbob  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    MO has to recognize marriages from out of state. In state they would I assume have to recognize marriages performed in one county throughout the state. Marriages aren't happening in other counties, I don't think. At least…not yet.

  • 105. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    What's happening in MO is stupid imo. Marriages are already recognized and performed in St. Louis and Kansas City (even if the legality of the 2nd ones is something disputed probably). What's the point ? The cat has left the kennel..I know the AG needs to appeal to satisfy a conservative electorate but he left decisions standing essentially making MO a marriage equality state, even if it takes a trip to St. Louis to get married. To waste money now just so the remaining counties cannot issue licenses is so silly..

  • 106. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    "The cat has left the kennel."

    In the US, the phrase is 'the horse has left the barn'.

  • 107. RobW303  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    I thought it was "Elvis has left the building." In any event, there's more than one way to skin a cat, or a horse, or Elvis.

  • 108. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:11 pm

    "The cat has left the kennel."

    As a cat person I like that.

    My cat Patches, "My name is Patches and I approve that statement."

  • 109. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    G: wlecome to the infinite complexities of the USA. Stupid it may be, but a better adjectives might be "baroque" or "arcane".

  • 110. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:05 pm

    Saint Louis is an independent city.The ruling only applies to the City of Saint Louis. It does not include Saint Louis County a separate entity.

  • 111. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:39 am

    It applies to both the city and county from everything I have seen.

  • 112. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    You are right about SC but do not hurry to add MT to tha list. Yes the district judge will rule in favour of ME (bound by Latta) but the 9th circ cases have not been denied cert from SCOTUS, unlike the ones from the 4th and the 10th. Idaho will still ask SCOTUS to review its case instead (or along) the 6th circ. cases. The legal situation is different.

    That is if the MT officials seek a stay of course from the 9th and from SCOTUS.

  • 113. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    However, the SCOTUS already denied stays in ID and AK, also 9th Circuit cases.

  • 114. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    That was before the 6th circuit ruled though. Now that there is a circuit split, the 9th circ case from Idaho is also candidate for review, which could mean SCOTUS may not want things to proceed further in a circuit it has settled the law by denying cert (thus it is currently out of its reach).

  • 115. Nyx  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Except…. Can a couple get married in a National Park? All of Yellowstone National Park falls within the 10th Circuit including those portions of the Park extending into Montana and Idaho.


  • 116. SteveThomas1  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Wow: that's a great bit of trivia! Are there any other similar anomalies with respect to other circuits' territories?

  • 117. DACiowan  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:25 am

    No; Yellowstone is currently the only place where a district court crosses state lines. However there used to be a District of the Potomac which was a square centered on Washington DC but stretching into Virginia and Maryland.

  • 118. wes228  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:33 am

    This also makes it possible to pull off the perfect crime. The Constitution requires that members of a jury be citizens of both the state AND judicial district where the crime was committed.

    If you commit a crime in the portion of Yellowstone National Park that is in Idaho, the government must find jury members who are both 1) citizens of Idaho and 2) resident in the judicial District of Wyoming (meaning they live in that small sliver of land that is the Idaho portion of Yellowstone). No one lives there, hence no jury can be convened, hence you cannot be convicted of any crime that occurs there.

  • 119. Fledge01  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:47 am

    The court can move a trial to a different location in situations like that as long as its not too big of an inconvenience.

  • 120. SteveThomas1  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:35 am

    The requirement wes228 mentions is a constitutional requirement rather than a prudential one, so it may not be possible to remove such a trial to a different jurisdiction. It's known as the "Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment". See:

  • 121. Fledge01  |  November 13, 2014 at 8:26 am

    Constitutions can be interpreted and procedures adapted to allow for just outcomes that do not fit the exact language of the constitution but which said outcomes are the only way to reflect the outcome the drafters would have likely chosen had they thought about it. SCOTUS would never let a loophole like that go unclosed unless they personally preferred that loophole to remain open.

  • 122. Eric  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:27 am

    The equitable fix would be to comply with the Constitution and align the district boundary with the state boundaries. That the government has chosen not to remedy the gap speaks to its intent.

  • 123. SteveThomas1  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Sounds like an interesting plot for a murder mystery. (Of course, probably the bear did it.)

  • 124. Eric  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:33 am

    The state could still prosecute the murder. One would need to pick something that is exclusively federal, like illegal broadcasts or something.

  • 125. montezuma58  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    That is interesting. Federally controlled areas generally follow local laws for things that don't have overriding federal laws. I'm not sure how that would work for getting married. I suspect a wedding performed in a national park would have to follow the laws of the state to be valid. Not quite the same situation but there are some military installations that span state lines.

    Edit: come to think about it Smokey Mountain National Park is mostly in TN but has part that crosses into NC.

  • 126. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    You're right. The Ninth never reissued its withdrawn mandate in the Idaho case, right? Regardless, yes, as you point out, the time hasn't expired for Idaho to petition the Supreme Court for cert. However, wouldn't it be unfair to Idaho if Montana now gets a stay from SCOTUS, while Idaho was denied a stay when it fell down to its knees begging the Justices for a stay while promising that they would file a cert petition soon? As today's order indicates, the Sixth's split hasn't made a difference. If SCOTUS denied Idaho then, it should deny MT now.

  • 127. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    We will see how that will play out. I am pretty sure the justices will have the opportunity to deal with this soon. Only a week to go till the hearing in Montana, and I bet a decision won't come long after that.

    As for the mandate, well the 9th issued this order after SCOTUS denied Idaho's stay :

    I believe dissolving the stay is essentially the same as reissuing the mandate, since what was stayed was the effects of the mandate.

  • 128. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Yeah, let's see.

