Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: Eleventh Circuit denies stay in Florida marriage case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Florida state sealThe Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just denied a request for a stay in the challenge to Florida’s same-sex marriage ban.

A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing the ban while the full case is heard. The state wanted the temporary stay issued in the case to be extended until after the appeals process is completely finished.

The order notes that the temporary stay will end on January 5 – couples can get married at that point.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. franklinsewell  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm


  • 2. Iggy_Schiller  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    The judges who denied the stay are Hull and Wilson (Clinton appointees) and Jordan (Obama appointee). We were lucky 🙂

    Thomas is the circuit justice for the 11th. Let's see what he will do when Bondi asks him for a stay.

  • 3. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    That is a good sign as Judge Hull is one of the more conservative Democrats on the bench.

  • 4. debater7474  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    It's not really much to get excited over. Thomas is the circuit justice, and of all the justices he is the least inclined to act as a team player and refer the matter to the whole court. He is probably the most inclined to simply do whatever he feels like doing, which in this case would be to grant a stay.

  • 5. MichaelGrabow  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    I would think it would be referred to the full court.

  • 6. debater7474  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Why? Because Thomas is in a good mood this week toward the gays?

  • 7. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Being the unpleasant individual he is it's entirely possible that Thomas grants a stay on his own. However that isn't the end of the story. If Thomas grants a stay, the plaintiffs will appeal to the full court. And they may very well be inclined to reject a stay request.

  • 8. Dr. Z  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    I suspect SCOTUS discussed this as a group long ago, back in the Kitchen case (hard to believe that was a year ago).and decided all of these stay requests would be referred to the full court. Now we'll find out. Thomas and Scalia are on record as in favor of continuing the stays. If no stay is issued, it will confirm the court is deciding all of these stays collectively.

  • 9. wes228  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    We already know that all of the stays in these cases were granted (pre-cert denial) / denied (post-cert denial) by the full court. It says so in the order.

  • 10. Dr. Z  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Not in every case. As I recall, Roberts issued a stay without stating whether he had referred it to the full court.

  • 11. wes228  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    The stay order must say whether it's coming from the Circuit Justice or from the court as a whole (because the party on the losing end of that order needs to know whether or not they can ask the whole court to review). I recall Roberts stay denial being referred to the whole court. I can't find the text of that order though.

  • 12. Raga  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    There was an instance when Alito denied a stay on his own, and Santai-Gaffney did not press further. But that could have just been because she was a non-party. But in a similar instance (Oregon), Kennedy referred it to the full court (which denied it anyway) even though NOM was a non-party.

    Regarding the Roberts stay, you are right, it was referred to the whole court. Here is the order:

  • 13. jm64tx  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Thats incorrect. The plaintiffs can only go the full court upon a DENIAL of a stay – see SCOTUS rule 22. Once the stay is granted, there is no "justice shopping".

    "4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule 30.2, the party making an application, except in the case of an application for an extension of time, may renew it to any other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29."

    So until an application for a stay is denied, you have to go thru the circuit justice first.

  • 14. hopalongcassidy  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    22.4 dictates procedure for denials, it does not preclude further actions of applicants in the case of an approval by a single justice.

  • 15. jm64tx  |  December 4, 2014 at 4:07 am

    OK lets read the rule again:

    "4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the Circuit Justice or is untimely under Rule 30.2, the party making an application, except in the case of an application for an extension of time, may renew it to any other Justice, subject to the provisions of this Rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the Clerk, designating the Justice to whom the application is to be directed, and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29."

    So in this case if a stay is granted, the losing party would not be the party making the application… so there is no rule allowing the losing (non-applying) party if a stay is granted to protest to another justice or the full court. (subject to the provisions of this rule).

    Think about it outside your own self-serving interest for a second; lets talk capital punishment. An inmate scheduled for execution gets a stay of execution from a justice. Do you really think a state should be able to go to another justice or the full court and say " please lift the stay so we can execute him while he appeals"?

  • 16. StraightDave  |  December 4, 2014 at 5:28 am

    Something to do with "irreparable harm", perhaps??????????????????

  • 17. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 4, 2014 at 5:38 am

    Nah. Lol.

