Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Federal judge to Florida County Clerks: issue marriage licenses to all same-sex couples, or the couples denied licenses can be added to the federal lawsuit

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The federal judge who struck down Florida’s same-sex marriage ban has issued an order clarifying the scope of the injunction.

The request for clarification came because some county clerks in Florida believe that only the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit are parties to the case, so only they can have their marriages performed or recognize.

The bottom line of the order: it’s true that the preliminary injunction only applies to the specific plaintiffs; however, this is a federal Constitutional case.

The judge notes that were any county clerk to decline to issue licenses, they’d face a threat of being added to the lawsuit as defendants and possibly having to pay attorneys’ fees, because under the injunction it now violates the federal Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in Florida:

There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

In other words, the judge doesn’t order county clerks to issue marriage licenses to people who aren’t parties to the case, but notes that it would be easy to add parties to the case who have standing to ask the judge to require a county to issue the licenses. Further, defendants could stand to lose money on attorneys’ fees if they fight.

Yesterday, a state judge in Florida’s Orange County ruled that the county clerk may rely on the federal decision striking down the state’s ban and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Other counties could also choose to rely on the federal decision to allow its clerks to issue the licenses.

The temporary stay on the federal injunction expires on Monday, January 5.

UPDATE: Via the Washington Blade, Florida AG Pam Bondi has responded to the order: “This office has sought to minimize confusion and uncertainty, and we are glad the Court has provided additional guidance,” Bondi said. “My office will not stand in the way as clerks of court determine how to proceed.”

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. sfbob  |  January 1, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    In other words Judge Hinkle is advising other jurisdictions to ignore his ruling at their own peril.

    What a great way to start the new year.

  • 2. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    YES!!! Finally we have a clear path for even BONDI to follow – Brenner here, my husband and I filed this law suit a year ago and now finally we have reached a goal for all LGBT folks in Florida – HOT DAMN!!!!!

  • 3. sfbob  |  January 1, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Congratulations to you and to all other Floridians who support equal marriage.

  • 4. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    Congratulations to both you and your husband……..and may NO clerk decide to violate this order…….it won't be good for them!!

  • 5. LK2013  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    Congratulations – well done!

  • 6. JLB57  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:37 pm


  • 7. DrBriCA  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Congratulations on all your hard work!!!

  • 8. Chuck_in_PA  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Congratulations to you, your husband, and all other LBGT Floridians who will benefit from this ruling. Let's see the rest of the 11th Circuit join the ME bandwagon before the new year grows old.

  • 9. Steve27516  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Congratulations, Brenner, and thank you for putting yourself front and center in this fight for justice. Many others will benefit from your willingness to do so.

  • 10. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard for this victory, including the plaintiffs and the ACLU and SAVE, and to Equality Florida for working on Florida for many years leading up to this fine moment, the day Florida finally accepted same-sex marriage. Well done!!

  • 11. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    one thing should be made clear to everyone – the ACLU and SAVE had nothing to do with LGBT folks in Florida being able to marry. Their law suit was to ONLY have marriages recognized from other states. Please note that this is not sour grapes but just trying to keep the record straight. This same thing happened in other ACLU cases in IL for example – they got to the end and the court said – SURE we agree to recognize marriages from OTHER states but will not allow marriage in our state. Required that they go back and do it all over again because they did not have any un-married plaintiffs. This was the case here in Florida. The ACLU had NO un-married plaintiffs – why? — NO IDEA – I would have thought that they would have learned from what happened in other states.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:48 pm

    Equality Florida was already working the marriage license angle first. The ACLU wanted in on the action, saw that there were no MARRIED plaintiffs, and moved in to fill that vacuum. Now we have a double victory: marriage + marriage recognition as well! See

  • 13. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    ianbirmingham STOP!!!!

    You're arguing with the lead (married) plaintiff in the original Florida marriage case "Brenner v. Scott," that did have BOTH angles covered in its suit right from the very beginning, and who did not need the other case from South Florida piggy-backed onto theirs in order to accomplish what you just stated.

    The 4 plaintiffs in his case are real people with real needs who took matters upon themselves, and did so under rather hostile conditions in the middle of "God's country" in the piney woods of North Florida. In addition, their Jacksonville attorney, Bill Sheppard (Sheppard, White, & Kachergis, P.A.), really stuck his neck out there when he first agreed to take their case.

    Seriously,– that other case was a carefully concocted "test case" thingie, prepared so they could later claim the glory.

    I have no intention of allowing that distortion to be perpetrated and perpetuated. Not here. Not anywhere.

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    See also

  • 15. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    there are so many errors in the link – that I have no idea where to begin in including that our suit was filed 2-28-2014 a better link would be —

  • 16. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:29 pm

    Gotta love those moments when Wikipedia is more accurate than article sources. Take that, snotty professors!

  • 17. Zack12  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    That has never made sense to me either. All lawsuits should have had both combined IMO.

  • 18. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    I guess there should be NO confusion on the order now…….any Clerk who refuses to do their job, will be facing serious consequences!!!

    Way to Go Judge Hinkle!!!

  • 19. micha1976  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    I am kinda disappointed about this order. He could have clarified that the clerks are bound by his order, so that a refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses could mean a contempt charge.
    The threat of attorney fees is obviously none to these bigots, they dont have to pay themselves. This is Kansas all over again…

  • 20. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    The loser of a case has to pay attorneys' fees and costs. What the order is saying is basically: "If you deny marriage licenses to any other couple, they can ask to be added to the lawsuit I am overseeing. If they do that, I'll expand the injunction to require whatever county they're in to issue the licenses. Then, since they've won, you (the state) will be stuck paying for attorneys' fees and costs. Do you really want this to happened in every county?"

  • 21. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    Exactly Scottie……and frankly, I WOULDN'T want to push that button……because the outcome WON'T be nice!!!

  • 22. Steve84  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    They don't care about spending other people's money though.

  • 23. SoCal_Dave  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    So true. Happy to spend the state's money and then complain about "big government".

  • 24. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    He did clarify his order and it basically stated that any Clerk in any County should opt to not issue marriage licenses to qualified Same-Sex Couples, that they will be facing consequences and when fines are levied against someone, it is them who are required to pay it, NOT their employer!

  • 25. micha1976  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    I disagree. He doesnt talk about fines (which could result from a contempt charge) but about lawyers fees as expenses of a lawsuit. They would have to be covered by the county and its tax payers (including the gay tax payers), not by the bigots who hold office in the county.
    Of course there is hope that everybody abides by the constitution. We will see.

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    You wanted Judge Hinkle to issue a new order?

    From the 'Miami Herald':
    "David Weinstein, a former assistant Miami-Dade state attorney and assistant U.S. attorney, now in private practice and not involved in the case, says Hinkle’s latest ruling 'put the attorney general in checkmate.'

    " 'There is no ‘new’ order for her to appeal,' Weinstein said. 'In order for her to take another appeal and try to seek a stay, to prevent enforcement of the injunction, he would have had to issue a new ruling and he didn’t do that. The bottom line is, this opens the door for every clerk in Florida to begin issuing licenses.'

    (… )

    Also in that article is information about a ceremony for previously married couples who will renew their vows 6 p.m. Tuesday at Miami Beach Botanical Garden, in a SAVE/ACLU ceremony presided by Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine.

  • 27. micha1976  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:20 pm

    I wanted him to clarify that every clerk is bound by his old order, no. 4 specifically, to issue licenses. This order specifically says that they are not.
    There is no doubt that this opens the door to every clerk to issue licenses if they want to. Our problem are those clerks who do NOT want to and who will not be swayed by the threat of their counties being held liable for a few attorneys fees.

  • 28. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 2, 2015 at 11:31 am

    A smart attorney can find ways to include costs into attorney fees.

    I was the victim of an almost hit and run accident in the 70's. The only reason it was an 'almost' was the damage to the defendant's car made it impossible to drive the vehicle, so he was 'stuck' at the accident scene. (Besides, he was too drunk to attempt to run from the scene.)

    My attorney combined attorney fees with attorney costs (he had to hire a PI to try to trace the driver – no insurance which resulted in MD taking his license, no family in the area, retired, etc. The accident occurred in DC, which released him that night on his own recognizance and promise to show up in court proceedings. The PI traced the defendant from DC to MD to PA, then through VA into TN when he lost the trail.). The PI firm's expenses (and they were not cheap) were combined with the attorney fees when suing my insurance company under the uninsured motorists clause.