    And no, the stay that was dissolved in the order you linked to was the stay that a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit issued soon after the Latta opinion came out of the district court. (The issuance of the mandate automatically lifted the stay, but its recall just as automatically reinstated it.) So, the mandate hasn't actually been reissued. I think they'll stick to procedures this time and only issue it after the rehearing petition is cleared up.

  • 129. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    In the meantime though marriages do proceed in Idaho without the reissuing of the mandate then.

    No, the order I listed came after the supreme court refused to stay the decision of the 9th circuit, effectively allowing marriages to proceed in Idaho.

  • 130. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Yes, a mandate is not necessary to lift the stay. The order explicitly lifting the earlier stay lifted the stay. And that order came down after the Supreme Court refused to stay the mandate of the 9th, I didn't dispute that at all. I was pointing out that the order lifted a stay that was placed long ago, as soon as the district court order came out.

    Here's the detailed timeline:
    (1) District court issued its order striking down Idaho's ban
    (2) District court refused to stay its injunction
    (3) Ninth circuit issued a stay pending appeal of (1)
    (4) Ninth circuit issued its opinion affirming the district court
    (5) Ninth circuit issued its mandate (which formally denotes the end of the appeal and hence the completion of the stay issued earlier (3))
    (6) Ninth circuit recalls mandate when SCOTUS issued temporary stay (which reinstated the stay pending appeal (3))
    (7) Plaintiffs, after the Supreme Court denied stay, asked the Ninth circuit to lift the stay pending appeal (3)
    (8) Ninth circuit issues an order (the one you linked) dissolving the stay pending appeal (3), so marriages could legally begin/resume.

  • 131. franklinsewell  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Speaking of the 9th … any response from NV Governor on Pacer Raga?

  • 132. RobW303  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    The governor was cutting it rather fine. I began to fear that Monte might prevail (to some degree) on a technicality, and now be beating his crystal ball with two stick ends.

  • 133. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:55 pm

    Ha ha, yeah. (And sorry, I removed my comment to be stand-alone, as we've reached more than a 100 comments and I felt this news deserved to be visible and not buried within a collapsed thread.)

  • 134. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:17 pm

    The denial of cert. does not give any real difference in the value of a circuit mandate. It only gives an appearance of such.

  • 135. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    I would think there wouldn't even have been a temporary stay in SC if the Supreme Court had denied this Kansas application earlier. I doubt the federal judge in MT will grant even a temporary stay after this.

  • 136. montezuma58  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Pay attention South Carolina attorney general. There ain't a gnat's fart worth of difference between the situations in SC and KS.

  • 137. StraightDave  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    But there might not be a gnat's fart worth of difference between the 2 AG's, either. I expect the same hopeless lemming march off the cliff.

  • 138. montezuma58  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Fortunately, the winds of change are quickly dissipating the farts of gnats.

  • 139. Margo Schulter  |  November 12, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    hopalongcassidy, when I learned of Justice Sotomayor’s temporary stay I entertained a presumption that she was going through a usual process of referring the stay application to her colleagues, with a denial a predictable outcome in our post-October 6 world.

    Sometimes a rule of charity can be the wisest assumption — with Justice Sotomayor, at any rate.

  • 140. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    In a perfect world the Supreme Court would say okay it's time to answer this have an emergency day to hear the case next week . rule….. and let the nation move on……..(okay slap me I'm dreaming ) The lawyers and courts are milking the states for $$$$$$$$$$ lawyers are happy while the states taxpayers foot the bill…… A lot of the wrong wallets have been fattened on this issue and it looks like we are in for another 9 months of wait until a possible conclusion …..I am ready for this to be over so my fellow GLBT can quit being used as a political pawn to get the out of touch old conservatives to the ballot box and then we can have some peace , drink a champagne toast, and then just keep being fab….. I was on this site when I didn't have ME in my state and I'm on here after my state has gotten it (NC). I want you all to know in the states waiting that it sucks like heck to wait and not know but when it happens in your state still won't feel completely happy until EVeRY state has it and whether you marry or not (one thing you will instantly feel like is not like a second class citizen anymore) …….It is called the United States for a reason and I will stand united with you all until we get to our goal…….

  • 141. robbyinflorida  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    We're still waiting here in Florida.

  • 142. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    Is that case in the FL State Supreme Court? and will they have to wait on the other Supremes to hear? So much is happened it's hard to keep up with now …

  • 143. seannynj  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:05 pm

    No. It's in the state's appellate court. The AG tried to get it directly to the SC but the AC said we will not be bypassed..

  • 144. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:29 pm

    I am with you single hartedly. Thank you for your well reasoned comment.

  • 145. robbyinflorida  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Dorothy, I can't believe that we're in Kansas.

  • 146. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:45 pm

    I can't believe our rainbow icon is from Kansas there is nothing wrong with Kansas I just didn't realize their govt was so conservative until this ordeal…..Kansas unknowingly gave us Friends of Dorothy and the State is nowhere near OZ for gays …… Just a little ironic I think…
    That could be why she wanted to leave though lol. Now Miss Dorothy Gale from Kansas is from a ME state :)))))

  • 147. MGinPA  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    I can now see the SCOTUS not taking a case from the 6th instead vacating and remanding with instructions.

  • 148. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    Is that good though it may be a good short term feel good but do we want the other circuits to weigh in and punt this to 2016? The changing or vacancies on the court is the only thing IMO that can stop this now…is it not best to get a ruling ASAP or do you not think we will get a favorable ruling somehow if they take the case? I feel like that's what they are trying to do in hopes the court will change…. delay a ruling as long as possible….

  • 149. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    We want a ruling ASAP.
    There is a circuit split now, there is no need for the other ones to weigh in.

  • 150. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:38 pm

    Yes, Zack you are absolutely correct on this matter.