  • 18. guitaristbl  |  December 4, 2014 at 5:42 am

    Except the rule you mention says nothing about the rights of the LOSING party to go to another justice. The LOSING party can file its own request to lift the stay to any judge they want maybe ?
    This rule says nothing about the case of a stay granted, it only talks about what happens if the stay is denied !

  • 19. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    In this case the plaintiffs wouldn't be asking for a stay; they would, if Thomas were to grant one (to the defendants) on his own, be seeking to have the full court consider lifting the stay.

  • 20. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    And then the plaintiffs can 'justice shop'. To eliminate further justice shopping, the entire court will then weigh in, and based on past history, they will tell Thomas to 'bug off' and allow the stay to expire (or give it only a short temporary extension).

  • 21. debater7474  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Justice shop with what, though? Motion to overrule Thomas?

  • 22. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    The term is called 'justice shopping' – for what reason I'm not sure.

    It's similar to the political term 'lobbyist'. The concept had been understood for decades, maybe centuries. Those who practiced it generally gathered in the lobbies of hotels (as that was where the lobbyists were most apt to meet their intended 'target' or 'targets'), and gradually the term 'lobbyist' (especially post US Civil War) began to describe the practice of attempting to encourage legislators, judicial systems, regulators, etc., to vote for or against an issue. Lobbyists don't now use lobbies (especially hotel lobbies) to persuade politicians. So why are they called 'lobbyists'?

    And no, not a motion to overrule Thomas, but to find a Justice who will rule differently than Thomas (in other words, to find a Justice who is more favorable to your position).

  • 23. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    It's called "justice shopping" because it implies that, if denied the first time, the aggrieved party will then go to another, presumably more sympathetic justice and keep on "shopping around" until they've appealed to three others. At that point they either will have to give up or appeal to the entire court. In practice I think what generally happens is either the party seeking an action (in this case it might be the reveral of a stay already granted by the supervising justice) will just go directly to the full court. I think the court actually prefers that route since it usually is where things wind up anyway.

  • 24. jm64tx  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    If Thomas grants a stay there is no further action permitted.

  • 25. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Why do you love coming on the site and spreading false information all the time ? It's really tedious and immature..

  • 26. jm64tx  |  December 4, 2014 at 4:10 am

    Go read rule 22 of the SCOTUS rules. It does NOT provide for the non-applying party to protest a stay to the full court … it specifically makes applications for a stay "subject to the provisions of this rule".

  • 27. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 4, 2014 at 5:20 am

    Stop. Talking. Now.

  • 28. guitaristbl  |  December 4, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Ok troll let's make a deal. If you are right and Thomas grants a stay and the plaintiffs can do NOTHING about it, I will apologize.
    If you are wrong (AGAIN) and the plaintiffs go to the full court and get the stay lifted (or even if they do not get it lifted – if the issue just goes to another judge and then the full court), we won't see your face on the site again. How does that sound to you ? Is it a deal ? Because really, the whole forum is getting tired of you.

  • 29. Fledge01  |  December 4, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Why is he a troll, he is trying to give us information at least is not an opinion absent some basis. The concept at dispute is whether appealing to a full hearing of the court is a right or a privilege. Here is how I would interpret this. First, the topic of requesting a full review upon a denial of a stay is listed as a specific rule that reads the applicant MAY renew it to other Justice. Second, one could assume that if the applicant were already allowed to do make this renewal, absent an affirmative rule giving the applicant permission, then the whole existence of this rule would not be necessary. Therefore, the mere presence of the rule can be interpreted as having the effect of actually changing a procedure that otherwise would not be permissible without this affirmative rule. Then, since a specific rule is needed for full review regarding denial of stays, then we can assume that a specific permissive rule would also be needed to get full review after a judge grants of a stay, not just after a denial. I come to this conclusion because I cannot think of any reason the court would make a permissive rule in one instance and not the other unless they intended denials and stays to have different procedures. Which is want jm64tx is presenting.

    But then again, there is no rule against asking for a full review and SCOTUS can interpret its rules however it wants.

    Its healthy to have these types of discussions . We shouldn't be scaring people away simply because they have an opinion we don't agree with. I remember you once responding to a post I made long ago in which I said there is very weak legal basis for SCOTUS to take a case before a circuit split. It turns out were wrong on that issue. So what? Its all good. This is all new legal ground here and any lawyer knows that there is always an argument to be made either way on almost any issue. Lets welcome these different views on to this site.