    And it's not just attorney fees that get reimbursed, but also the costs. Those costs can include filing fees, costs of transcripts (a certain number are required for ALL cases), witness fees, etc. Many times, the costs can far exceed the actual attorney fees. For instance, a case that goes to SCOTUS can involve $250,000 in attorney fees and $750,000 in costs other than attorney fees. And in many cases, the attorney fees and costs can go a lot higher.

    Judge Hinkle specifically warned the clerks, if they get sued for not issuing licenses to same sex couples, they can be added to the suit AND after they lose, they can be assessed attorney fees AND costs. And remember, it is the judge who is presiding over the case that determines the fair and proper amount of those costs and attorney fees. That's one of the reasons why attorney's are careful (and advise their client(s) to not get the judge angered towards them. An angry judge will not be amenable to reducing fees and costs.

    I'm fairly certain any future political opponent of Bondi (and/or clerk not issuing a license to otherwise eligible couples) will bring up the costs, and thus increased taxes and/or reduced benefits, the residents of the jurisdiction have suffered as a result of the bigoted pig-headedness of the official.

  • 29. micha1976  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    And Bondi's wishy-washy response instead of a clear statement, that everyone should issue licenses now, makes me feel this is not the last thing we heard from Florida.

  • 30. andrewofca  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Bondi should resign. After the endless, expensive, pointless fight she put up on this issue, she should stand by her convictions and resign.

  • 31. RemC_Chicago  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    That would require owning a half-ounce of integrity, which she doesn't have anywhere within spitting distance of her person.

  • 32. jpmassar  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Way to ring in the New Year.

    And here I thought Judge Hinkle might be watching the Rose Parade…

  • 33. Pbrover  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Finally! It is indeed a New Years gift to have this clarification once and for all.
    My husband and I were married in California in 2008, and it was such an overwhelming feeling to have had prop 8 dismissed following Judge Walker's decision. I feel the same way about Florida becoming state number 36! We have visited Miami for several decades now, and it will be a fine day to know that our marriage is recognized there as well as home, and to travel without fear that our marriage would not be recognized in a medical emergency.
    I turned down an executive job offer for a company based in Atlanta GA, choosing my marriage over a lucrative career move. These are real issues that my straight friends never need to consider. This fight for our constitutional rights across the nation has been burdensome and onerous, but also with joy, like I feel today.

  • 34. josejoram  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    I can fully understand your feelings. My husband and me do have a property in Florida snd very dear friends.So we travel there several times. And everytime I hit Florida soil, I felt as my family vanishes, or protection due to it vanishes. Not anymore.

  • 35. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    I'm still pissed about the following, as these clerks KNEW before Judge Hinkle's "Order to Clarify" that they were going to be required to follow the law, and issue marriage licenses to ALL applicants. But so as to not "discriminate," even if they have to hold their noses, while grudgingly following the law, in the dreadful event one of those icky gay couples show up, they're dumping the long-standing Florida practice of offering optional, follow-up courthouse wedding ceremonies whereby a court official officiates in a package-deal one-stop operation,– for ALL COUPLES, gay, straight, or whatever.

    From <a href="” target=”_blank”> on 31 December 2014:

    "Couples who wanted to skip the pomp and circumstance of a wedding and get married at the Duval, Clay or Baker county courthouses will no longer have that option in the new year. These counties’ decision to end the long-standing tradition of courthouse wedding ceremonies is due, at least in part, to the continued debate over same-sex marriage in Florida against the backdrop of conservative Christianity. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle could rule any day and make gay marriage legal across the state.

    If same-sex marriage is allowed, Duval Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell, Clay Clerk Tara Green and Baker Clerk Stacie Harvey will have no choice but to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But to avoid performing ceremonies for them, these clerks have decided to end all courthouse weddings. Residents of Baker, Clay and Duval counties who want to avoid usual wedding expenses will now have to find a minister or notary to perform the ceremony after they pick up their marriage license, but [at] a place other than the courthouse.

    In retaliation, henceforward, ALL couples of whatever stripe, need to boycott these 3 counties when seeking a marriage license. I want to see their county revenue from this source utterly dry up, while benefitting the two neighboring counties immediately to their south

  • 36. Steve84  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    It's exactly how they dealt with desegregation too. Instead of allowing mixed swimming pools they just closed them entirely.

  • 37. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    I know. So, they could close the swimming pools, but couldn't close the beaches. And Fernandina Beach was the very first locale in all of Florida to desegregate its beaches (due to the long-standing presence of a large contingent of extremely wealthy blacks, still quite prominently present). Thus, if we detect any foot-dragging there (Nassau county), they will be forcefully and quickly reminded of their own unique place, already established, in Florida Civil Rights history.

    In the interval, here are the alternate locations for ALL COUPLES from Duval/Clay counties to go to, if they wish to obtain a marriage license, along with the optional courthouse wedding ceremonies, and to have it all done in a sincere, welcoming manner, as the revenue source from marriage licenses/courthouse weddings in Duval/Clay counties needs to utterly dry up overnight:

    St Johns County Clerk of Court
    4010 Lewis Speedway
    St. Augustine, FL 32084
    Tel: (904) 819-3600

    Putnam County Clerk of Court
    410 St. Johns Ave
    Palatka, FL 32177
    (386) 326-7600

    Putnam County Branch Office
    1114 State Rd 20, Ste 2 (Hitchcock's Shopping Center)
    Interlachen, FL 32148
    386) 698-1217

    Putman County Branch Office
    19 N Summit St
    Crescent City, FL 32112
    (386) 684-3717

  • 38. davepCA  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    It would be GREAT if some same sex couples chose to bring along their own civil marriage officiant when they go to these court houses and just go ahead and have a big, splashy, VERY public ceremony right on the front steps of these court houses or right in the central rotunda immediately after getting the paperwork done at the clerk's window.

  • 39. A_Jayne  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    I think it would be better if all couples, gay or straight, who want to get married right away, simply drive to an adjacent county, purchase the marriage license there, and immediately get married in that county's courthouse. Why spent hard-earned money where it isn't wanted?

  • 40. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    good point, unfortunately most of the fees paid go to the state and the county actually does not get that large a share of the marriage license fee.

  • 41. A_Jayne  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    If they lose even a little bit of money lots and lots of times, it will add up.

    Edit to add: Not to mention, if they aren't selling as many licenses anymore, will they need as many personnel?

  • 42. brandall  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    The true economic value of ME goes to the wedding receptions and all the trappings that go with it. We have all read about economic impact reports on states banning ME.

    To truly impact a homophobic county, SSM couples should not hold their weddings and/or receptions in a county that refuses to provide ALL or changes/removes some of the same services (court house wedding) after ME is allowed. Then, tell the media. That will start to hurt when wedding planners, receptions halls, limousines, et al start to see they are being SHUT OUT from the revenue.

    Yes, it's not as fun to be married and have a wonderful reception in another county, but I swear it is what I would do!

  • 43. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    What did your wedding process look like, Brandall? If you don't mind sharing…

  • 44. brandall  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Sorry, but I want to make sure I understand your question. Are you asking about when I was married in CA or what I would do if I were in Florida and was going to get married?

  • 45. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    Your California wedding…

  • 46. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:49 am

    We were married in the "window" in CA in 2008. We had been together for 14 years and always knew we would be married. But, with Prop 8 looming in November, we believed we had until 12/31/2008 to get married. In mid-August, we read Prop 8 is effective the day after the election and the polls were starting to show it could pass.

    So, we picked September 6th and had three weeks to plan everything. The grand staircase inside City Hall was totally booked through the election as were many other venues. So, we decided we could have the wedding in the garden behind our place in the Castro and then the reception in our condo and the back garden.

    We invited everyone by e-mail or phone since there was no time for printing and mailing invitations. We invited around 150 friends and family and assumed about 50 would be able to make it because there was so little warning.

    The ceremony in the garden was witnessed by about 25 friends and family. My stepmother that I've known since I was 4 gave me away. People flew in from all over the country. My husband is a librarian at the SF Main Library and one of his straight co-workers had registered with the city to be able to perform SS marriages. He did a heartwarming ceremony.

    Our one surprise. Not 50, but 140 people showed up for the reception! The amazing part was the notorious SF weather blessed our wedding. It was 85 degrees at 11 pm! So, we had folks in our condo, down on the front porch, down the back staircase of our duplex and everywhere in the garden. Many folks said it was their first same-sex marriage they had attended.

    Our favorite part. We asked our guests to not bring wedding presents, but instead please bring a check made out to the NO ON PROP 8 campaign. On Monday, we took checks totaling over $7,000 to their office two blocks away.