    We do not need to entertain any additional circuit splits. How other circuits may rule, is irrelevant at this time.

  • 151. montezuma58  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    If the Supreme Court vacates and remands the 6th's decision they could also then entertain requests to lift any stays while the 6th processes their do over.

  • 152. MGinPA  |  November 13, 2014 at 5:58 am

    That's a good point, if SCOTUS grants, vacates, remands then stays in MI, OH, KY, TN, FL and TX would probably be lifted. I hope they hear arguments and issue a pro-marriage decision in the summer though.

  • 153. Fledge01  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:43 am

    I think the delay will reach a favorable outcome. Once all the circuits are in line, its as good as black letter law. Though I think the court would rule our way, especially after denying a stay in Kansas, I am not confident in how the court would rule today. I feel the safest way is the path of having each circuit one by one fall into line. I know there are families who are being harmed right now, but a half way compromise ruling would set us back quite a ways.

  • 154. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    They'll take it up. If there are 4 judges who believe there will be a 5-4 majority to strike down the bans, they'll want to take it up while the composition of the court is what it is now. Those 4 can't be certain of Obama getting another judge on, or of having the Dems win in 2016 and getting a Senate majority to put another judge on.

  • 155. peterplumber  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    I just saw this headline on
    NEW 4.8 quake rattles Kansas
    Could that have been caused by SCOTUS??

  • 156. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    O gosh what timing someone's got a sense of humor

  • 157. RobW303  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    It was caused by rednecks' heads exploding.

  • 158. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    For anyone who wants to earn some certain cash – bet on how right wingers and religious nuts will blame that on marriage equality by tomorrow the latest insteado the fracking going on in Kansas (because of course the conservative supported intrusion to nature for some cheap energy sources cannot be rationally connected to an earthquake – it has to be marriage, which is rationally and directly connected to earthquakes !)

  • 159. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Palin and Bachman are already writing speeches…

  • 160. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Are they both still around ? Last time I heard from Bachmann, she said marriage equality is "boring"..!

  • 161. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    I recently saw an article (I forget who published it) that stated the easily fracked oil and gas are now being fracked, and that from 20% to 90% of the total 'frackable' oil and gas will not be drilled because it is too deep, too expensive, or other reason for not drilling. The article specified the oil fields in North Dakota and Texas, and the gas fields in Texas, New York state, etc. as particularly vulnerable to such scenario as described above.

    Also, fracked oil might decline soon, since the world wide price of oil is declining.

    I'm sure Kansas is somewhere in the mix, especially since there are lots of gas fields known to be in Northern Oklahoma, and Kansas is just North of Oklahoma.

  • 162. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    Speaking from frack-happy Colorado: Kansas is in on the current frack boom to a very minor extent compared to TX, CO. WY, CA and the Dakotas. There is LOTS more to be fracked, BUT current prices signal a slowdown (not a halt, esp. in Eagle Ford play in TX). Mostly Kansas is cratering economically since Brownback tea-partied their tax structure and it dried up instead of trickling up or down. (And wheat and corn prices have halved.)

  • 163. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    What would be the basics for a vacate? is it vacate and rehear or vacate and reverse? is it common ? When would a decision like that be made ? If they make an example out of the 6th the other circuits will have nothing to stand on all they would have is delays….. How many circuits have to be slapped before they begin falling in line kinda deal … Those two publicly dissenting today means something idk what or why but they wanted that known for a reason …. Maby a signal to conservatives hey guys we don't have the votes to stop this but, I'm still fighting it too…maby

  • 164. peterplumber  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    I am not a SCOTUS devotee but controversial decisions do seem to make the news. I can't think of a vacate or reversal upon petition for cert, but I do remember one case where it was "remanded" to the lower court.
    I could imagine that heppening in the 6th case.

  • 165. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Well Ginsburg said no rush until a split … just let's see what rush they get in now ……

  • 166. josejoram  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    I think the coherent thing to do by SCOTUS is to remand to the 6th.

  • 167. Zack12  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:41 pm

    There is no point.
    Sutton and Cook are NOT going to change their minds.

  • 168. Fledge01  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:37 am

    With a stern look on the face of the SCOTUS justices, they will change their mind. Its like asking your child, "Go back and look at your room and decide if you need to do more cleaning to the point where I won't complain." They usually aren't going to come back to you and say "I don't know what you mean, it's already clean". Your kids usually know that if they don't make some significant changes to their cleaning work right now, they will be sent back yet again but next time with even more of a scolding.

  • 169. SteveThomas1  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:58 pm

    Known as a "GVR" (which stands for "Grant, Vacate and Remand"), such dispositions are actually not all that uncommon, but are almost unheard of for really high profile cases. GVRs are most often done with cases whose disposition might be affected by a fully argued Supreme Court decision.

    For example, when Lawrence v. Texas was decided, the Supreme Court had held over a cert. petition for another case out of somewhere in the plains states (I want to say Nebraska or Kansas, and am too lazy to look it up) where the state's highest court held that so-called Romeo and Juliet laws didn't apply to sex between folks of the same gender. (Romeo and Juliet laws are those which exempt folks within a certain age range from statutory rape laws, where one of the participants is below the age of consent but the other is only one or two years older.) Apparently, one of the grounds for the state court's decision was that since sodomy was illegal for all participants, the defendant (a mentally challenged resident of a state home only a few months older than the other person) could not rely upon the Romeo and Juliet law. The Supreme Court GVRed that petition: it granted cert., vacated the lower court decision, and remanded it to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the Lawrence decision overturning sodomy laws.