  • 30. davepCA  |  December 4, 2014 at 10:50 am

    He isn't giving his opinion (i.e. "I think X is good/bad and here's why I think this").

    He is intentionally spreading misinformation (i.e. "If Thomas grants a stay there is no further action permitted").

  • 31. guitaristbl  |  December 4, 2014 at 11:25 am

    I think you have not be following this certain account around here. While your analysis may be correct, this certain account has been spreading false information (I think deliberately) on many threads on this site for quite some time now. He is always wrong and as dave says, he is not giving opinion, he states what he considers "facts" aggresively. And those 'facts" are ALWAYS against the pro-equality side on each issue, probably in order to provoke reaction here, which is the definition of how a troll behaves.

    While I do not pay much attention to the points and thumbs score it is indicative of who's making useful comments and who's not. This user has a -69 (!) approval rate on his profile, colored red and with an exclamation mark..!
    That must say something to the very least.

    Healthy types of discussions occur with people interested in such discussions and this account which pops up periodically just to provide another hollow "fact" against ongoing ME litigition just to get attention is not one of these people.

  • 32. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 4, 2014 at 11:48 am

    There have been many disputes and court cases in Federal procurement.

    Several parts of the FAR say one thing, but if you go to other parts of the FAR, the wording says differently. And then you have the courts weighing in.

    In all procurement actions, there is a requirement that any required clause, provision, regulation, etc., must be included in the contract. The courts have made it clear that if a clause, provision, regulation, etc., is required, it is included whether or not it is included. (Church principle)

    What 'jm64tx' constantly does is take a single clause, provision, regulation, law, etc., and act as if that is the ONLY clause, provision, regulation, law, etc., that applies, when there may be another or many others that also apply, and even some that say the total opposite of what 'jm64tx' is citing.

    And that is why most consider him a troll.

  • 33. scream4ever  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    Not at all. The plaintiffs could go to any justice who would in turn refer the issue to the entire court for consideration.

  • 34. RQO  |  December 3, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    It's a free country; shop till you drop. You should shop for another website.

  • 35. BenG1980  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Actually, in the past when the applicants sought a stay of a district court ruling prior to an appellate ruling from the circuit court (e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert), SCOTUS has granted the request. The denials of cert may have changed that paradigm, but it hasn't been tested until now.

  • 36. Raga  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    I agree. Their action on this forthcoming request would be the most revealing to date about their thoughts on the merits.

  • 37. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    We cannot be sure about that. SCOTUS has so far not acted on a case where the federal appeals court of the area has not issued a binding ruling. But I hope that the most likely scenario is that the full court denies to grant the stay. Bondi has a month to file with SCOTUS before marriages begin. Let's see what happens.

  • 38. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    I believe that if the initial request is granted by the supervising justice, the opposing party can then appeal directly to the entire court.

  • 39. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Could you not pop our collective bubbles? K, thanks, bye.

  • 40. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    If he does, the plaintiffs have the right to go Justice shopping and find a Justice who will lift the Stay……that's why the Circuit Justice is referring it to the entire Court.

  • 41. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    That's an interesting turn of events ! I did not expect the 11th to be so shamelessly pro-equality (because let's face it – this decision shouts on which side they will most likely be even if it has to go en banc) ! Let's see what SCOTUS will do..Even if Thomas acts on his own , fine, our side will do some judge fishing..!

  • 42. hopalongcassidy  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    Given the circuit's ruling, would it be useful to go to the district court that issued the stay and ask them to lift it immediately?

  • 43. BenG1980  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    The plaintiffs tried that after the denials of cert and the district court judge declined to lift the original stay. They could theoretically try again, but might not want to go back to the judge a second time.

  • 44. hopalongcassidy  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    Ah, yes I can see how that might be construed as badgering. Did not know they had tried once, thanks for the info.

  • 45. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 4, 2014 at 5:23 am

    Not badgering necessarily, but perhaps futile. If I was them, I would try it anyway. It cannot hurt.

  • 46. hopalongcassidy  |  December 4, 2014 at 6:31 am

    I guess that's right, the worst thing they could do would be say no, now that you mention it.

  • 47. KahuBill  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    If Thomas grants the stay, could the plaintiffs appeal to the full court?