  • 47. RnL2008  |  January 3, 2015 at 12:32 am

    So, you and your husband are part of that historic 18,000 couples who married in the open window……my wife and I were married in August 2008. We share our wedding anniversary with Ellen and Portia……..when we were planning our wedding, we called lots of different church's to find a Minister who would marry us. We had plenty of no or no we don't do those types of wedding ceremony. We were lucky to find two different Minister's from the Unitarian Universalist Congregation. We chose the one in Sonoma County. We met with him and he asked us if this was just a commitment Ceremony or was it going to be an actual legal wedding…….I must admit, I hadn't been paying a lot of attention to the re Marriage case, but we were happy to add an expense for our Marriage License. We first had to undo a mistake we had made earlier when we had tried to change my wife's last name through a legal name change, which made her a non-person because Social Security wouldn't change her name without going through the courts and we didn't have that sort of money……so, we had to get her divorce decree, get her California I.D. card in her previous name and then we were good to go. We had been planning for a nice wedding, with the traditional bride in the nice white wedding dress, I as the other bride would NOT wear a dress, so I had a tailor made shirt in our wedding colors. Our entire wedding including cake, photographer, garter's for both brides, maid of honor and flower girl……and food for 40 people came to $6,000 dollars. I don't recommend being the wedding planners for your own wedding……but it made it a bit more special to us because of the time we put into it. By the way, Ryan has seen a photo of us from our wedding…..right Ryan?

    It was totally amazing and I had a spasm that I thought everyone could see…leg was shaking so bad……..and Lee almost had to be carried down the isle by my uncle because she was so nervous…….all to funny now……..can't believe it will be 7 years this August……and the time has flown by.

  • 48. RnL2008  |  January 3, 2015 at 12:39 am

    Oh and another thing….we also were a part of the video made by Courage Campaign and the Don't Divorce us slide show. Here is the video:

    We are just after the words EQUAL… marker 2:26. The picture we chose was one of us taken on our wedding day.

  • 49. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Thanks but you are preaching to the choir – look at <a href="http://:” target=”_blank”>: My husband and I have been together for almost 27 years – in 2009 on Sept 3rd, we were married on the shore of Lake Louise just north of the town of Banff in Banff National Park in Canada. Why, because my husband and I would NOT pay a lot of money to have a wedding in the US any where and then have the same folks turn around and vote us second class citizens the next day. Until Marriage Equality is for everyone, we would go where everyone could be married – and the folks in Canada – were TERRIFIC – very supportive and friendly – they bent over backwards to make us feel at home and welcome – it was a GREAT day – and we will always remember it with fond memories – you can see some photos if your interested on youtube – search for Chuck and Jim 26 years and you will find it – boring stuff I am sure because no one really likes to be saddled with viewing someone else's personal photos –

    fyi we still correspond with our marriage commissioner and photographer from Canada and the folks that hosted the reception

  • 50. RemC_Chicago  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    Loved the pictures from Spain. To you and all the other plaintiffs, a great big thank you. Well frigging done!

  • 51. josejoram  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    I will see your photos. I am really moved and touched ever time I see a couple acomplishng their dream. Congrats!

  • 52. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:33 am

    Thank you for sharing this. The pictures are delightful and not boring because they obviously important to you and your husband.

  • 53. JayJonson  |  January 2, 2015 at 6:16 am

    Good idea. But note how expensive Florida's marriage licenses are: $93. (IIRC, our Massachusetts license was $60.) So I think boycotting the hateful county clerks could have an economic impact, especially if the boycott were joined by straight allies.

    But I agree that even more effective would be a boycott of the counties themselves. As you note, the real economic impact of weddings is in the receptions, photographs. flowers, wedding planners, etc. Even our rather modest wedding in Provincetown cost about $20,000.

  • 54. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:57 am

    Oh, I did not mean get married in your home county and have the reception in another county. I would not provide $1 to either the county clerk or the local county businesses for that wedding.

    It reminds me of when my husband and I were on a cruise in the Caribbean. We were with 3 couples from Norway we have known since the '90's. The ship stopped in the Cayman Islands for the day there. That country was notoriously anti-gay at the time, so we decided we would not spend one cent during our day. We walked all over the island and did not spend one penny. Our only problem….we should have brought some food and water from the ship. We were starving and dehydrated by the end of the day, but we held to our boycott. And…our 6 straight Norwegian friends all did the same!

  • 55. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    "Why spent hard-earned money where it isn't wanted?"

    ….. while being treated with disdain, contempt, or worse.

    ALL COUPLES seeking marriage licenses simply need to boycott both Duval and Clay counties. Period.

    In 2013, about one-third of couples seeking a marriage license in boh counties also purchased the optional, extra "package-deal" of a courthouse wedding ceremony, which included an officiant, a "chapel room" for the ceremony, and a photographer. So, instantly, those counties will be losing the additional revenue collected by withdrawing this optional service for which they charged an additional fee.

    I sincerely hope their little scheme backfires on them, once the word gets out and straight couples (in addition) become pissed with the pinched-nosed attitude of their own county officials, as this across-the-board withdrawal of service will affect EVERYONE. And quite frankly, driving down I-95 one county south to St. Augustine is no big deal. And St. Augustine is continuing to do what it has always done,– and will graciously provide a complete, full range of services for EVERYONE.

    Most people already boycott the antiquated, cramped, nasty facility of Baker county without any additional encouragement, as they only issued 30 marriage licenses there in all of 2013.

  • 56. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    Oooh, I know the perfect spot, guaranteed to piss off the Clay County clerk!

    The main Clay County courthouse in lovely "downtown" Green Cove Springs has a wide front esplanade, and faces the abandoned Chevy dealership across US 17, with the broad expanse of the St. Johns River as a backdrop. So, there's lots of room for the couple, the officiant, the photographer, all the media, friends, family, passers-by, and whoever.

    On the other hand, Duval county just needs to be boycotted by all and sundry, regardless of orientation. That county needs to feel the pinch when this revenue source dries up, as the clerk there is a politico with ambitions for higher office, and is the actual instigator of this "no more courthouse weddings" angle.

    I'd rather people wishing to be married spend their money in the neighboring, fully-welcoming counties of St. Johns and Putnam.

    Of course, couples can still be "old fashioned" and do what we did some years ago, when my then-boyfriend and I simply got "married" in the parking lot of a Jacksonville Beach pawn shop on US 90. And before anyone asks, we did the other thing later.

  • 57. F_Young  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    "The main Clay County courthouse in lovely "downtown" Green Cove Springs has a wide front esplanade…",-81.6857252

  • 58. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    Thank you for the panoramic picture.

    Isn't that the most splendid spot, immediately in front of that grandiose edifice, and thus, right under the clerk's pinched nose, for a really big, splashy, full-regalia gay wedding?

  • 59. F_Young  |  January 3, 2015 at 3:39 am

    VIRick: "…for a really big, splashy, full-regalia gay wedding? "

    Yes, but any couple who goes that route should make sure to buy all their services exclusively from vendors in welcoming counties (which excludes Clay County), and send an email informing their competitors in Clay County of this, with a copy to Clay County officials.

  • 60. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    5 Santa Rosa and Okaloosa have joined them – and we are looking at possible class action.

  • 61. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    Jim, I'm aware that both Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties are following in the footsteps of Duval/Clay counties in eliminating the long-standing practice of providing for the optional "package deal" courthouse wedding ceremony.

    However, I don't have the on-the-ground personal experience of having seen and been in their facilities to know their lay-out and what they might have once offered. So, I'd rather not comment about either.

    Perhaps, if we allow some time to pass, enough blow-back will ensue from straight couples who might still desire to partake in a courthouse wedding, and who have now become angered about the withdrawal of services, as this change is going to affect EVERYONE, so that:

    A. The clerks change their decision.

    B. The clerks are replaced by someone willing to provide for full service.

    I mean, come on, they're brazenly "redefining" marriage by withdrawing the traditional courthouse wedding ceremony!!

  • 62. josejoram  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Florida is reeeeeally Republican, isn't it?

  • 63. Deeelaaach  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    This appears to be the new tactic of the bigot, as shown by the tactics in KS and FL. Regarding marriage equality and performing marriages for all couples instead of only straight couples, they respond: <said in the tone of the petulant child> "MAKE ME!"

    It truly is a very childish response.

  • 64. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:46 am

    I 100% trusted Hinkle, as the decent person he is, would issue his order on the right time.Now this stuff is history.