    It would be highly unusual for the Supreme Court to GVR the 6th Circuit decision, as the Supreme Court went out of its way in Hollingsworth NOT to decide on the merits. This means that (unless you try to resuscitate the dead letter of Baker v. Nelson) the US Supreme Court has never ruled on the subject of marriage equality with respect to state laws. Did I say "highly unusual"? I guess I'd go further and say it would be highly embarrassing. (And would draw quite justified howls of protest from the likely dissenters.) I don't think this is a reasonable possibility.

  • 170. josejoram  |  November 12, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    You clarify my previous wrong opinión.

  • 171. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:51 am

    SteveThomas1, thank you for remembering the Limon decision. You describe the case well, but do not note how hard Kansas fought to persecute this 18-year-old young man who had a consensual relationship with another young man who was about 3-years younger than he. Had the young man he had sex with been a girl, he would have been subjected to a maximum sentence of 15 months in jail and probably gotten probation and served no jail time at all. As it was, he was sentenced to more than 17 years in jail.

    As you note, in June 2003 SCOTUS, in light of its decision in Lawrence, vacated the Kansas Supreme Court's decision upholding Limon's conviction and remanded the case for further consideration. The expectation was that the Kansas Supreme Court would swiftly order the release of the young man and then vacate his conviction. That, however, is not what happened, due to a particularly vindictive Attorney General and a corrupt state judicial system.

    The Attorney General took the case to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which again upheld the conviction and sentence in January 2004. Finally, on October 21, 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the "Romeo and Juliet" statute violated the Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States Constitution and the Kansas constitution and struck the words "and are members of the opposite sex" from the statute.

    Limon was released from prison on November 3, 2005, more than two years after SCOTUS remanded the case to Kansas. Obviously, it is good that the young man was finally released, but it is outrageous that it took so long. He wound up serving 5 years for giving a young man a blow job.

    The relevance for the case to the current situation is how hard the right-wingers in Kansas fought to persecute this kid. As Brownback has said, they will continue fighting. Do not expect the clerks of court in Kansas to obey the law voluntarily.

  • 172. SteveThomas1  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:14 am

    JayJonson, thanks for amplifying. The Limon case shows how lawless courts can sometimes be: I recall reading the decision of the Kansas court (I dimly recall it was an intermediate appellate court, but could be wrong about that) when it received the remand and "reconsidered". I was astonished to see that it mostly quoted Justice Scalia's Lawrence dissent, which it cited in support of reinstating the verdict they'd already upheld and which the Supreme Court had vacated. One wonders just where they went to law school!

  • 173. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 8:01 am

    I think the Limon case should be much better known than it is.

    I have wondered whether it actually influenced Lawrence (rather than the other way around) because it was such a travesty and indicated the depth of hatred of gay people in a way that Lawrence didn't. (The Lawrence defendants were fined $200, while Limon was sentenced to 17 years and 2 months in prison!) I cannot see how any decent person, whether a judge or not, could find a shred of justice in such a sentence.

    As much as I disagree with some of Justice Kennedy's decisions (as in Citizens United or on Obamacare), I love the fact that he understood clearly how antigay laws can become lynch-mob justice. Hence, in Lawrence, he knew that the real issue was not the prohibition of a particular sex act, but issues of liberty and respect, and the Limon case provided a perfect example of indisputable injustice against a very vulnerable young man whose life must have been completely shattered by what happened to him.

    And then, after Lawrence, the Kansas Attorney General, abetted by truly vicious judges on the state Court of Appeals, continued the persecution, ignoring the clear intent of the Supreme Court. I can't remember whether the Kansas Supreme Court decision was unanimous in declaring the statute unconstitutional as written, but I suspect that some KSC judges would have kept this young man in prison for as long as they could.

    In any case, if anyone doubts the viciousness–indeed evil–done by state persecution of gay people, the Limon case is a telling example. We should not allow it to be forgotten.

  • 174. debater7474  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    I remember being a young in-the-closet high schooler in 2007 and watching the GOP presidential primary debates and specifically remember watching then-senator Brownback stand up there and denounce same sex marriage and give his fire and brimstone anti-gay rhetoric. It's a memory that stuck with me, and makes this moment extra satisfying.

  • 175. DACiowan  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    I hit the wrong button and accidentally down voted you. So add 2 to your comment score.

  • 176. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:16 pm


    The debates you saw were prior to the primaries, and all the people in the debates were 'reaching' for the party's base voters for the primaries.

    It's the old political adage – get the party's base before the primaries, then swing to the middle for the General Election.

  • 177. jdw_karasu  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    Except that McCain was against ME in the General Election in 2008, and still is now.

    Here are the 2008 candidates for the GOP nomination:

    I would be extremely surprised if 50% of them have changed their position since then. Or if even 67% have.

  • 178. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    PACER shows that both Governor Sandoval and Plaintiffs Sevcik et al. have filed responses to the Coalition's petition for rehearing en banc at the Ninth Circuit. Equality Case Files should have the filings soon. Here are the text entries:

    Filed (ECF) Appellee Brian E. Sandoval response opposing motion (for rehearing by en banc only (all active, any interested senior judges)). Date of service: 11/12/2014. [9310791] [12-17668] (CWH) [Entered: 11/12/2014 04:58 PM]

    Filed (ECF) Appellants Mary Baranovich, Caren Cafferata-Jenkins, Farrell Cafferata-Jenkins, Antioco Carrillo, Greg Flamer, Sara Geiger, Karen Goody, Megan Lanz, Katrina Miller, Mikyla Miller, Tara Newberry, Beverly Sevcik, Theodore Small, Adele Terranova, Karen Vibe and Fletcher Whitwell response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Petition for Rehearing En Banc for rehearing by en banc only (all active, any interested senior judges). Date of service: 11/12/2014. [9310804]. [12-17668] (TLB) [Entered: 11/12/2014 05:07 PM]

    UPDATE: Here they are:
    (1) Governor:
    (2) Plaintiffs:

  • 179. Swifty819  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    Ha. Brilliant! Even the Governor told Monte to take his sticks and balls and go screw himself!