  • 48. wes228  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:25 pm


  • 49. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Technically no. The plaintiffs (or defendant(s) ) can appeal to a single Justice of their choosing. That Justice usually refers requests for stays to the entire Court to eliminate going back and forth until a total of five Justices have said 'yea' or 'nay'.

    The practice of going to the entire court became more common after Oily Taintz went from Justice to Justice, trying to get a stay of the lower court ruling that went against her.

  • 50. brandall  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    While I don't believe this will be the final outcome of this stay, at least Pamela Bondi has another headache and will eventually have to pay one hell of a set of fees for the plaintiffs involved in all of these cases.

  • 51. David_Midvale_UT  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Sadly, the Florida taxpayers are stuck with the bill and not Bondi. Isn’t “personal responsibility” one of the cornerstones of conservative philosophy? Guffaw

  • 52. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    "Personal responsibility for thee, but not for me," is what the principle really is.

  • 53. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm



  • 54. AndresM11  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Hahaha I love it when Courts put those bigots in their places and our Wolf dances \o/

  • 55. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    Hehehe, thank you, Andres!

  • 56. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    There's my wiggle boy:-)

  • 57. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    I'm here, love!

  • 58. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Always good to see your comments…'s been a rough couple of days for me:(

  • 59. Steve27516  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    I'm sorry to hear that, Rose –
    Here's wishing you well –

  • 60. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Thanks Steve……..I always hope for a better day tomorrow:-)

  • 61. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    I've been having a rough time too…I hope things get better for both of us soon

  • 62. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    I'm sorry for your rough time and hope it gets better soon for ya. My wife wrote a Letter to the President about the care Vets receive at the VA Outpatient Clinics and yesterday she received a phone call from one of the Regional offices located in Sacramento. Hopefully the letter get's someone to take notice.

  • 63. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    I hope so too!!

  • 64. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    It managed to go from the White House to a California Regional office……now it will be forward to my immediate local office!

  • 65. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Amazing, I'd say

  • 66. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    I'd have to agree with ya……my was just venting but was rather shocked yesterday when the call came through… it might help speed up the process to getting some things done!

  • 67. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    Seeing Frank Hull's name on this is a good sign for our side.
    She is one of the more conservative Democratic judges on the bench and she was part of a 2-1 ruling that struck down part of the ACA that SCOTUS heard a couple of years ago.
    Her denying the stay likely means she would be a yes vote IF the 11th gets a chance to weigh in.
    The only no vote for sure will be Judge Pryor who is of the Scalia/Sutton/Cook mode.

  • 68. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    I suppose you refer to William Pryor, the Bush appointee, not Jill Pryor, the Obama appointee.
    Also I don't think I would expect Tjoflat ruling in our favour either. What is he doing on active service still anyway ?!

  • 69. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    Yes, I forgot there are two Pyrors on there now.
    Tjoflat is still the oldest judge still serving and he says he simply loves the job and will keep on doing it.
    He IS a Republican from an era where there judges actually followed the law so it is possible he could rule in our favor.
    I would rather not find out though.

  • 70. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    He is also a republican from an era when homosexuality was still very fresh out of the DSM though so yeah I would rather not find out either. Chief judge Carnes (there are also two Carnes in the 11th – what are the chances ?)does not seem like an ally either.

  • 71. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Neither of them are.
    Julies Carnes was part of a package deal so Obama could get Jill Pyror and a couple of other Georgia judges onto the bench.

  • 72. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    You never know though. Judge Joseph Tauro is a year younger than Tjoflat and also a Nixon appointee. He ruled favorably in the two district court challenges to DOMA in the First Circuit.

  • 73. guitaristbl  |  December 4, 2014 at 3:03 am

    Well I believe a judge in the first circuit which includes very liberal states is a different issue all together from a judge in a circuit that includes much of the Deep South.

  • 74. montezuma58  |  December 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Pryor was previously elected as attorney general for Alabama. That's about all you need to know about him.

  • 75. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    And considers very homophobic Judge Roy Moore as one of his heros.
    As I said before, a no vote.

  • 76. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    To Pryor's defense he did everything he could to get Moore down once the whole "Ten commandments" thing ended, even if he agreed with the presence of the commandments in the court.
    Certainly a no vote and extremely bigoted but I believe as an AG he wouldn't pull a Kansas here.