  • 65. FredDorner  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:37 am

    I wouldn't be surprised at all if many counties in Floriduh and the other confederate states had done the same thing in 1967 when they learned that mixed-race couples had won the right to marry.

  • 66. davepCA  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    … oh yeah – so who won the bet we had about the date for this?

  • 67. sfbob  |  January 1, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    I think someone guessed it would be today. I was a day early and several people were a day late.

  • 68. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    I was a day late…who knew a Judge would work on the Holiday!!!

  • 69. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    Blew us right out of the water – I call our Lawyers at home and he said WHAT!!!!????? Call you right back – an HOUR later he and his wife (also a lawyer) called me back – they were VERY happy indeed but also surprised that Hinkle was working today.

  • 70. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    All I've got to say is Thank you from my heart for putting yourself in the direct line of fire……..we (meaning the overall Community) are within your debt for standing up and being a plaintiff.

    My fighting has been in the background, but I have had success changing a mind or two…….I appreciate all you have sacrifice regarding this issue.

    Big hugs to you and your husband!!

  • 71. brandall  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    josejoram said Friday, 1/1/15. And so did I!

    What did I win? I'm already married, so a date with an EoT'er is out of the question.

  • 72. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:37 pm

    What did you bet? No risk, no reward, I say. πŸ˜›

  • 73. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    "I'm already married, so a date with an EoT'er is out of the question."

    Ooooooh, bless you. You just broke my heart!

  • 74. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    How kind of you. Who is the picture of in your profile?

  • 75. VIRick  |  January 3, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    That's me, taken some years ago at a Pride parade, when I was totally ripped, and very hot-to-trot.

  • 76. brandall  |  January 4, 2015 at 8:19 am

    Geez, smart and good looking!

  • 77. VIRick  |  January 3, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    It would appear that my original response to you may have been deleted.

    So, I suppose I should just wave my hand in the air, and let that suffice as the answer.

  • 78. brandall  |  January 4, 2015 at 8:21 am

    It wasn't deleted. It was just delayed in showing up. This website is made up of the headline section and the comment section and they come from different places, servers, code, etc. Sometimes the comments don't update fast enough and then you are led to think your post didn't take. It's happened to me also.

  • 79. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 3:59 am

    Great! I now feel as if we were at the right path towards full equality for us and for our families. At least in the legal realm. The real social inclusion, perhaps I won't see it.

  • 80. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:24 am

    Nobody stated Thursday, 1/1/15. Many people said Friday, 1/2/15 (today), and a few on NYE, but no one took the federal holiday of NYE.

    Maybe Hinkle was reading this and wanted to pick the date no one selected. πŸ™‚

  • 81. GregInTN  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    It may be just me but I think Hinkle's "They lost." ranks right up there with Posner's "Go figure."
    Short and sweet!

  • 82. cpnlsn88  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    It is definitely on the money. It needs to be read out loud in a partly exasperated, partly sarcastic tone to get the full bite. It does not pull its punches. Game over.

  • 83. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Indeed! Here it is in Judge Hinkle's own words:

    "I stayed the ruling in this case while those stays were in effect and for 91 more days—long enough to allow the defendants to seek a further stay in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and, if unsuccessful there, in the United States Supreme Court. The defendants did that. They lost. "

    Memorable and classic. They lost.

  • 84. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    Thanks!!! appreciate the support – also – funny that so many key to those two words – my husband has been walking around the house grinning and saying "they lost" – "they lost" – I think he might be losing it a little.

  • 85. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Jim, he's allowed. Besides, "They lost!" LOL

  • 86. DrBriCA  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Agreed. Best two-word sentence in a decision since Posner's. Best of 2015, so far!

  • 87. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 2, 2015 at 11:58 am

    Considering that we are not yet that far into 2015, the phrase is not yet the automatic and unanimous winner. But it HAS to be in the running for best phrase of the year.

    And for best phrase of the decade? It and Posner's 'Game over.' comment are both in the running. I'd probably vote both a tie for best phrase of the decade. Short, sweet, and to the point.

  • 88. galen697  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Happy new year! Suck it, Bondi!

  • 89. sfbob  |  January 1, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    Since Hinkle references recognition of out-of-state marriages and cites the state-level defendants, do you suppose he is further implying that any state agency which refuses to recognize those marriages contracted in Florida or elsewhere could be added as defendants?

  • 90. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    I would hope so, at least implicitly!

  • 91. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    Okay Wiggle boy……where's the happy wiggle?

  • 92. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    I guess I was hoping for a revised order enjoining the state itself, rather than this purportedly clever clarification. I hope it's enough.


  • 93. StraightDave  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    I'd say it's plenty good enough when it provokes the following statement today from Greenberg Traurig’s co-president, Hilarie Bass:

    “The order states that the Constitution requires all clerks to issue marriage licenses to all applicants, regardless of gender.”

    “Judge Hinkle’s order states that any clerk refusing to issue a license could be subject to civil damages and liability for the plaintiffs’ fees and costs,”

    “Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should follow the judge’s ruling for all marriage-license applications or face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle.”

  • 94. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Works for me, SD! Thank you.

  • 95. RemC_Chicago  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    This is so weird. I know Hilarie Bass and a number of gay lawyers at Greenberg. This entire episode of behavior is…well, so weird.

  • 96. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 5:11 am

    Brenner here – actually it is not weird at all, Martin Gil the guy who brought us gay adoption in Florida and I discussed this at length – Greenberg Traurig in Miami is a law office, Greenberg Traurig in Tallahassee is a Lobbyist, — is it any surprise that an association of court clerks got the opinion they did from an office that makes it living WORKING with the state of Florida? Martin also says the two offices do not get along – at all.

  • 97. RemC_Chicago  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:34 am

    Oh, thanks for that clarification. I needed that light bulb to go off. Bless Martin Gil—my husband & I left our Florida lives behind for Illinois precisely because Illinois allowed us to adopt. Still don't regret leaving though. I would've hated having to live through Scott & Bondi. It was bad enough under Bush!

  • 98. Eric  |  January 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    Sounds like Greenberg has a pretty shoddy conflicts review policy. If they were my attorney, I'd file a bar complaint.

  • 99. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    That will work for now……….hugs to my wiggle boy<3

  • 100. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    No implication about it – he said exactly that. Remember that the ACLU's Grimsley case was consolidated with the Brenner case. Grimsley was eight same-sex couples seeking Florida's recognition of their out-of-state marriages. All of those out-of-state marriages must now be recognized, and anyone else who wants Florida to recognize their out-of-state marriage is in the same position as same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. They have a Constitutional right and anyone who stands in its way is subject to paying legal fees after a federal court gives them a swift kick in the ass.

  • 101. sfbob  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    The only reason I even bother asking is that most of Judge Hinkle's clarifying memorandum speaks only to the issuance of marriage licenses. You and I and everyone who isn't being wilfully obtuse is going to understand what he means when he references the Constitution but I have little doubt that, if Kansas is any example, at least SOME state agencies will decide his injunction doesn't apply to them.

  • 102. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Hi Bob, if folks in Florida want to go down that path, Judge Hinkle will smack them down in a quick heart beat……..and this stage of the game, these Clerks, AG's and Lawyers KNOW they have lost and they can get in line and follow the rulings or they can face the consequences.

  • 103. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 5:14 am

    that is all true but we really did not need the ACLU for the out of state marriage, just like Windsor, who was married in Ontario, my husband and I were married in Banff (Alberta) so we had one couple married and one unmarried – we had the bases covered before the ACLU decided to file – and our Attys had things well in hand without any help from them – in fact it has been the reverse.

  • 104. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:41 am

    Having more plaintiffs is a very, very good thing – with only one couple on each "base", things like accidental death and divorce can disable a plaintiff and send the whole legal investment down the toilet.

    Equality Florida filed its Pareto case on January 21, 2014 and that case had six same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. Brenner was filed in February and Grimsley (ACLU) filed with eight same-sex couples seeking marriage recognition in March. The reason Brenner got there first was that Equality Florida rather stupidly filed Pareto in state court rather than in federal court (as Brenner and Grimsley did).

    I know as a fact that ACLU was working on the Grimsley case before Brenner was filed (source: personal conversation with ACLU Florida Director Howard Simon BEFORE the Brenner case was filed).

    Federal lawsuits don't get filed with 16 well-vetted plaintiffs in a matter of hours – this took lots of preparation. When you have fewer plaintiffs and thus less work to do managing them all, then it's possible to get your case filed a bit faster, though at the increased risk of losing a critical plaintiff and falling short of victory for that reason.

  • 105. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 6:10 am

    How to procede to getting the material recognition of my foreign marriage in Florida?