  • 180. robbyinflorida  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Thank you for these filings. I'm surprised that the State of Nevada did not mention the issue of standing.

    From the Plaintiffs; " An intervenor lacking Article III standing cannot drag the other parties up the steps of appellate review against their wishes." Priceless.

  • 181. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    We are arguing if Kansas or South Carolina or Montana will be the 34th or 35th or 36th state, and whether Missouri might or might not beat any or all of the above, or whether there will be any stays put in place by SCOTUS (or other courts), and whether or not to include DC in the numbers, etc.

    Looking back a single year, we had (including DC) a grand total of 16 jurisdictions with ME (15 states plus DC), and a lot of hope for 3 more states (Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico – Oregon and Pennsylvania received ME less than 6 months ago in May 2014). We have traveled a great distance in one year (whether we realize it or not).

  • 182. Jaesun100  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    We've gotten spoiled in a good way :))))) The tiniest bit of delay makes me edgy

  • 183. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Realizing it is hard, as it is so long a distance I honestly thought it would not happen for another decade, or two, or longer.

  • 184. EricKoszyk  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    I remember volunteering against Prop 22 in CA in 2000. So yeah, we've come lightyears in a very short time.

  • 185. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 12, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    Off topic:

    To those who are wondering what NOM might be planning, the 'Advocate' has the following:
    'NOM Out to Oust Pro-Equality Sen. Rob Portman'
    (… )

    It would be interesting to see who contributes money to NOM to do this (presuming NOM is still around in late 2015/early 2016).

  • 186. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    More good news for Oklahoma today from their Supreme Court:

    (Admittedly, the second point above is off-topic, but I couldn't resist sharing!)

  • 187. guitaristbl  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court appears to have some judicial sense, something that definately surprises me given how red this state is and has been (if not the most red in the country).

  • 188. A_Jayne  |  November 12, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    Good news on all points. Thank you for the links.

  • 189. wes228  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    Odd question: has anyone tried to get a Supreme Court Justice's autograph? I sent a letter and a self-addressed stamped envelope with an index card to Justice Kennedy a couple months ago, but haven't gotten anything back yet.

  • 190. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:02 am

    I have a couple of SCOTUS justice's autographs, but I got them by simply writing notes to them to which they replied. (I was not trying to get autographs per se, and I doubt they would like that.)

    I wrote a letter to Justice Blackmun thanking him for his wonderful dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick. He wrote back quickly; a typewritten letter, but one that he typed himself and that bore a Minnesota postmark. Laurence Tribe, who argued our case in Bowers, also responded quickly to a letter I wrote thanking him for his efforts. (I also wrote angry letters to the majority in Bowers, but heard nothing in response from them. I may have received a form letter from Burger, but I am not sure about that.)

    Rather than asking for an autograph, I suggest that you just write an informed letter expressing gratitude to a Justice for a particular decision. Justice Blackmun obviously had very strong feelings about the issue and was happy that I appreciated the eloquence of his dissent.

  • 191. wes228  |  November 13, 2014 at 9:14 am

    I wrote a letter to Kennedy expressing my appreciation for several of his decisions from the past term, namely Hall v. Florida. It was only in the P.S. that I asked for an autograph.

  • 192. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Maybe he will respond when this term is over. As I recall, I heard from Blackmun sometime in the late summer or early fall, when the Court was not in session.

  • 193. Eric  |  November 13, 2014 at 9:40 am

    Unconstitutional irreparable harm was a good thing because it avoided a hypothetical scenario? What other harms to the LGBT community do you find beneficial?

  • 194. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:18 am

    You completely misunderstand the harm that Bowers did.

  • 195. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Bowers caused immeasurable harm. We survived. And Bowers was seventeen years later reversed. It wasn't reversed because of any good that Bowers did. It was reversed because of a lot of work and organizing that we did.

    Instead of trying to find a silver lining in the cloud that is Bowers, your time would be better spent thinking of how much further we might be along had SCOTUS done the right thing and ruled in favor of Hardwick and spared us 17 years of discrimination, the threat of imprisonment, the barring of certain occupations because we were in effect unindicted criminals in the eyes of the law. Perhaps you should think about the number of lives that were shattered or stunted because of Bowers.

    Maybe you are just such a cockeyed optimist that you find good in everything, but I am not.

    The reality is that Bowers was an unambiguous defeat for the movement for equal rights. The fact that we persevered and finally overcame the defeat does not mean that in some mysterious way Bowers was helpful. It means that we are determined and resourceful even in the face of defeat.

  • 196. sfbob  |  November 13, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Numerous adverse rulings flowed from Bowers. One of the most infamous is referred to as High Tech Gays, basically allowing security clearances to be denied to LGBT federal workers. That was based on the fact that a) Bowers determined that sodomy laws were constitutional and therefore those who were in violation of them could be denied security clearance on that basis and b) the effect was also that laws discriminating against us in general were subject to rational basis and were generally going to be found to be constitutional as well. If Bowers had been determined otherwise there might never have been a DOMA, it would have been much, much more difficult to uphold marriage equality bans either by statute or by constitutional amendment, even at the district court level. In addition it is possible that if Bowers had been decided differently, laws that distinguished on the basis of sexual orientation might have been found to be subject to heightened scrutiny, thereby, among other things, making sexual orientation a protected class under federal civil rights laws. Bowers did an enormous amount of damage. It had no upside whatsoever.

  • 197. SeattleRobin  |  November 13, 2014 at 11:00 pm

    The comments are deleted now, so I can only guess at what was said. But I want to underline the huge amount of damage that was done by Bowers. I wasn't following the case at all, but I remember hearing the results on the news. It was emotionally devastating. You grow up being taught in school about equality for all, then the highest court in the country says you're not equal.