  • 77. montezuma58  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    AL's current AG will definitely pull a Kansas. If you've followed how he's handled gambling issues in AL he has shown he has no qualms about pursing suits in federal court that go counter to recent federal precedent. Plus Strange has eyes on being governor. He can't afford to appear to roll over on the issue.

  • 78. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    I admit I know nothing about Alabama currently, their AG or the cases filed there. I considered them a lost cause without circuit or SCOTUS precedent binding to them anyway. After SCOTUS rules the AG can pull as many stunts as many stunts as he wants he won be able to drag the process for long.

  • 79. RemC_Chicago  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    She won the election (unbelievably enough). She doesn't need to use our community as scapegoats. She should Let It Go.

  • 80. DACiowan  |  December 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    And with the country understanding for the first time in forever, we can't hold back anymore.

  • 81. fireman452  |  December 3, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    My name is Brenner – and I am one of the Plaintiffs. I have read all the comments and see that there is a lot of interest in the law suit – we are very humbled and grateful to the 11th circuit for their decision today and we will re-double our efforts in this appeal to make sound arguments to the court in the hopes that reason and humanity will prevail – and that we will not embarrass our FAMILY by looking like idiots. (I am sure some of you have seen video's that we have made etc but we are trying hard to be respectful of the entire community and not make us all look like fools). This effort is not over as many of you have pointed out, and we are by no means anywhere near down and out either. FORWARD!!!!!!!!!

  • 82. mariothinks  |  December 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    Best of luck! We will always support you!

  • 83. guitaristbl  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Wow you are not one of the plaintiffs, you are the leading plaintiff himself, the lawsuit is named after you !
    Of course your fight is no where close to an end but you may be able to get married indeed from January 6th as the appeal goes on, something I am wishing from the bottom of my heart truly. Keep up the good fight ! You have reason and law by your side along with millions of people supporting you !
    The whole LGBT community should be more than thankful to people like you and plaintiffs from every state, who decide to engage in such a legal battle (an added burden to the enhanced everyday problems a gay couple's life has) and expose themselves like that (with the danger of losing important things such as a job in red states without anti discrimination laws protecting you). You are true heroes, heroes with dignity unlike the beggars judge Sutton who wrote the opinion in the 6th circuit upholding the bans considers heroes.

    We are all behind you keep fighting the good fight !

  • 84. fireman452  |  December 3, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Thanks – just to set the record straight – there are two couples in our half of the lawsuit – the other half has 8 couples represented by the ACLU – our ATTys are two private firms from Jax and we have NO big agency supporting us, but – and here is the part about setting the record straight – the 8 couples from the ACLU side of things are all married, in our half, there is one Married couple – may husband and I were married in Canada (just like Edith Windsor also married in Canada) and the other couple that tried to get a marriage license at the Washington County Court House in Chipely Florida – NOW THERE are two heroes that marched into the Lions den and asked em to give a gay couple a marriage license.

  • 85. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Congrats to all of you for fighting this fight.

  • 86. weaverbear  |  December 3, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Thank you for doing so. Every single couple that marries or tries to or tries to get their marriage acknowledged furthers the cause for everyone that comes after them.

    Many of us here have been down to city hall already; Rose (RnL2008) and her wife and my husband and I are just 2 of the 18K couples that got married here in California back in 2008. It's hard to believe that's already 6 1/2 years ago for us.

  • 87. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    One of my great-great-grandfathers moved to or near Washington County, Florida (from well South of Macon, Georgia) after the US Civil War. He did so to 'better protect' payment of his Confederate pension (even though it was 'protected' in Georgia). Another of my great-great-grandfathers (born and lived his life in Indiana) was in Gen. Sherman's army that probably captured the g-g-grandfather who later moved to Florida.

    (There is a question of the exact whereabouts of the two g-g-grandfathers when the Confederate one was captured, thus there is no proof positive that one of my g-g-grandfather actually helped capture another of my g-g-grandfathers. One thing that is clear is that both were of fairly low rank in their respective armies at the end of the war.)

  • 88. hopalongcassidy  |  December 4, 2014 at 6:36 am

    Well, golly, you sure don't SOUND like a raving lunatic like some of the morons against us often are inclined to claim. 😉

    Keep your powder dry.

  • 89. fireman452  |  December 4, 2014 at 8:04 am

    Well if you give me the right opportunity I can trip over my d__ck with the best of em. JUST SAYIN.

