Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Alabama same-sex marriage ban struck down

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

UPDATE: Alabama’s attorney general has asked the district court for a stay in a three-page request, citing stays granted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The request for a stay doesn’t mention the district and Eleventh Circuit courts’ denials of a stay in the Florida marriage case, nor does it mention the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay in that same case.

In a federal challenge to Alabama’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside of the state, it appears that a judge has struck down the marriage ban in its entirety.

The court notes, in part: “Additionally, these laws further injures those children of all couples who are themselves gay or lesbian, and who will grow up knowing that Alabama does not believe they are as capable of creating a family as their heterosexual friends.

For all of these reasons, the court finds that Alabama’s marriage laws violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

In its conclusion, the order refers to the entire Alabama marriage law scheme that bans same-sex marriage and recognition.

There was no argument in the case; it was decided on the filings. There is no stay.

We will have more information when we read the opinion in full.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. hopalongcassidy  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Ding Ding Ding. And the beat goes on.

  • 2. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:10 am

    These boots were made for walkin. . .

  • 3. scream4ever  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    There likely will be no stay from the 11th nor the Supreme Court since they didn't grant one for Florida!!!

  • 4. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    I live here in Alabama so I'm practically shaking with excitement from this news! It was hard to even focus to write that! So happy.

  • 5. PaulK_VT  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    Hurray! Happy for you Scottie. And for all gay and lesbian Alabamians.

  • 6. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Scottie, go find a couple getting married and post the pictures on EoT! Very happy ME finally came to your state.

  • 7. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm

    I really want to do that. I'd have to know where they would be lining up or something. I live in a very rural area of the state so it's hard to find people really. I might try to call around on Monday and see if people are going to be lining up anywhere specific.

  • 8. DeadHead  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    I would think Birmingham since it has a good sized LGBTQ population. There is no waiting period in your state so I bet there will be some couples from Atlanta and maybe Memphis who will be lining up to get married.

  • 9. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    B'ham is unfortunately 3+ hours away, or else I would go. The furthest I could go is Mobile. So I'll look around here and there.

  • 10. hopalongcassidy  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    Back in the 80s Mobile was one of my favorite destinations. I flew the company plane there many times and had wonderful encounters. Lots of fun times. I don't know about right now but surely it's still a cool place, yes?

  • 11. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    In 2013, the population of Mobile, AL was estimated at 194,899 (city itself, not including the suburbs). If the GLBT community numbers even 1% (and I believe it is MUCH larger), that means there are probably almost 1000 couples who would be in the 'suspect' pool. And if the suburbs and Florida panhandle and subrbs in Mississippi are thrown in, and the percentage of 'suspect class' GLBT is 'upped' to 3%, the number of same-sex couples could easily be about or above 5000. If the GLBT number is increased to 5%, the number of 'eligible' couples could be much higher than 5000.

    If any couples wed in Mobile this weekend, I'm sure Scottie shouldn't have much trouble finding couples who have tied the knot.

    And yes, I know a lot of couples might gone to Florida; even so, there almost certainly have been several hundred couples in Mobile alone who still want to get married.

  • 12. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Scottie, this decision, "Searcy v. Strange," comes out of Mobile.

    And like the one exception in the Florida panhandle, Pensacola, Mobile and its environs, just like Mike has stated, are perhaps the least retrograde corner of Alabama. If any courthouse will be open in Alabama tomorrow, it may well be the one in Mobile.

  • 13. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Congratulations to you!

  • 14. RemC_Chicago  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    That makes me happy and give me goose pimples.

  • 15. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    So Scottie, do ya have any plans to celebrate?

  • 16. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Honestly, I hadn't made any plans. There hadn't even been arguments in this case or Hard v. Strange. I thought the judges were going to stall forever. So I'm totally stunned. I'm gonna have to come up with plans though. Right now my plan is to sit here and smile, apparently.

  • 17. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    Well, I'm sure we're all as surprised as you…….Congratulations for having Alabama come into the 21st Century…….and when you do make plans….let us all know about them:-)

  • 18. ianbirmingham  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    Color me 100% NOT surprised… I've been saying since the Holiday thread that "many of the judges who have ruled in favor of marriage equality have been appointed by right- wing presidents, so further defections to our side are to be expected." And many of the other commenters here have insulted me and told me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Will they eat their humble pie now?