    That decision brought any kind of national advancement to a screeching halt. For long years afterwards the only gains that were made were in local urban jurisdictions. And even those came painfully slowly.

  • 198. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:16 am

    No, Bowers was not a good thing. It caused us to stay away from the federal courts for years, knowing that justice was not to be had there. Thank God that Justice Kennedy stepped forward in Romer and helped stop the stampede to completely strip us of rights. And thank God that he realized that the liberty interests of the constitution included the liberty to conduct one's sexual life.

    I don't give Powell any credit for being so stupid as to rule the way he did, nor O'Connor much credit either. She joined the Lawrence majority in striking down the Texas law, but declined to join them in reversing Bowers.

    Bowers was not a good thing. Reversing it in Lawrence was a good thing.

    Anyone can write to a Supreme Court Justice at the Supreme Court, 1 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20543.

  • 199. JayJonson  |  November 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    You can't blame O'Connor for not evolving as fast on gay rights because people of that age always take time? Well, I suppose you are hopeful that Scalia and Thomas are going to evolve as well.

    According to your logic, Plessy was a great ruling too because without it we would never have gotten the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    You seem to engage in magical thinking, as in everything happens for good in the best of all possible worlds.

  • 200. isaura14  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:28 am

    Sotomayor went on a book tour when her autobiography came out and signed hundreds of books (and was warm, gracious, and stylishly dressed while doing so). You could probably mail one to her and ask her to autograph it if you'd like hers. Not sure about the others.

  • 201. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Tara Borelli's smackdown (excerpts taken from the Plaintiffs' response to the Coalition's petition for rehearing en banc):

    Intervenor […] asserts that there was a vast conspiracy spanning several years, implicating multiple judges of this Court, and presumably implemented by the Clerk’s office staff responsible for panel assignment.

    Intervenor’s conspiracy theory might be more believable as the plot to a John Grisham novel than a credible legal argument substantiated by evidence.

    Intervenor also fails to explain why the two judges identified were selected, given that one or both delivered adverse results to lesbian or gay litigants in one third of the six appeals that Intervenor views as suspicious. See Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 704 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Osazuwa, 446 Fed. Appx. 919 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011). If there was a conspiracy to aid lesbian and gay litigants, it apparently was not very reliable.

    Intervenor’s theory posits that the conspirators were uniquely fixated upon constitutional issues (and only federal ones at that)—but were utterly indifferent to the huge range of other legal issues affecting lesbian and gay people. That makes no sense.

    For example, the conspirators supposedly sprang into action to manipulate the panel for a case concerning a city’s lease of property to an organization with a discriminatory membership policy. Barnes-Wallace, 704 F.3d at 1071. But they were apparently uninterested in cases about lesbian and gay people being fired from their jobs, being denied asylum and sent back to countries where they could be tortured or killed, or being subjected to bullying and harassment in schools prohibited by statute. Intervenor offers no plausible explanation for why the conspiracy would target only a myopic subset of cases affecting lesbian and gay people, to the exclusion of other cases where the stakes can be just as high.

    The reality is that Ninth Circuit jurisprudence implicating the rights of lesbian and gay people is far more expansive than the meager 11 cases that Intervenor has cherry-picked. There has been a litany of appeals implicating the rights of lesbian and gay people in which neither accused judge was assigned to the panel. This includes appeals related to immigration, military service, public and privateemployment, schools, prisons, jury selection, free speech, privacy, and even marriage. The addition of these cases, which are far from exhaustive, more than quadruples the number of purportedly relevant cases identified by Intervenor. It is hardly surprising that in some 50-odd cases or more, the same judges would be assigned across at least a handful of panels.

    As a last-ditch argument, Intervenor argues that even if there was no actual impropriety, there is at least an appearance of impropriety. Intervenor’s support for random assignment is therefore noncommittal: random assignment is desirable when it produces results that appear random, but random assignment must be “remedied” when it produces results that could appear non-random to an uninformed observer.

    By that logic, a lottery drawing that randomly produced winning numbers of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would require a do-over to remedy the appearance of irregularity. If adopted, Intervenor’s argument would invite limitless challenges to panels perceived as too “favorable” to one’s opponents.

  • 202. ebohlman  |  November 12, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Borelli demonstrated that the intervenors' choice of cases was both overinclusive and underinclusive, and therefore lacked a rational basis 🙂

    Statisticians refer to this sort of thing as "Texas sharpshooting", after an old joke about a Texan who bragged about what a good shot he was. Asked to prove it, he fired wildly at the side of a barn and then drew a target around the tightest group of hits.

  • 203. guitaristbl  |  November 13, 2014 at 6:24 am

    The cherry picking of cases is something that striked me as the oddest element of CPM's accusations from the beginning.
    I can choose whatever sample I want out of a pool to make a case, but that's not how statistics work.
    The various outcomes of even the cases CPM cherry picked only further undermine their point.
    And I was not aware that some of the cases they were referring to where actually many years old..!

    Anyway this whole travesty goes nowhere. It is a direct attack from some sore losers on the federal judiciary.
    They knew the panel before the arguments and they could have protested then. They knew the panel after the arguments which (thanks mainly to Stewart's laughable performance) did not go their favour and they could have protested then.
    But no they saw a conspiracy only after a decision that was not in their favour came about.
    The 9th circuit, especially Reinhardt and Berzon, should take legal action against CPM for this defamation, after throwing our their request for en banc hearing.

  • 204. SeattleRobin  |  November 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm

    In addition to the cherry picking of cases, there was another major flaw in their argument. The only way to support that there was something other than randomness going on would be to present data sets for comparison. They would need to select a few other topics and show that in cases on those topics there was no similar overlap in judicial assignments.