  • 90. hopalongcassidy  |  December 4, 2014 at 10:08 am

    Don't take this wrong, but I'd pay to see that.


  • 91. fireman452  |  December 4, 2014 at 11:21 am

    Well if I lose my job because of this I just might take you up on that

  • 92. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Thank you and your family for putting yourselves out in the limelight…….we are grateful to all of the plaintiffs in all of the lawsuits<3

  • 93. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Thank you for taking the risk and also for being here. I don't recall any of the plaintiffs in any of the other cases posting anything on this site; I would say your perspective would be invaluable.

  • 94. StraightDave  |  December 4, 2014 at 9:03 am

    I think Mary Bishop of OK posted here about a year ago. Her presence was also widely appreciated.

    And to you, Mr Brenner, please stick around and keep us informed of any activities you are privy to. You are welcome any time. And my best wishes for a speedy resolution of your case.

  • 95. RemC_Chicago  |  December 4, 2014 at 9:00 am

    I have two friends who are among the couples in the Grimsley case that was merged with yours. In addition to all the thanks posted here, I'd like to add—as someone who lived in Florida for nearly 40 years and who is old enough to remember Anita Bryant—how much I appreciate witnessing the forward momentum in The Sunshine State.

  • 96. DeadHead  |  December 4, 2014 at 9:24 am

    I recall some saying Anita's husband was later caught being with another man, don't know if that was true though. Many of us older folks also remember and relish the pie pushed in her face on live TV, video clip at

  • 97. hopalongcassidy  |  December 4, 2014 at 10:52 am

    She and I had mutual acquaintances in high school, and I even danced with her a couple times before I was even close to 'out' and before she had exposed her bigotry in public. Around the time she divorced her fundie husband, I was out, living in a fairly small Oklahoma town where 99% of my friends were straight * mostly because there really weren't many gay men there…and virtually every one of them despised the woman and many were quite vocal about it. They liked me but they sure hated that bitch.

    * I did manage to get in the knickers of several of them…giggle.

  • 98. fireman452  |  December 4, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    you A'int seen nuthin YET!!!!!!

  • 99. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 8, 2014 at 6:53 am

    Thank you so much for taking on this fight so actively and to your legal team as well!!!

    Thank you, thank you…a million times over!!!

  • 100. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    For those wondering why a lawsuit in this circuit took so long, the reality is the 11th circuit is one of the more conservative circuits and many of the judges on there might have been appointed by Clinton and Obama but they have conservative leanings so who appointed them doesn't matter.
    I have a feeling SCOTUS will put an end to this before we ever got a ruling out of the 11th but the truth is it will be tough for us to get a win out of this circuit unless we get the right panel.
    Hence the reason for the wait. It sucks but as in any civil rights battle, you don't start out with losing hands.
    You go for the wins so you can absord the losses along the way.

  • 101. Raga  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    I hope the case assignment process in the Eleventh is similar to that in the Seventh, where the motions panel that decided the stays ended up getting assigned to decide the merits. (The Seventh Circuit had a rule that allowed for a motions panel, when sufficiently invested in the merits of the case, to request that the case be assigned to them for merits consideration. I'm sure Posner invoked that rule.)

    Upon further research, it seems that the Eleventh has just issued a fresh set of rules and internal operating procedures (IOP) effective December 2014. Pages 137-140 of the following PDF detail the IOP for oral argument calendaring and panel assignment:
    (The IOP for handling motions can be found in pages 99-100.)

  • 102. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    rAmen Zack!

  • 103. Raga  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Meanwhile, Garcia is yet to act on the Texas Plaintiffs' request to lift the stay there. Briefing on that motion was completed just last week on November 26. I'm guessing that he is waiting for the Fifth Circuit to decide on Mississippi's request for stay pending appeal, which should be coming down in the next few days. If Bondi runs to the Supremes soon (are there any reports yet confirming she will?), then what the Supremes decide for Florida should trump whatever the Fifth decides for Mississippi (if there is a conflict).

  • 104. brandall  |  December 4, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Today, Bondi's spokesperson said they are reviewing the decision. That is status quo for her office. I am confident she will appeal

  • 105. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    This is why religious folks get a bad rap….this idiot makes these sorts of comments and thinks people aren't questioning his sanity!!!:

  • 106. RQO  |  December 3, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    He's plenty sane – there's money in "us vs. them" hatred. Sigh.