  • 19. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    My guess is probably not because for most of us here, we've been fighting this issue a long time and we have learned NOT to believe in Judges that have been appointed by the ring-wingers……..but many have surprised most of us, while others have shown exactly who we always thought them to be…….we take the victories one Judge and Court at a time.


  • 20. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    Rose, I like the way Ian always grandly announces his wisdom-in-hindsight after-the-fact predictions. That takes a lot of skill.

    And eating humble pie on a predominately gay site??? No offense Rose, but I seriously doubt there are very many pie-eaters here. For one, I strictly stay on the other side of the street, and would be ridiculously inept and totally clueless in any pie-eating contest. Nope. Sorry, not my flavor. Ever.

  • 21. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    I seriously hear ya…….I think that's why I put it that way…….we all have been fighting this fight together whether we our selves were plaintiffs or just the support team repeating our stuff over and over again…….when Prop 8 passed, there were so many idiots on topix's that kept telling me that I was no longer married, yada yada yada and yet, in August we will be celebrating our 7th wedding anniversary and finally being able to file joint tax return and get my wife on my VA disability award…….but some things are seriously still a struggle……..but for now, we continue to stand up and shout until the ruling comes down in June and then we will move onto the next issue!!!

  • 22. Chuck_in_PA  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:18 am

    We will all need to focus our attention on housing and employment protections for all LGBT people once ME is the law of the land. Housing and employment discrimination can affect anyone and can damage a person in often even worse ways that marriage discrimination does. We have a lot to keep working on.

  • 23. ianbirmingham  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:08 am

    The phrase "eat humble pie" simply means "to admit that you were wrong", in both British and American English….

    …and I predicted this long before the fact: in the Holiday thread and in the discussions about the 5th and 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and in subsequent discussions as well.

  • 24. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:31 am

    I don't understand why for some people is easier to insult than to read and be humble.

  • 25. ebohlman  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    The link in your first paragraph goes back to this post.

    A copy of the decision is available at

  • 26. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    No clue how that happened! I pasted the link in there.

    I fixed it now, I think.

  • 27. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Congratulations Scottie 🙂

  • 28. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:31 pm

    Yay, Scottie!!! Wiggle wiggle wiggle!!!

  • 29. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:20 am

    Feel the emotion. Love is in the air! My sincere congrats, bro.

  • 30. weshlovrcm  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:22 am

    That's awesome, Scottie! I'm so glad for you and everyone else in Alabama!

  • 31. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:43 am

    Congratulation Scottie!

    Will you be getting married soon, or are you already married?

  • 32. yyyAllenyyy  |  January 24, 2015 at 6:04 am

    Congratulations, Scottie.

  • 33. Chuck_in_PA  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:04 am

    Congratulations. I remember how happy I was when Pennsylvania joined the good states.

  • 34. mariothinks  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    I hope this prompts the 11th to move its ass!

  • 35. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    Considering this was the home state of Governor George Wallace, it is wonderful to see justice prevail. There will be no stay by SCOTUS and (hopefully) we won't have to call out the National Guard to get the couples into the county clerks offices. A pity we cannot get a quote from Governor Wallace. The irony of it.

  • 36. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    A GWB appointee in George Wallace's state (I still have to go in the George Wallace Tunnel sometimes, gross) struck down the marriage ban. Crazy, crazy day.

  • 37. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    In the mid-1970s, I lived in Laurel, Maryland, about 6 blocks from where 'the governor' was shot and paralyzed in 1972. The shopping center was so embarrassed by the incident that to this day, it will only acknowledge what happened when heavily pressed (in questions) by a reporter, etc.

  • 38. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:20 am

    The ghost of George "Segregation Forever" Wallace is laughing his ghostly butt off because the more things change, the more they stay the same. Considering how Wallace's political position flip-flopped to pander to political expediency, his ghostly butt probably is sitting on the fence.

  • 39. DeadHead  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    I think the judge striking the ban down was an appointee of George Bush. That's great news for LGBTQ couples in Alabama. All us queers in Georgia will have to wait until SCOTUS rules in June.

  • 40. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    Oh. My. God.
    Alabama marriage ban against same-sex couples struck down in its entirety.
    Oh. My. Dear. God.