  • 106. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:50 am

    Go to some state agency with your marriage certificate and if they don't accept it, contact the ACLU. In the May 2014 Florida state court case Dousset v. Florida Atlantic University, Dousset applied for in-state tuition based on his Massachusetts marriage. The university refused to recognize the marriage, but now with Hinkle's ruling the university has to accept it. You can use a university or any other state agency, no problem.

  • 107. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:19 am

    I sincerely apologize to you for my comments concerning our law suit. I mistakenly thought we had accomplished something with our attys. Clearly you have shown me that this was not the case, no idea why my name is on all of these documents and what all the work we did was about because it is very clear now that the the ACLU did it all and that we were totally inconsequential.

    All you have to do is watch their press conferences – they have never even mentioned the fact that there were others involved so I guess you MUST be right

  • 108. Eric  |  January 2, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    It doesn't look as good for fundraising if the ACLU admits to doing duplicative work.

  • 109. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Actually I think we are a much bigger threat to the ACLU because we did not use ANY of these organizations and were able to make this happen without them – if the average person can walk into an attys office and do what they do at such a huge cost, then it becomes apparent that they are no longer necessary. That is one thing they have a big problem with I am sure.

  • 110. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    Were there any local Florida ME organizations involved with you at the time you filed your initial lawsuit? When you go to the ACLU site, to your point, it lists only their filings as "Grimsley and Albu v Scott." When you go to FTM or EF, it lists the consolidated case name of Brenner v Scott, but then shows all filings regardless of which case the Plaintiff's attorney's provided the filing.

    What none of the sites clearly spell out is their (local gay rights orgs) involvement in your case from the beginning.

    And if I may ask one additional question and I am being sincere…If I may informally address you as Scott, I will. Otherwise, in the future, I shall address you as Saint Brenner for allowing your name, time and emotional efforts to be used as the vanguard for reversing all the damage started by Anita Bryant whose actions seriously traumatized me at a sensitive age.

  • 111. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    There were just two couples that saw a need to correct this situation. I will tell you that we did initially talk to Equality Florida, but they filed their suit and for reasons I have never clearly understood in State Court. It looked to us like it was going to be strictly about getting married and our concerns for retirement etc were not going to get addressed, so we decided to take matters into our own hands and hired TWO private law firms. Go to Wikipedia and look up Brenner v. Scott. The article there is right on the money – not sure who is keeping it up but the info there is very accurate – we added the photo and some of the info about the law firms.

    NOW, as to the Scott thing – where did you get that?? My name is Jim/James – meaning I go by Jim. and as to Saint – that would be something NO ONE has ever come close to calling me – because I do not come close to qualifying – however if you want to kiss my ring you can — πŸ™‚ sorry could not resist – see nothing saintly about me.

  • 112. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    Duh (palm to forehead), my apology for Scott which just came out of my head to my fingers wrong. Jim, love the ring line!

  • 113. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:37 am

    Thank you very much, ianbirmingham.

  • 114. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    Thank you very much, ianbirmingham. My previous thanks I believe went to the wrong recipient.

  • 115. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    just out of curiosity how do you define this "consolidated" term you keep throwing around – these two cases are totally separate and were "joined" by judge Hinkle for judicial expediency – if they had been consolidated they would have had one law firm handling them.

  • 116. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Look at the first page of Hinkle's order regarding the county clerks. It says "CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS", referring to the fact that Brenner and Grimsley were consolidated into a single case.

  • 117. fireman452  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    They were NOT consolidated into a single case, even the ACLU has said this – that term does NOT mean a single case – it means a single folder separate cases – I will try once more to make you understand OUR case, the judge joined the cases for judicial expediency – the cases were separate – if you look at his LAST order on the 1st it ONLY mentions Brenner – unlike, and that was the same in his memo to the state earlier last month – ONLY BRENNER, because Grimsley did not have any unmarried couples and was not a part of the case for marriage so he did not address them, and our attys were the only ones to reply as it should have been – if the case was ONE case, then why were there two entirely separate law firms handling it? But of course YOU know better I have only been living this for a year – YOU would always know better than the people who are living the case. By the way just in case you think you are dealing with someone else you feel you must teach, I HAVE SOME pretty impressive credentials too.

  • 118. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    BRENNER et al v. SCOTT et al
    Filing 34

    ORDER SETTING A PARTIAL SCHEDULE AND CONSOLIDATING THE CASES FOR CASE-MANAGEMENT PURPOSES – These cases are consolidated for case-management purposes only and will be maintained on a common docket under Consolidated Case No. 4:14c v107. The pending motions to consolidate (ECF Nos. 23 & 28 in Case No. 4:14cv107 and ECF No. 15 in Case No. 4:14cv138) are GRANTED…

    28 U.S. Code § 1407 – Multidistrict litigation

    (a) When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. …

    … In order to efficiently process cases that could involve hundreds (or thousands) of plaintiffs in dozens of different federal courts that all share common issues, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decides whether cases should be consolidated under MDL,…

  • 119. fireman452  |  January 3, 2015 at 5:22 am

    glad you finally saw the light CONSOLIDATING THE CASES FOR CASE-MANAGEMENT PURPOSES – we maintained two separate case numbers under one judicial folder – The ACLU did not list any defendants for marriage – the Clerk of Courts in Washington County was listed because of Steve and Ozzie and the ACLU had NOTHING to do with it other than crowing from the sidelines trying to take credit but those that matter know – Sheppard and Jacobson were the lawyers that made this happen. And if their plaintiffs took the time to look at some of the filings the ACLU filed in November they would turn red with embarrassment. They were complaining that they did not have the time to get it done and it was apparent to everyone when they filed it.

  • 120. ianbirmingham  |  January 3, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Links to specific examples please? The only filing I see in Grimsley in November is this one, a thirty-pager which looks pretty reasonable to me:

    The ACLU's main page for Grimsley is here:

  • 121. Zack12  |  January 1, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    I enjoy seeing a judicial smackdown in the New Year.

  • 122. StraightDave  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    I have to admit I was very wrong. When Hinkle first issued his Jan 5 deadline (might have been implicit at the time), I thought there would be so much stuff happening between then and now that it would never end up actually being Jan 5. I mean, nobody was able to predict anything happening 91 days in advance. October cert was widely expected, stays were everywhere, …

    But here we are! That elusive certainty and stability is starting to take hold. Now it's more of a shock when something does go wrong. I like when the "new normal" is also a good normal for a change.

  • 123. brandall  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    Hey Bondi! Hinkle is talking to YOU:

    SMACKDOWN #1: "History records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds.

    SMACKDOWN #2: "a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

    SMACKDOWN #3: "no plaintiff now in this case has standing to seek a preliminary injunction requiring the Clerk to issue other licenses. The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses.

    And Bondi….why don't you PUBLICLY tell the residents of Florida how much the estimated amount (millions of dollars) that state will owe the Plaintiff's attorneys BEFORE you enter another desperate court filing in anyone of the 10 cases you are fighting.

  • 124. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 1, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    I think I love you. Don't tell your husband. πŸ˜‰ LOL

  • 125. RnL2008  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    Hey, I know I love ya and many others…….my wife knows how loyal I am to those I consider friends and extended family!!

  • 126. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 2, 2015 at 6:17 am

    Haha. Good point, Rose. Much love to you!

  • 127. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    How kind of you to say that. But did you know I must have married someone who is related to you? My husband's name is Son of Kit of Smoldering Ashes. He is much better looking than his name.

  • 128. davepCA  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:54 pm

    I especially like smackdown #3. Really has a nice "ring" to it!

  • 129. ebohlman  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Short #3: "We answer to a higher authority"

  • 130. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Lee County has reversed itself and now it will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

  • 131. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    There will BE no exceptions believe me – count on it, NONE of the clerks in Florida will refuse more than ONE couple – there are enough lawyers out there now just waiting for one of them to make the wrong move – and they know it – Our attys – the ones that won this law suit for marriage IN Florida, were on the phone with us this evening and they are now totally convinced that with Greenberg Traurig throwing in the towel and telling the Association to follow the judges orders or suffer the consequences – it is OVER – and I mean — OVER – all we have to do now is win with the 11th circuit – we are not 100% sure but we are pretty sure they will see things our way – of course Bondi could appeal to SCOTUS when she loses but that has not been working out very well for her – I mean at that time what would be the point???

  • 132. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    Hope so, the fight in Florida was very big, i hope there's no need to sue any Florida agencies to recognize the marriages, like gay couples are doing in Kansas, since the agencies are not recognizing them as legally married.