  • 107. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    I doubt that, but there is money in HATE the Gays and Lesbians, which is why the Republicans have a 4% approval rate and a 90% reelection rate…ugh!

  • 108. SeattleRobin  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    I guess he didn't get the memo that homos aren't the only people who contract AIDS?

  • 109. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    That's a strong point and obviously this idiot DOESN'T get it….this epidemic is a WORLD WIDE issue and is NOT convinced to Gays only……but folks like this just show their deep seated animus towards folks using scripture that DOESN'T apply to today's society!!!

  • 110. sfbob  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    He's a bigot hiding behind religion. In 2009 he preached a sermon in which he said he was praying that Obama would die. He apparently was heard by a person who, the following day, showed up outside of an event the President was speaking, carrying an automatic weapon and a handgun.

    We aren't the only people Anderson hates. He has a long history of making racist, anti-Semitic and misogynistic statements. Really inflammatory ones at that.

    Two expressions to be aware of here are "imprecatory prayers" and "stochastic violence." The former refers to the praying (especially publicly) for harm to befall someone. That was the content of Anderson's 2009 public prayer about Obama. Stochastic violence is the sort of violence when someone hears a person they view as an authority say, for example, that someone deserves to die, and taking it upon himself or herself to carry that suggestion out.

  • 111. RnL2008  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    Yet people pay this azz money…what's wrong with America? This man basically practices Hate speech and he DOESN'T see that the message he is sending is NOT a message God would like….and these folks who make these claims really need to understand that if hell is a real place, they are going to be the one's who occupy it.

    Ya know, my wife and I are fighting to get her added to my VA Disability because we are married and I am a disabled Vet, and I wonder would I serve my Country again knowing that I defend rights for people who want to harm me and my family…….it makes me wonder sometimes.

  • 112. hopalongcassidy  |  December 4, 2014 at 6:46 am

    I'll bet a hundred bucks against a cup of cold coffee this guy is just like Ted Haggard…he suxdix in secret and hates himself so much it overflows onto everyone else. Hard to know whether to despise or pity him more.

  • 113. RemC_Chicago  |  December 4, 2014 at 7:17 am

    Yes, I generally assume that he that protests too much is dealing with his own issues.

  • 114. RemC_Chicago  |  December 4, 2014 at 7:20 am

    I tweeted him, noting that I didn't have AIDS, and so could I be an exception to his command under the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" clause? Note heavy sarcasm. He is literally uneducated in anything resembling theology or religious studies—he's memorized the Bible and that is what he bases his church on. I would love to see legal authorities deal with him—I'm not sure why his urging violence upon people shouldn't be questioned by the authorities.

  • 115. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 4, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    The religious folks who get the worst reputation are the 'cafeteria' religious people, especially the Xian religious people. Depending on the subject, they pick and choose a verse or verses to quote, and come hell or high water, they won't quote any other verse(s). Sometimes all their pronouncements come from one part of the bibble, sometimes another part. They call themselves Xians, but they rarely quote the words their jebus has (supposedly) stated.

    Any 'bad rap' they get is caused by themselves.

  • 116. F_Young  |  December 4, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Mike_Baltimore: "The religious folks who get the worst reputation are the 'cafeteria' religious people, especially the Xian religious people."

    Actually, every single Christian is a cafeteria Christian. It is impossible to believe in the entirety of any of the bible translations, since they all are self-contradictory in multiple ways. For example, either god commands "thou shall not kill" or else "surely they shall be put to death." The bibles are full of these contradictions.

    So, every Christian necessarily chooses what to believe and what to ignore.

  • 117. jm64tx  |  December 7, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    No, God commands not to MURDER. There is a big difference. Murder results in bloodguilt, killing does not.

  • 118. F_Young  |  December 8, 2014 at 1:23 am

    jm64tx: "No, God commands not to MURDER."

    It depends on which biblical (mis)translation you read. There is considerable inconsistency even among English translations, in addition to inconsistencies between translations to English and to other languages.

  • 119. Randolph_Finder  |  December 8, 2014 at 6:53 am

    What makes you think it was reading it in any language other than Hebrew?