    And no stay. Oh. My. God!

    Now, I'm going to most-happily eat all my nasty words about referring to the beknighted Florida panhandle as South Alabama (even if it's still South Alabama and literally on a different time zone).

    "…. All us queers in Georgia will have to wait…."

    DeadHead: Leon, Jefferson, Madison, and Nassau Counties in Florida, right on the Georgia line, will happlly marry you, right now, and still graciously provide their full range of services, including the "no waiting period" for out-of-staters.

    At the other end of the state, same-sex couples from North Georgia and the Atlanta metroplex have been making the pilgrimage to Asheville NC in a continuous flow for the past 3 months.

  • 41. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm


    Last I checked, Georgia and Alabama share a long, long state line. And Georgia also has a shared state line with North Carolina, also with South Carolina, and Florida.

    The shared state lines do not mean everyone in the state of Georgia can travel to another state, but some people live closer to state lines than their county court house. (I did [in NE Indiana] until I was 11, several of my cousins, and an aunt and uncle for more than 50 years.)

    Thus, your phrasing that "all us queers in Georgia will have to wait. . . ." – isn't that a bit of hyperbole that is not always correct?

  • 42. FredDorner  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Even if they marry out of state gays in Georgia won't have any state rights or state-dependent federal rights of marriage until July. Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation until the end of June!

  • 43. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    Except deadhead didn't moan and groan about anything but getting married. And I pointed out that many GLBT couples in Georgia live close to states that allow GLBT couples to get married.

    For all we know, the higherups in Alabama will act like the higherups in Kansas – allow people to get married, then make it difficult to impossible for those married couples to actually have any of the benefits of marriage. I would expect Georgia officials to act in the same manner, eventually allowing marriage, then nothing else.

  • 44. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    Hey, those of you keeping all these great (a few are crazy) statistics…..Is anybody tracking ME rulings by day of the week. It seems to me we have had a lot of late Friday afternoon happy surprises in the last year. It is logical judges would wait until Friday afternoon (especially with no stay) to release their decisions since it is harder to get an appeal for the stay over the weekend.

    Anyone have a list of ME rulings by day of the week?

  • 45. A_Jayne  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    I have the states tracked by effective date, by not by ruling day. It would be interesting to see.

  • 46. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Brandall, off-hand, decisions were announced late on a Friday, without stays, in Utah, Michigan, Arkansas, and Wisconsin.

    In Utah, at least 1 county (Salt Lake) immediately began issuing licenses the same afternoon, Friday, 20 December 2013.

    In Michigan, 4 counties (Ingham, Washtenaw, Oakland, and Muskegon), re-opened for business on Saturday, 22 March 2014, to issue licenses. The stay was issued late that same Saturday by the 7th Circuit.

    In Arkansas, 1 county (Carroll), re-opened for business on Saturday, 10 May 2014, to issue licenses. By Monday, 12 May 2014, 4 more had chosen to do so.

    In Wisconsin, 2 counties (Dane and Milwaukee) stayed open extra-late on Friday, 6 June 2014, and re-opened for business on Saturday, 7 June 2014, to issue licenses. By Monday, 9 June 2014, at least 26 counties were doing so.

    In Indiana (the only exception), the ban was struck down on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, and at least 6 counties (Marion, Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Johnson, and Monroe) immediately began issuing licenses the same afternoon. By the following day, 26 June 2014, at least 29 counties were issuing.

  • 47. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    That's an amazing start. Better than me. I could only remember Utah off the top of my head.

  • 48. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:21 pm

    Awww Brandall, that's so sweet of you to make me feel so needed/wanted/desired.

    Actually, I'm glad you thought of the question, because in 4 out of the 5 previous instances (now 5 out of 6), it does prove that a (late) Friday afternoon decision does seem to be the most likely time of the week for one to be handed down without a stay.

  • 49. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    Way to be on top of things, Rick!

  • 50. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    DrBri, did you notice how "anal" I am, even over-doing the answer by giving Brandall precise dates, and the number of counties and their exact names, that were totally good-to-go, immediately, right off the mark?

  • 51. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    You never fail to impress!

  • 52. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    You're too cute!