    If in cases on abortion, oil drilling, and freedom of speech, for instance, there were seldom panels of the same judges, then you might be able to make something of it. But I'm willing to bet that if such a study were done, the results would be similar. Random never means equal distribution, there are almost always clusters.

  • 205. RQO  |  November 12, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    Someone mentioned the Kansas earthquake. Tonight will be 15 degrees below zero where I live south of Denver, with Kansas not far behind. Tee hee – Hell has indeed frozen over!

  • 206. Raga  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:04 pm

    Hear hear. Here in Boulder, we're heading for a record-breaking low tonight! Stay warm, RQO!

  • 207. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 13, 2014 at 11:36 am

    If you want to be technical about it, Hell, Michigan dipped below freezing on October 12. The below-freezing temps didn't stay there long, but they were below freezing.

    The high temp in Hell yesterday was 33 (just above freezing), so I doubt if there was much thawing that happened, and the temps today are predicted to be below freezing all day (31 for the high, 27 for the low).

    So, yes indeed, Hell has frozen over.

    (Growing up in NE Indiana, the weather people I read, listened to, and watched had great amusement at poking fun at Hell, Michigan.)

  • 208. Margo Schulter  |  November 12, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    In response to comments about SCOTUS reversing DeBoer and remanding back to the Sixth Circuit, I’m tempted to reply that DeBoer belongs squarely in the lap of our Supreme Oracles of the law! The facts, and the full trial before Judge Friedman, make it the perfect case. First the Court can explain why April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse won’t be deprived of their wedding cake because of an uncooperative Baker; and then they’ll draw on Judge Friedman’s findings and Judge Daughtrey’s great dissent in the Sixth Circuit to produce Windsor, The Sequel: For the Sake of the Children!.

  • 209. dorothyrothchild  |  November 13, 2014 at 5:18 am

    If the KS supreme court doesn't rule right away, what actions can/must couples take to get these clerks to follow the law and begin issuing licenses?

  • 210. scream4ever  |  November 13, 2014 at 5:48 am

    It's identical to what happened in Pennsylvania where the clerk was initially tied by the injunction from the state supreme court. I expect a resolution within one week at most.

  • 211. Raga  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:20 am

    Unlike the PA case, the Governor and AG are opposing marriage in Kansas. This could result in a longer delay than what it took in PA. The Kansas SC had asked for briefs on the issue by November 15. Surely the State will continue to insist that proceedings in Kansas SC must continue. Hopefully a decision lifting the injunction will come down next week.

  • 212. Fledge01  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:13 am

    Does anybody know if there are any specific points of law that says once cert is denied by SCOTUS on a circuit court case, SCOTUS should always deny stays when all of the following occur: 1) there are new district court challenges where those challenges raise no new legal arguments, and 2) a new split develops at the circuit level after the original denial of cert and 3) the issue is so important, that an ongoing split could not be tollerated?

    Is this new legal ground for SCOTUS? If so, they are not only make new law on marriage equality, but also new law on procedural issues as well. Those procedures can set precedent on issues not related at all to marriage equality.

  • 213. sfbob  |  November 13, 2014 at 9:01 am

    I don't think the situation respecting marriage equality is typical. We had many states passing their marriage equality bans over the course of only a few years; at the same time, some states legalized marriage equality either voluntarily or by operation of the state courts, which led to a challenge of a federal law on the subject (DOMA), followed by numerous courts, district and circuit, issuing rulings on the same topic over an even shorter period of time. So we're sort of in uncharted territory.

  • 214. SeattleRobin  |  November 13, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    Also, SCOTUS doesn't have any problem with setting tests and guidelines for lower courts to use, but they seem to have no problem with disregarding guidelines and tests they've set for themselves. The "requirements" for a stay from SCOTUS are already different than what is applied in the lower courts. So I don't really see them taking this situation and using it to drum up new rules they will only ignore when they wish.

    And as sfbob notes, this situation is so unusual in the entire history of the country. Extremely unusual occurrences usually don't make good conditions for setting guidelines.

  • 215. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:44 am

    Did anyone see that the KS AG is saying that the ruling only applies in two counties?

  • 216. Pat_V  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:50 am

    wow, but how are things on the ground now? it's almost 10am in Kansas, I guess we might have reports about which places do and don't issue licenses?

  • 217. davepCA  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:18 am

    I'm seeing news articles saying that at least four Kansas counties have waived the three-day waiting period and are actually marrying couples, and that other counties are issuing the applications but are not waiving the three-day waiting period. It makes no mention of any counties that are refusing to at least issue the applications.

  • 218. StraightDave  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:40 am

    That shows you how much respect the judges and/or clerks have for the AG's official legal advice.

  • 219. RemC_Chicago  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Someone needs to get this guy a recording of "Let It Go."

  • 220. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 7:55 am

    This is great! I had not seen any of these exchanges before. I would suggest everyone read this!

    Barnes: The court should issue a stay on an eventual preliminary injunction to avoid the chaos that ensued in places like Utah where we saw an on-again-off-again gay marriage ban.

    Reeves: Or the state of Mississippi could just decide not to appeal a preliminary injunction. That, too, would prevent the type of on-again-off-again scenario it's trying to avoid.

    I am not a betting man, but would happily put some money on the outcome of this case.

  • 221. davepCA  |  November 13, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Wow, FIVE HOURS of arguments? Is that a record for ME hearings?

    And yes, that article certainly gives a very positive impression!