  • 120. sfbob  |  December 8, 2014 at 8:33 am

    Just as modern Greek is not the same as the Greek that Aristotle, Plato and Aristophanes wrote and spoke, biblical Hebrew is not the same as modern Hebrew. Different vocabulary, different meanings (not always but often). It's all subject to interpretation. And interpretation is all subject to the interpreter's agenda.

  • 121. Randolph_Finder  |  December 8, 2014 at 8:49 am

    So, you are saying that the Modern Jews can't possibly know their own holy books even though they speak the same language? And the word 'רצח' used in both copies of the ten commandments are used is never used in the context of war in the entire Tanach?

  • 122. sfbob  |  December 8, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Not at all. I'm saying that the text must be read carefully and in context.

  • 123. Randolph_Finder  |  December 8, 2014 at 9:36 am

    And when it is read carefully and in context in Hebrew where there are certainly Rabbis who do so, and they consistently say that 'רצח' translates into English as Murder and not Kill, what do you say then?

  • 124. sfbob  |  December 8, 2014 at 9:59 am

    I may disagree with them on principle. It strikes me as possible, given that killing was a fact of life back then, that their interpretation my be, strictly speaking, the correct one, that there are circumstances under which it is acceptable to take another's life. However, it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that could be so (assuming the least amount of force I could use to preserve my own life would be to take that of another), I have no doubt that the circumstances that turn "killing" into "murder" have changed considerably since the time when the Tanach was composed.

    Nothing relieves me of the responsibility to think for myself.

  • 125. Randolph_Finder  |  December 8, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Agreed. And in that regards my disagreement is not with you, but rather with F_Young, my apologies if my responses were intemperate on that.

  • 126. sfbob  |  December 8, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Apology accepted. I think I figured out fairly quickly that your beef was with someone else.

  • 127. hopalongcassidy  |  December 8, 2014 at 6:39 am

    What a steaming pile of bovine excrement. Your imaginary god is not relevant to the actual real world and your pornographic old book of nonsense redacted over 20 centuries of mistranslation from the campfire myths of bronze-age goatherders who routinely massacred each other over which one had the god with the largest penis is not useful to humans. Well, unless we have the bad luck to run out of toilet paper…

    Morality is doing the right thing no matter what you are told,
    Religion is doing what you are told whether it's right or not.

  • 128. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 7, 2014 at 11:21 am

    F_Young wrote:
    "Actually, every single Christian is a cafeteria Christian."

    Congratulations on speaking to every Xian in the world. Except you haven't, and not all Xians are cafeteria Xians. One of my Aunts was one of the most devout Xians I've ever known, and she was NOT a cafeteria Xian. She believed in the entirety of the bibble (especially as a historical document), and at the same time was willing and able to acknowledge that there were contradictions in it.

    My aunt died less than 17 years ago. If you are less than 17, you didn't speak with her If you are older than 17, you also didn't speak with her, since she was NOT a cafeteria Xian, and you claim that all Xians are cafeteria Xians.

  • 129. hopalongcassidy  |  December 7, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Someday we'll figure out at last whether religion is the result…or the cause…of insanity – then we can start seriously working on a cure for them both. How is "believing in the entirety" and acknowledging it's full of contradictions not a contradiction in itself?…that makes no sense whatever.

  • 130. Steve84  |  December 7, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    Some people "believe in all the Bible", but it's impossible to live by all of it. So nobody does. Even then they only believe in it all in the sense that their churches order them to do it. But as soon as they notice contradictions, they can no longer truly believe all of it. Even if they keep saying it. It's the same way Christians say that they "love" everyone, when they really don't. Just word games and rationalizations to keep up with the things they must obey.

  • 131. hopalongcassidy  |  December 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    I offer this to anyone who's willing to approach the subject with a halfway open mind:

  • 132. Eric  |  December 7, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    With over 300 versions, the entirety of which Bible? Bibles don't even contain the same number of books, let alone translations of those passages. The path to the cafeteria starts by picking the menu.

  • 133. EricKoszyk  |  December 8, 2014 at 7:00 am

    And don't forget, William Tyndale, one of the first people to translate the Bible into English was burned at the stake for his heresy.

    Not exactly a forgiving religion.

  • 134. Equality On TrialOne same&hellip  |  January 29, 2015 at 11:56 am

    […] Eleventh Circuit has previously denied a similar request in the Florida marriage […]

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