    Side-note: *DrBri is making Rick blush!!*

  • 53. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:42 pm

    Two minor corrections:

    Michigan is in the 6th Circuit, not the 7th, and

    In Indiana, until a stay was placed on the ruling, there were as many as at least 90 of the 92 counties (if not all 92) issuing applications and licenses. I'm not sure how long after the ruling it was, though. I grew up in NE Indiana, near one of, if not THE, most conservative counties in the nation (Kosciusko), and near Allen County (another very conservative county), and both were eventually issuing applications and licenses (a major surprise to me).

  • 54. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Mike, you got me,– just when I thought I was "perfect." LOL. Yes, Michigan's stay was granted by the 6th Circuit.

    As for Allen County IN, as per the Attorney-General of Indiana, late on 25 June 2014, the day of the ruling in Indiana:."Those county clerks named in the lawsuit (Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter and Lake) in the cases ruled upon Wednesday must comply with the Court’s ruling or they would be subject to contempt of court."

    Later, my notes state:

    "Yesterday, 26 June 2014, the Allen County (Ft. Wayne) Clerk's office, (the first day of marriage license issuance to same-sex couples in that county) set an all-time one-day record for the number of marriage licenses issued."

    My notes indicate that the number of counties issuing marriage licenses went from 6 (the 25th), to 29 (early the 26th), to 79 (COB the 26th), to 85 before the stay was granted late in the day on Friday, 27 June 2014, thus giving Indiana an initial 2 1/2 day "window of opportunity."

    Of the 92 counties, at least one ass-hat clerk, in Daviess County, refused, and turned away several applicants, citing her "religious beliefs," the first time I recall that non-issue "issue" being raised.

    After the fact, it was later revealed that Indiana's first same-sex divorce was granted in Monroe County (Bloomington) during the same 2 1/2 day "window."

  • 55. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    Monroe County being one of the first in Indiana does not surprise me in the least since it is the home county for Indiana University. Monroe County and IU are considered MUCH more liberal than the rest of the state, and are among the most liberal in all the US.

    (I wish I could say the same for the county in which I was born and lived for more than 10 years, the county where I grew up in and graduated from high school, and the county where I attended college – all three counties in NE Indiana.)

    In the end, Judge Posner and associates on the 7CA ruled in our favor (and SCOTUS backed them up.) I wonder how that clerk in Daviess County now feels (although I have to give her credit for at the late date (of ME litigation) of her refusal to issue licenses, she used an apparently novel argument)?

  • 56. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    The judge who struck this ban down was personally recommended by Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, the latter being one of the biggest homophobes in the Senate so that makes the striking down of the ban so much sweeter.

  • 57. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Shelby is probably not much behind Sessions when it comes to homophobia.

  • 58. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Sometimes Karma Prevails.

  • 59. FredDorner  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Karma prevailed in Utah too with Judge Shelby's nomination recommended by Mike Lee and Orin Hatch.

    Shelby…a rather ironic name today. I wonder if they're related?

  • 60. Zack12  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    Indeed, people don't realize due to Leahy keeping the absurd pratice of the blue slip alive, many of the judges from Red States are ones the Republicans want on the courts.
    Judge Shelby wouldn't be on the Utah District court if Hatch and Lee didn't want him to be there.

  • 61. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm

    That thud you heard was those who NEVER thought this would happen……Congratulations to all of the Alabama Couples and their families who will be treated equal UNDER the law!!!

  • 62. jpmassar  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    Luxembourg was last to go,
    And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
    We'll try to stay serene and calm
    As Alabama gets the marriage equality.
    Who's next?
    Who's next?
    Who's next?
    Who's next?

  • 63. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Mónaco? Why Mónaco?

  • 64. sglaser2  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:12 am

    Tom Leher song — Who's Next — from the 50s.

    Check out

  • 65. josejoram  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:01 am

    Oh! Thanks.

  • 66. RemC_Chicago  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Meantime, Arkansas wants to re-do the oral arguments on ME. Really, don't some people have better things to do with their time?! According to joemygod, the AG was Huckabee's legal advisor during his presidential bid. What a way to govern ourselves—every time new judges join the bench, re-do arguments in the hopes that new outcomes will prevail. I think the word "CHAOS" fits in nicely here. And Rose—you're very close to getting that drive from coast to coast you're hankering for.

  • 67. DeadHead  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    Most wasted taxpayer dollars on attorney and filing fees.