  • 222. FredDorner  |  November 13, 2014 at 8:43 am

    This is the unfortunate reality in Kansas where gay folks still have to fear losing their job merely because they exercise a civil right everyone else enjoys:

    On a day they doubted would come in their lifetimes, gays and lesbians converged as the Sedgwick County Courthouse opened Thursday to pick up a document that heterosexual couples have long taken for granted:

    A marriage license.

    “It’s overwhelming,” said Lisa, who did not want to give her last name or have her photograph taken for fear she would lose her teaching job because she’s a lesbian.

  • 223. MichaelGrabow  |  November 13, 2014 at 9:30 am

    Unfortunately, this is the case in far too many states.

  • 224. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 13, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    Technically, there is a 3-day waiting period in Kansas from application to actual license, and the couple must return to get the actual license, so were they picking up the application or the actual license? I'm sure the couples involved know what they are picking up, but was it reported accurately?

    (One of my aunts was a free-lance journalist, and she told me of constant arguments she had with editors on how the article should be written. She admitted that at times she was incorrect, but many times the editor edited the article to be completely opposite of the facts.)

  • 225. FredDorner  |  November 13, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    Mike, some judges & clerks are waiving the waiting period on a case by case basis:

    "Judges in at least four Kansas counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples a day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing them to wed. Clerks in other counties were giving applications to gay couples but requiring them to abide by the state’s three-day waiting period before they can get a license. As of midmorning Thursday, Douglas County District Judge Robert Fairchild had waived the waiting period for three couples and said he would consider similar requests on a case-by-case basis. A different judge had agreed to preside over the wedding of one of the couples after the courthouse closes at 5 p.m. CST. Couples received licenses in Sedgwick County, while judges in Cowley and Riley counties each had issued one marriage license to same-sex couples."

  • 226. LK2013  |  November 13, 2014 at 9:31 am

    According to AP, some Kansas Judges are waiving the 3-day waiting period, issuing marriage licenses, and offering to marry people today:

    Some Kansas Judges Issuing Gay Couples Licenses
    TOPEKA, Kan. — Nov 13, 2014, 12:23 PM ET

    By JOHN HANNA Associated Press

    Associated Press

    Judges in at least four Kansas counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples a day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing them to wed.

    Clerks in other counties were giving applications to gay couples but requiring them to abide by the state's three-day waiting period before they can get a license.

    As of midmorning Thursday, Douglas County District Judge Robert Fairchild had waived the waiting period for three couples and said he would consider similar requests on a case-by-case basis. A different judge had agreed to preside over the wedding of one of the couples after the courthouse closes at 5 p.m. CST.

    Two couples received licenses in Sedgwick County, while judges in Cowley and Riley counties each had issued one marriage license to same-sex couples.

  • 227. Waxr  |  November 13, 2014 at 9:52 am

    I ran across a news report which says that some judges in Kansas are waiving the three day waiting period, and are marrying applicants now.

  • 228. redletterday  |  November 14, 2014 at 9:04 am

    In case anyone is curious what it looks like on the ground in Kansas today, this is from Equality Kansas….

    Friday Marriage Update
    Marriage has broken out across Kansas! Well, in some places. In others, we're going to have to keep up the fight until our rights are fully recognized.
    Here's what we know, county by county, about marriage license applications and issuance.
    Butler County – Refusing to accept applications, and will not issue licenses.
    Cowley County – Accepting applications and issuing licenses to earlier applicants.
    Douglas County – Accepting applications and issuing licenses. Some applicants yesterday were able to have the three-day waiting period waived by the judge.
    Elk County – Refusing to accept applications, and will not issue licenses.
    Franklin County – Accepting applications. Will issue licenses at end of three-day waiting period.
    Greenwood County – Refusing to accept applications, and will not issue licenses.
    Harvey County – Accepting applications, but will not issue licenses until ordered by a higher court.
    Johnson County – Accepting applications. Issuance on hold until Kansas Supreme Court rules after Monday, Nov 17, deliberations.
    McPherson County – Accepting applications, but will not issue licenses until ordered by a higher court.
    Reno County – Accepting applications, but will not issue licenses until ordered by a higher court.
    Riley County – Accepting applications and issuing licenses to earlier applicants.
    Saline County – Accepting applications, but will not issue licenses until ordered by a higher court.
    Sedgwick County – Accepting applications and issuing licenses to earlier applicants.
    Shawnee County – Accepting application. Will issue licenses at end of three day waiting period.
    Wyandotte County – Accepting applications and issuing licenses to earlier applicants.
    In other news, Attorney General Derek Schmidt is now ducking and running. After spending the day ducking phone calls from reporters, his office released a statement that said, in part:
    "The state judiciary must determine for itself the reach of (U.S. District Judge Daniel) Crabtree's ruling, and we expect that will occur as judges throughout the state are presented with applications."
    AG Schmidt has basically washed his hands of it and has decided to leave implementation up to individual judges across the state. This is Recipe Number One for more chaos, confusion, and continued denial of rights.
    Finally, there are questions that keep coming up that I'll briefly answer here:
    Out of state marriages:
    – You will continue to get resistance from state agencies over having your marriage recognized. Please note the name of whoever denies you government services, and forward that information to [email protected]. We will compile a list and get it to the ACLU for further action.
    – DO NOT attempt to remarry in Kansas. If you are married out of state, that marriage is legal and valid. The state of Kansas will recognize it eventually.
    In-state marriage recognition:
    – We will see the same resistance by state agencies as with out of state marriages. Get the name of whoever denies you service, and forward that information to [email protected]
    Marriage license applications:
    – One partner can file the original application, but both must be present three days later to pick up the license.
    – You must pick up your license from the same courthouse where you filed the application. You cannot file in one county, and pick up your license in another.
    – A fee of approximately $85 is due at the time you pick up your marriage license. The courts will not take checks or credit cards – you must be prepared to pay cash.

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