  • 133. fireman452  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:23 pm

    OH – now hold on I did not say THAT – I said the clerks will have to issue licenses – our lawyers fully expect that there are more legal battles to come. Mr Sheppard keeps reminding me of all of the cases when the racial civil rights issues were being fought. This is just the first round – we are going to have to continue to push and not let up until we have full acceptance.

  • 134. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    You have a big chance in 11th circuit

    8 of the 11 active judges were appointed by a Democrat president and one appointed by President Ford dissented in a decision upholding Florida ban in gay adoption.

  • 135. Zack12  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    You have to read the fine print on some of those judges.
    Julie Carnes and Frank Hull are Republicans in Democratic clothing though it should be noted Hull refused to grant a stay on the Florida ruling.
    William Pyror is the only judge George W was able to get on the 11th circuit and be assured that he is a no vote.
    A moot point in the end, I think SCOTUS will step in before the 11th circuit has a chance to do anything.

  • 136. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    Even with that and with the ford judge in our side, 7 judges in 11 is a really good number; we don't know yet about Julie, she may be a judge like the Michigan and the Kentucky are; i think frank is a equality one, i don't think she would refuse the stay if she is a bigoted one

  • 137. Zack12  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    Indeed, it would intresting to see but the reality is we will likely never know.

  • 138. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    The 19 (not 11) active 11th Circuit judges were appointed by…

    Carter – 2
    Clinton – 3
    Obama – 5
    Total left – 10

    Ford – 3
    Reagan – 2
    GHW Bush – 3
    GW Bush – 1
    Total right – 9

    The worst right-winger is the GW Bush appointee, William Pryor.

    11th Circuit will be OK, thanks to the recent influx of Obama appointees.

  • 139. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    The 8 are senior judges, they are not active judges, they can hear cases, but they can't be called ACTIVE

  • 140. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    The senior judges are the 2 Carter appointees, 2 Ford appointees, 2 Reagan appointees, and 2 GHW Bush appointees. If these eight are excluded then we have 8 left and only 3 right, making the 11th Circuit a very easy win for us.

  • 141. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    From the senior judges
    Anderson, a Carter judge and Dubina, a GHW Bush judge dissented from upholding the ban on gay adoption.

    Susan Black, a GHW Bush judge and Larry Edmondson, a Reagan judge voted to uphold the ban on gay adoption.

  • 142. netoschultz  |  January 1, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Hillsborough County plans to extend office hours on Tuesday, the day Hinkle's ruling takes effect.

    Pinellas County will also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

    Pasco County would wait to consult her legal counsel before deciding on a course of action.

  • 143. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    Of course they will. Plus, both the Hillsborough and Pinellas clerks plan to continue with the long-standing optional courthouse wedding ceremony feature, as an add-on package.

    Hillsborough (Tampa) county and Pinellas (St. Petersburg) county have always been on our side. The Visit Tampa Bay tourism board has a pre-prepared ad campaign all ready to go, to transform Tampa/St. Petersburg into the gay wedding capital of the south. As date-lined back on 22 December 2014:

    "The Tampa Bay tourist board has readied an ad campaign advertising to same-sex couples in other states, specifically, Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, which says: 'Our Treasures Are Yours, To Have And To Hold.'"

    “Tampa Bay has been a GLBTA-friendly destination for years – and now that Florida has recognised marriage equality, Tampa Bay is a marriage destination for everyone. From the brick-lined streets of GaYBOR (a GLBTA-friendly collective of 200 businesses located in historic Ybor City) to the unique venues throughout the area, you can conquer a fabulous wedding with ease.”

    The statement said: “Visit Tampa Bay’s new ad campaign is aimed at those seeking same-sex marriages in the state, should the ban fall as expected on 5 January. The ad campaign will reach to the Northeast, the Middle Atlantic, Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas, along with digital ads in Chicago and Dallas.”

    Santiago Corrada of Visit Tampa Bay said: “We’ve had this campaign ready for a while. As the region has created domestic partnership registries and taken other steps to become more welcoming to same-sex couples, weddings and honeymoons are the logical next step.”

  • 144. RemC_Chicago  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:27 am

    Ironic. Wasn't Tampa once the home of a homophobic "values" group? I always thought of that corner of the state as being a bit narrow-minded.

  • 145. flyerguy77  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    I'm guessing that Pasco County wants to have a little chat with Judge Hinkle if they don't change their tune πŸ™‚

  • 146. VIRick  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    As per the earlier citation from Lee county, indicating a positive reveral of attitude:

    "The Lee County (Fort Myers) Clerk of Court, Linda Doggett said. 'The Lee County Clerk's Office will be legally issuing marriage licenses to everyone, including same-gender couples, recognizing marriage-equality, on January 6, 2015.'"

    They're fallng like dominos.

    And then, check this out:

    "Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who has steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage, did not comment publicly on the judge's order. His second inauguration, scheduled for Tuesday, is expected to take place on the same day that gay Floridians are first allowed to marry."

    Without question, I KNOW we can up-stage his inauguration for top-billing, especilly if we can manage a few strategically-placed, top-notch gay weddings.

    Where is the governor's inauguration ceremony to he held? At the state capitol?

    Hmmmm, the Leon County Clerk of Court's website seems to be down. Ah, I've located it, perfectly placed in the middle of downtown Tallahassee, and directly across the street from the state capitol building. So, how convenient is THAT? The governor can be doing his boring thing on the capitol steps, while across the street, on the courthouse steps, Brenner and friends can be making history.

    Leon County Courthouse
    301 South Monroe Street
    Tallahassee 32301
    (850) 606-5504

    Florida State Capitol
    400 South Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32399

    And then there's this:

    "Brenner said he remains concerned that the clerk in Leon County, which includes Tallahassee, will not heed Hinkle's order. He plans to accompany another couple, friends of his, to the clerk's office on Tuesday morning to ensure they receive a license. If they don't, he said, his attorneys are on speed-dial."

  • 147. RemC_Chicago  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:29 am

    Go get 'em, Mr. Brenner!

  • 148. Zack12  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    Bondi is really not any different then the rest of the right wing AG's we've encountered.
    Most of them have their eyes set on higher office so they will gladly trash and degrade our relationships in order to appeal to the right wing bigots that will help them do so.
    I hope that when Bondi does run for something like Senate or the governor, our base will remember her actions here and actually turn out.

  • 149. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:20 pm

    Our base just had a chance to kick her out of office in favor of her extraordinarily well qualified Democratic opponent, George Sheldon. Bondi got 55.1% to Sheldon's 42.0%. This is after she had just spent her whole first term poking our base in the eye with a very sharp stick.

  • 150. RemC_Chicago  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:25 am

    Inexplicable, right? The "I'm not gonna bother to vote" contingency got what they deserved.

  • 151. guitaristbl  |  January 1, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    And a happy new year to Bondi then ! Hinkle decided on the very first day of the year to make it pretty clear to all clerks : You either abide by the law or get ready to pay the legal costs and attorney fees when more plaintiffs are added and I expand my injunction to specifically mention your bigoted county. Florida is officially number 36 then !
    As for the 5 thus far counties saying they would stop courthouse weddings altogether tough luck. You still have to issue those licenses at least. Bigotry knows no limits and it really brings out the most immature and childish behaviour to certain people. Sad.

    Congrts to mr. Brenner and all the plaintiffs and all Florida couples !

  • 152. weshlovrcm  |  January 1, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    Take THAT Anita Bryant!

  • 153. DrBriCA  |  January 1, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Tuesday is also the second inauguration for Gov. Scott. I hope there are gay weddings happening across the way while he is sworn in. πŸ˜‰

  • 154. RemC_Chicago  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:23 am

    So happy to be able to witness a "take THAT Anita Bryant" in my lifetime.

  • 155. FredDorner  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:51 am

    Where's a pie when you need one?

  • 156. andrewofca  |  January 2, 2015 at 10:41 am

    To use Anita Bryant's own words, "Enough is enough".

    Sweet karma πŸ˜‰

  • 157. hopalongcassidy  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    As an Okie who knew her personally a thousand years ago, I can only say

  • 158. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    Before Florida, SSM was legal in 35 states containing 64% of the US population.

    After Florida, SSM now prevails in 36 states, together containing over 70% of the US population.

  • 159. scream4ever  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    It's even more if you include Missouri!

  • 160. ianbirmingham  |  January 1, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    If the entire state of Missouri is added then the total becomes 37 states and 72 percent.