  • 68. F_Young  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    The revised Wikipedia map is up, courtesy of prcc27:

  • 69. DACiowan  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Courtesy of bigdaddybrantio.

    Prcc27 is trying to roll it back to red until it's clear that Alabama will obey.

  • 70. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Glad I am NOT in that chat room right now.

  • 71. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:55 am

    It includes Kansas saying that the state does not recognize those marriages.

  • 72. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:45 am

    AL has been rolled back to red now.

  • 73. bythesea66  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Yeah, but I see on Equality Alabama's FB stream that Montgomery WILL issue licenses tomorrow if there is no stay and there's hope to soon hear of more , so perhaps that was premature.

  • 74. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    Really? I hope you are correct, but I think that was that yesterday, though, because the news today is that the Probate Judges' association says that there will be no marriage licenses issued to same sex couples, regardless of whether there is a stay.

  • 75. bythesea66  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    That news was just posted on FB not long ago, so after the Probate Judges' bullshit announcement at least.

  • 76. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    I see it now! Also looked up the Probate Judge's twitter account (Montgomery). Apparently, licenses will be issued in Montgomery tomorrow if there is no federal stay. Thanks for the info!

  • 77. cpnlsn88  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    I just checked by this site thinking how sad it was that there would be no more district court rulings like in the good old days and then this!!!!

  • 78. hopalongcassidy  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    When the good old days are last month, we're doing pretty damn well, I believe. HAHAHAH

  • 79. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    It will be very telling to see what SCOTUS does here.
    If they don't grant a stay, that is a pretty clear sign they intend to rule in our favor.

  • 80. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    What would make you think SCOTUS would issue a stay? Other than this ruling is post cert, it's the same scenario as Florida in the same AC. Just curious.

  • 81. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Because the ruling is post cert.
    If they don't grant one here, that is pretty much the whole shooting match.
    If they do grant it, still won't be worried.

  • 82. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    Got it. Thanks.

  • 83. 1grod  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    Zack: The Florida Court and the 11th Appeals had both denied a stay before the Supremes did so

  • 84. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    According to NBC News:

    ". . . the state's attorney general, Luther Strange, said he would seek [a stay]. "We are disappointed and are reviewing the federal district court's decision. We expect to ask for a stay of the court's judgment pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, which will ultimately decide this case," his office said in a written statement."

    In other words, a request for stay will go to the 11CA, and no matter how the 11CA rules, the ONLY court where the appeal goes is to SCOTUS, and either party can appeal.

    Does that help explain how SCOTUS might get involved in a request for stay?

  • 85. Raga  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    The stay request has been filed, and it is now before the district court. Normally, the district court judge must first rule on the motion before Alabama can move the 11th or SCOTUS.

  • 86. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    Raga, thanks for that reminder that the request for a stay is actually a 3-step process, beginning with the district court judge who isued the ruling.

  • 87. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    Right. It's easy to forget, as some of the other cases that were ruled initially without a stay had instances where the state tried to bypass the judge and go directly to the appeals court, only to be directed to wait until the district judge weighed in first. (I believe Utah and Wisconsin both had this, as well as Arkansas trying to gett the state Supreme Court to weigh in before the local judge had even corrected his initial order to include all relevant statutes.)

  • 88. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:41 am

    The clowns here in Utah were so confident that Judge Shelby would rule to uphold government-sanctioned discrimination that they did not request a stay even when asked. After the ruling, they wanted an immediate stay, but Judge Shelby told them to put the request in writing. The clowns immediately went to Tenth Appeals and were told to follow procedure.

  • 89. Zack12  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    The entire AG's office was a mess at that time due to John Swallow's resignation so that had a lot to do with it as well.

  • 90. RobW303  |  January 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    Also, the plaintiffs could only challenge the ban on recognition, having been already married in CA. The judge may be considered to have overreached in striking both the statute and constitutional amendment in toto (though it's hard to see how the marriage bans in either could stand given the reasoning).

  • 91. A_Jayne  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    My question is, will Thomas refer a request for stay to the court? Or just deny it 'cause he knows that's what will happen anyway?

    (But then I must ask, 'cause my memory, and all that… It is Thomas for this Circuit, right?)