  • 161. bythesea66  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:11 am

    We may well get AR too before SCOTUS makes it nationwide.

  • 162. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:17 am

    The ACLU has announced its intention to immediately sue any county clerk who refuses SSM:

    "This is a wonderful development," said ACLU of Florida attorney Daniel Tilley, who represented eight same-sex couples in the federal lawsuit.

    "We expect all clerks to respect the ruling," he said. But his organization is prepared to sue those who do not. "We are committed to ensuring marriage equality in all 67 counties in Florida, and we would like to hear from any couples that are wrongfully denied a license after the stay expires."

  • 163. sfbob  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:01 am

    If I understand correctly, in Kansas not all counties are even issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. So if all counties in Florida start issuing licenses come next Tuesday then Florida will at least be ahead of Kansas in that respect.

  • 164. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 2, 2015 at 7:27 am

    VERY late to the party (the problem with partying too much New Year's Day with friends in town), but VERY happy to see the Order to clarify come out sooner rather than later.

    I have to say, Judge Hinkle took the high road for the most part, with a few select zingers in there that have already been called out above. Glad to see the law firm that originally advised the association of clerks not to issue licenses has reversed course (one article in the Miami Herald is saying the Tallahassee unit of the firm gave the original guidance and then was overrided by the Miami office after this order). And from what I've seen, only positive statements from clerks saying they'll abide by the ruling now.

  • 165. jpmassar  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:53 am


    Luxembourg became the latest country to legalize same-sex marriage when a new marriage equality law came into effect on January 1.

    Jean Paul Olinger and Henri Lorenzo Huber were the first same-sex couple to marry in Luxembourg, and despite the public holiday Thursday, the Differdange town hall opened for the ceremony, officiated by mayor Roberto Traversini, according to the Luxemburger Wort.

  • 166. MGinPA  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:20 am

    Any developments in Alabama and Georgia? They are in the 11th Circuit and if their bans were struck down there likely wouldn't be a stay.

  • 167. guitaristbl  |  January 2, 2015 at 9:35 am

    The judge handling the lawsuit in Georgia is a bigoted George bush appointee so even if the case gets out of district court, it won't be with a positive decision appealed.
    Alabama is a mess with multiple lawsuits filed, all of them moving at a snail's pace.
    Nothing good will come (if it comes at all before SCOTUS rules) out of these states so that our side can get advantage of the denial of stay from the 11th.

  • 168. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    No surprise….Idaho filed their petition to SCOTUS.

    I hope Idaho's citizens enjoy paying the additional bills to cover both sides in their fruitless filing.

  • 169. RnL2008  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    Why would SCOTUS take the appeal from a State that's marriage equality issue has already been decided by the binding ruling of the 9th CA? This appears to be a waste of money and time.

  • 170. cpnlsn88  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    If SCOTUS didn't buy it for California, the 10th, 7th and 4th Circuits I don't think they're about to buy it from Idaho – still, keeps a few lawyers busy and out of trouble.

  • 171. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Hey Rose! Idaho just filed a 2nd SCOTUS petition. This one is from the AG. The one above is from the Governor.

    Dumb and Dumber (couldn't resist).

  • 172. RnL2008  |  January 2, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Awwwwwwwww why do people vote for morons like these? By the time Idaho gets done paying for their stupidity, the State will be broke…….dumb azzes!!!

  • 173. RnL2008  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    From this source:
    Otter’s main argument is that Idaho believes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is better for children, and that states should be able to make that call. He argues that the limit sends a message to heterosexual couples that they should stay together and raise children.

    “Removing that definition and replacing it with an ‘any two qualified persons’ definition will inevitably weaken those child-centric norms,” Schaerr wrote. “As a result, more children of heterosexual couples will likely grow up without the active influence of one or both biological parents, and will therefore face an increased risk of crime, emotional and psychological difficulties, poor performance in school and other ills.”

    This is NOTHING more than a Bogus attempt to keep their DISCRIMINATORY marriage bans in place……there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that denying Gays and Lesbians the right to marry will make opposite-sex couples remain married………and that argument has LOST in pretty much every court case so far.

  • 174. DrBriCA  |  January 2, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    100% agreed, Rose. Allowing or forbidding marriages for same-couples in no way affects how heterosexual couple will form.

    Not to mention that this tired argument is also offensive to those capable heterosexual family units where neither parent is the biological parent (think adoptive & foster families, or even when grandparents or others relatives fill in when the parents themselves are gone or unable to care for the children.) It also keeps ignoring that many same-sex couples do include at least one biological parent for the child.

  • 175. RnL2008  |  January 2, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    Today is one of those days for me and I would enjoy NOTHING more than ripping off the face of those anti-gay bigots who make such RIDICULOUS claims and then believe it……….fruck, when do we get to smack these morns down for their stupidity?

  • 176. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    This nonsense recalls those days when "homo" was a synonim for "deviant". Not now, not anymore.

  • 177. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    It's really necessary to say why these "points" are actually non-points?

  • 178. brandall  |  January 2, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Why did George Wallace chain the doors to the school? For the same reason as Otter. They want to be remembered for their strong moral values and protecting their citizens from their evil minorities.

  • 179. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:31 pm

  • 180. josejoram  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    Just another (positive) immediate effect of Hinkle's historic ruling:

  • 181. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 2, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    With the County Clerks association getting that "updated advice" from their counsel, and an apparent conference call amongst the 67 clerks, their association, and their counsel today, there is no word of any county clerk holding out. (Granted we have this issue of clerks now eliminating courthouse marriages altogether since it would be icky to marry two gay men or lesbians.)

    So credit to Hinkle – the man knew what he was doing with handling this motion to clarify. There are a lot of planned celebrations in various counties on Tuesday; it should be a great day.

  • 182. RnL2008  |  January 2, 2015 at 10:03 pm

    Hi Ryan…….this time the site came up for me…yeah:-)

    Anyways, when these Counties start losing money because there are no more Courthouse wedding taking place, the Clerks will start to feel the heat from the City Councils or the Mayor or the Board of Directors because now they have lost revenue and as ridiculous as it may be…MONEY talks and BS walks and either these Clerks will change their attitude or they will be losing their jobs.

    That was a huge reason why Massachusetts had a change of heart (yea, right) when they rescinded their residency requirement……they saw all that money going to California and realized quickly that they wanted some of that multi-million dollar wedding revenue……the Counties in Florida won't stand for losing money…..their deeply held religious beliefs will change!!!

  • 183. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    I think you are overestimating those "Lower Alabama" and "Lower Georgia" counties… these are the counties that got Rick Scott and Pam Bondi re-elected!

  • 184. josejoram  |  January 3, 2015 at 5:46 am

    I can't stop visiting this breaking news. I am eager to read the final 11th.Circuit ruling setting once and forever this matter.

  • 185. whistleblower1  |  January 3, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    Please see my comment below. (I wonder what the State will argue if they don't even file a reply brief!)

  • 186. montezuma58  |  January 3, 2015 at 6:05 am

    Escambia County in northwest Florida will do courthouse weddings.

    That's next door to a couple of the counties that are taking their ball and going home.

  • 187. RnL2008  |  January 3, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    Good for them…..and they will have added revenue, while the other Counties lose that revenue……exactly how long do you think the Governments of those Counties are going to stand by losing money? My guess is NOT long at all!!!

  • 188. VIRick  |  January 3, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    Escambia County is also right on the Alabama border, and only a short drive from Mobile. Given that Florida waives the 3-day wait for out-of-state couples, expect a horde of eager couples there from Alabama (and points beyond), lined up for their Florida marriage licenses, and for the courthouse civil wedding ceremony to follow immediately thereafter. I predict a very busy day at the courthouses in Pensacola and Century. (Century is at the north end of the county, the first town south of Alabama on US 29).

    In the opposite corner of the state, I also expect a horde of eager couples from Georgia (and Duval County), lined up at the Nassau County courthouse, only a few miles south of the Georgia line, for their brand-new Florida marriage licenses and for the courthouse civil wedding ceremony, immediately following. Thus, it ought to be equally busy at the courthouse there in Yulee.

    Most of the money for the marriage license fee goes to the state. Most of the money ($30 add-on) for the courthouse civil wedding ceremony is retained by the county. So, for those counties who are eliminating this optional add-on courtesy, they're immediately slashing their own throats. Hopefully, it will soon lead to some serious backlash.