  • 92. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    You are correct, it is Thomas. But, every single stay request has been put before the entire court. There were two times where the request was not put forth to the entire court, but those were requests around standing (Oregon was one, I don't remember the other).

  • 93. A_Jayne  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    I just liked letting myself imagine him waving his hand (in disgust, perhaps even) and saying, "F__ it. No stay."

  • 94. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Who???? Thomas???? LOL

  • 95. StraightDave  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    That's not the Scalia Thomas I know. By referring to the court, someone else has to issue the denial and he then gets to rant in one more dissent. He's not going to deprive himself of that small remaining pleasure in his life. A leopard doesn't change his spots. If, by some chance he did, can you imagine all the "growing soft" noise there would be out there. He couldn't stand it. Not gonna happen.

  • 96. netoschultz  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Oregon was put before the full court. Pennsylvania was not

  • 97. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    Brandall, in the futile Pennsylvania appeal by the 15-minutes-of-fame clerk, Santai-Gaffney, Alito told her to go take a hike all by himself (and which, of course, was an issue about standing). The ex-post-facto Oregon request also focussed on standing, vis-a-vis the NOM numb-nuts.

  • 98. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    You know you don't have standing and you've lost when even conservative Alito blocks your attempts to stop marriage equality! (Not that she didn't still try for en banc afterward….)

  • 99. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:26 pm

    Oh yeah, true enough. Even after Alito told her, "No," she still insanely doubled-back, and tried for an en banc, before finally crawling back under her rock.

  • 100. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:53 am

    Didn't Alito deny PAs request on his own w/o referring it to the full court?

  • 101. Jaesun100  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Wow ! Just Wow! so happy for those in Alabama that have been waiting……

  • 102. jpmassar  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    From the decision:

    Additionally, these laws further injures those children of all couples who are themselves gay or lesbian, and who will grow up knowing that Alabama does not believe they are as capable of creating a family as their heterosexual friends.

  • 103. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:59 am


  • 104. daulphin  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    This was my favorite part. I am very focused on LGBT children. I think Marriage Equality is the fastest way to normalize our relationships. Which tells all LGBT youth that regardless of their parents, religion or geographical location, that their country values them, that they are normal and that they can grow up and live a full life, with love and connection. It will be interesting to see what happens to our teen suicide rate in the next 15 to 20 years.

  • 105. DACiowan  |  January 23, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Today is my birthday. This is quite a nice present!

  • 106. brandall  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Happy birthday! Now, go blow out those 21 candles on your cake.

  • 107. DACiowan  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Thanks but this is my 23rd birthday. If this was 21 I probably wouldn't be spelling things right by now.

  • 108. Charlie Galvin  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    I like the part where the court points out that no matter what it decided today, SCOTUS has agreed to consider the question framed almost exactly the way today's opinion was. Echoes of [former San Francisco mayor] Gavin Newsom's "Whether you like it or not!"

  • 109. hopalongcassidy  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    I'm corn-fused…has anyone -asked- for a stay on the Alabama opinion? I don't seem to notice any.

  • 110. A_Jayne  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    According to, at

    "The Alabama Attorney General's Office indicated it would continue to fight the case. Late Friday, attorneys filed papers in court asking the judge to put the decision on hold."

  • 111. JayJonson  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    Judge Granade writes a straightforward, concise, and decisive opinion. Not much poetry, but she firmly rejects–practically mocks–the proffered justifications for the "Sanctity" amendment and Protection of Marriage Act. She also echoes Kennedy in expressing concern for the children of gay and lesbian parents.

    (It is worth keeping in mind that the case originated as an adoption case–the lesbian couple married in California and wanted to adopt the child of one of the spouses, as per Alabama law. They were turned down in probate court and in the state Court of Appeal because of the ban on recognizing same-sex marriage. Then they sued in federal court to challenge the laws. Good on them!)

  • 112. RobW303  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    Given the stated purpose of supporting and preserving the "sanctity" of marriage (the civil contract being mentioned separately, as a sort of supportive adjunct), it's hard to see how the statute and amendment don't violate the separation of church and state. Marriage is not a sanctum in the sense that one's home is, so what other meaning could have been intended but the religious one? I wish this had been addressed in the ruling.