    In checking the marriage statistics for Duval and Clay Counties for the year 2013 (when only heteros were being married), roughly one-third of all applicants for a Florida marriage license also opted for the add-on courthouse civil wedding ceremony. So, automatically, the withdrawal of this service is guaranteed to piss off about one-third of the general population, the very people who want a CIVIL marriage in the first instance. They're already not interested in a religious service, and are definitely not at all interested in someone else imposing their own personal religious biases, while adding their peculiar anal-retentive proclivities into the mix.

  • 189. whistleblower1  |  January 3, 2015 at 6:41 pm


  • 190. scream4ever  |  January 3, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    So will there not even be a need for oral arguments/a trial after this?

  • 191. whistleblower1  |  January 3, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    There is still an appeal. The State did not withdraw its appeal. But in not submitting a reply brief in support of its appeal the State will appear very awkward during oral argument (they will still proceed) and its ability to argue will be limited due to the fact that without a reply brief for the Court to review *beforehand* – the court is going to be very skeptical in accepting any *facts* as facts as the court is deprived of an opportunity to independently check whatever facts the State will argue. This is very awkward procedurally and not helpful to the State's position. My guess is that this is now a p.r. nightmare for the AG's office and she is betting that SCOTUS will grant cert. very soon and settle the matter so there is no need for her to argue arguments that are unlikely to prevail and in the process create more outrage among some – especially when the writing is on the wall with regard to how all this will end (i.e. nationwide marriage equality).

  • 192. scream4ever  |  January 3, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    That makes sense. I'm hoping we can edge out some additional victories from the 5th and 11th Circuits though, and possibly from some additional states in the 8th.

  • 193. Zack12  |  January 3, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    Having done some additional research on the 11th, the only two sure no votes are (no shockers here) the judges from Alabama, Edward Carnes and William Pyror.
    Frank Hull is a DINO but since she declined to grant a stay, she might be on our side.
    On the other hand, Robers and Alito refused to grant stays as well and I don't see them being on our side at the end either.

  • 194. montezuma58  |  January 4, 2015 at 8:59 am

    Getting nitpicky here, but we don't know how those two voted on stays. Scalia and Thomas are the only ones who announced their votes. Theoretically Kennedy and Ginsburg could have voted for the stays for all we know for sure. The votes could have been antything from 5-4 to 7-2.

  • 195. whistleblower1  |  January 3, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    I can see where you are coming form. I, personally, would rather SCOTUS grant cert on 1/9/15 and decrease the possibility of another possible appeals court ruling against us. It looks better that way, in my humble opinion.

  • 196. mario315  |  January 3, 2015 at 11:13 pm

    Here in South Florida the media coverage leading up to this Tuesday's BIG day has been nothing short of spectacular !….. Very proud of all our media outlets….. Since Friday, they've been airing numerous feature stories about many of the couples planning to marry, have given much needed information about the Clerks' "requirements" and have kept promoting the increasing number of marriage equality events being planned beginning at midnight Monday…..

    There will be live TV coverage of the first weddings at midnight followed by live coverage at 3AM of the mass wedding in Fort Lauderdale…. Live coverage at 6PM Tuesday from Miami Beach of another mass wedding officiated by Mayor Philip Levine…. Also being promoted are live remotes from Key West and Palm Beach County ceremonies on Monday overnight and Tuesday at sunrise….

    The stations keep leading their newscasts with "team coverage" live from different locations throughout the area and with multiple reporters assigned to the story… It feels like the Hurricane advisories coverage they're so used to doing here in the summer….And it's not even Tuesday yet !

    All this heightened excitement in South Florida is quite the antidote to the black eye we received from the bigoted Clerks in the northern region and from the despicable Greenberg Traurig law firm in Tallahassee…

    Hope everyone here can follow online our historic day in Florida beginning on Monday night !!!… Check twitter for WSVN-7…. WFOR-4…..WPLG-10….. WTVJ-6…..WPTV-5…. WPEC-12….WPBF-25…. Miami Herald…. Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel….. Palm Beach Post…. Cheers !!!

  • 197. josejoram  |  January 4, 2015 at 12:24 am

    I am just pasting your thread and certainely I will be "in tune" on Tuesday. It's really touching!

  • 198. Waxr  |  January 5, 2015 at 7:40 am

    I can understand the "Hurricane advisories coverage." There are some who still think fire and brimstone will start raining from the sky.

  • 199. ianbirmingham  |  January 4, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    Jeb Bush bashes gay marriage – Miami Herald

    As he considers a presidential run, Jeb Bush is not offering encouraging words about same-sex marriages coming to his home state. “It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision,” the former governor said Sunday in a brief interview. “The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts…"

    The leader of a group fighting Florida’s gay-marriage restrictions criticized Bush’s Sunday comments as endorsing discrimination.

    “So the people should have the right to enact a discriminatory law?” said Howard Simon, director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the same-sex couples in the federal case against Florida’s gay-marriage amendment. “That sounds like what he was saying. That unfortunately is consistent from what I remember about Jeb Bush’s tenure as governor.”

  • 200. sfbob  |  January 4, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    No surprise there.

  • 201. NorthernAspect  |  January 5, 2015 at 8:07 am

    Can someone please explain WHY Judge Hinkle's would only have issued a Preliminary Injunction versus a Permanent Injunction? The legal analysis and rigour to arrive at either results seems exactly the same?

  • 202. Raga  |  January 5, 2015 at 10:51 am

    The Plaintiffs moved the court for a preliminary injunction, which doesn't require fact-finding, determination of whether there should be a trial, and if so, conducting a trial, etc. that may take a longer time to complete for a permanent injunction to be issued. The legal analysis for a preliminary injunction is very similar to that for granting a stay, in the four factors that must be balanced. That is not required for a permanent injunction (either on summary judgment or after a trial).

    I don't know if they have already moved for summary judgment or not. It doesn't matter now, while the preliminary injunction is under appeal at the Eleventh Circuit. If the Eleventh affirms and it becomes final (with or without SCOTUS playing a role), there could be a simple motion to convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction (as was the case in Colorado) and close the case.

  • 203. NorthernAspect  |  January 5, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Thanks Raga. I guess if there was some dispute of the facts of the case, the plaintiffs would request a preliminary injunction. But if there was no dispute of the facts, I don't quite understand why either or both of the parties wouldn't just petition the court for summary judgment. The volume of briefing seems about the same, and response times from the Court seems about the same…

  • 204. Raga  |  January 5, 2015 at 11:24 am

    Determining whether there is or is not a dispute of facts (parties don't always agree on this) could take additional time. Even though in some courts summary judgment has proceeded fast and/or expedited, the speed is up to the judge (look at how slowly the Georgia/Alabama cases are moving, for example). In general, preliminary injunction briefing/proceedings are faster than those for summary judgment, with exceptions occurring depending on the specific judge/case background.

  • 205. Raga  |  January 5, 2015 at 10:40 am

    I don't think I have an exact answer, but Judge Hinkle, in his preliminary injunction, did conclude that the marriage bans facially unconstitutional. However, under the "IT IS ORDERED:" part in the end, he only explicitly ordered relief for the Plaintiffs (injunctive portion) because it wasn't a class action suit, and I don't think the Plaintiffs explicitly asked for a declaratory judgment (I may be wrong). And, to the extent Paragraph 4 enjoined the named state officials from enforcing the discriminatory laws, the issue of whether it applies statewide, etc. has been left unresolved. In other states with similar rulings, the clerks and/or state officials had automatically interpreted the declaratory portion as requiring issuance of marriage licenses to all persons. Florida and Kansas are the ones who were trying to stick to the narrowest binding interpretation.

  • 206. NorthernAspect  |  January 5, 2015 at 11:13 am

    Thanks Raga. Deleted my question as I believe I used the wrong wording/premise. But I think you got what I was getting that in – i.e. if there is facial challenge to a law (as opposed to an an-applied challenge to a law), how can the appropriate remedy and order from the Court only apply to the plaintiffs named in the case?

  • 207. Raga  |  January 5, 2015 at 11:30 am

    Again, I'd have to look at the original complaint to be sure, but I don't think Plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment that the ban was unconstitutional. The judge is under no obligation to provide relief that is not requested by the Plaintiffs, even though he concluded the challenged laws are facially unconstitutional. Another possible explanation is that perhaps the preliminary injunction process itself is restricted and can only be used for granting preliminary relief to the named Plaintiffs? I don't know enough law to be sure. Perhaps the rules are different for a final judgment, which could, in theory, go the other way and uphold the bans.

  • 208. Equality On TrialBREAKING&hellip  |  January 28, 2015 at 9:53 am

    […] decision resembles a recent order that a district court judge in Florida issued clarifying the decision striking down that state’s […]

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