  • 113. ianbirmingham  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:22 am

    As I have often pointed out in prior discussions, state courts are normally a very bad choice where the enforcement of constitutional rights is the issue. State court cases usually move like snails, and worse yet the judges are elected (as with the Iowa Supreme Court judges who lost their highly paid jobs in the very next election after they ruled in favor of same-sex marriage).

    In federal court, the judges are appointed for life and therefore (by design) they have the judicial independence needed to strictly enforce the Constitution.

  • 114. RQO  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:18 am

    Some exceptions: New Mexico courts stepped up very quickly, beating the first 10th Circuit decision (Utah) by a day. But Arkansas' current clown car parade (who's on first? Naw, he's on third.) certainly proves your point.

  • 115. Raga  |  January 23, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    It must be noted that the judge hasn't said anything about a stay, which means that Alabama would first have to ask this judge for a stay. And then the 11th and then SCOTUS, if they keep losing. Given that the 11th and SCOTUS denied Florida's stay, I don't see how either this judge or the 11th would grant a stay. SCOTUS is a different matter – they can do whatever they want – let's see what they do, now that they've granted cert. We all know that denial of a fundamental right, for any period of time, constitutes irreparable harm, but a Justice might decide that since they've now decided to decide this issue in just a few months, a stay wouldn't be inappropriate.

  • 116. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:29 am

    Feel the emotion. Love is in the air! My sincere congrats

  • 117. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:31 am

    Alabama will ask a stay, according to the local press. Sorry, I couldn't paste the link.

  • 118. Raga  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    Here's the motion to stay (before the district court) by Alabama's Strange AG:

    Upon review, it seems like a highly incompetent filing. Not a mention of the 11th and SCOTUS denying the most recent stay requests out of Florida, hence there is no attempt by the AG to distinguish Alabama's situation from Florida's. This motion will go nowhere.

  • 119. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    Can some explain how the AG thinks they will prevail:
    Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and related briefing, this issue is likely to be resolved in Defendant’s favor, and Defendant is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal from the Court’s order.

    I mean outside of the ruling from the 6th, which is probably going to be tossed……which State has prevailed? why do these idiots think SCOTUS is going to rule in their favor?

  • 120. sfbob  |  January 23, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    At this point any anti-equality state official who thinks he or she is going to prevail where a pro-marriage-equality ruling is concerned isn't really thinking so much as reaffirming their own prejudices. Really it's nothing more than denial. Sad when you consider it; after while some of these people are not terribly intelligent they pretty much have all managed to make it through college and law school and pass their state bar exam. How anyone with half a brain could be so utterly self-deluded honestly escapes me but clearly it's possible.

  • 121. ebohlman  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    Increasing intelligence doesn't lead to increasing rationality; it leads to increasing rationalization. It leads to increasing truthiness, not increasing truthfulness.

    I'd like to see what TX, MS, and LA do after a favorable (for ME) ruling by the 5CA. They may not all do the same thing, and what they do will tell us which of them are serious (waves to Heyburn and Posner) and which are pandering to their bases. If they're serious, they'll ask for en banc; if they're pandering, they'll petition the SCOTUS for cert, which sounds more impressive to low-information voters even though we can see that it's obviously completely silly.

  • 122. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Many anti-gay haters are in denial and even those who acknowledge that the Marriage issue is over, are sitting in the wings just waiting to spew their hatred in other ways……and we've seen some indication on what's up next………and the sad part is, they CAN'T see that it is them who will continue to lose……there will always be hate and discrimination……but I know that most just are clueless.

    Where we live is considered the 5th poorest County in this Country and almost 60% voted in favor of Prop 8…..yet, in the end, my wife and I still prevailed……lol!!!

    By the way, anyone interested in Girl Scout cookies? My grandchild has a goal of 1500 boxes this season!!!

  • 123. Chuck_in_PA  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:15 am

    Your grandchild must be quite the entrepreneur. When she's a bit older perhaps she will become a volunteer fund-raiser for her grandmothers' pro-LBGT causes.

  • 124. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:07 am

    She is quite the sales person and she's give you the shirt off her back if she thought it would help.

  • 125. weaverbear  |  January 24, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Rose, are you here in the Bay Area? My husband and I would take a couple of boxes, especially if she have any of the gluten free? My husband and I live on the Russian River in Guerneville.

  • 126. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    We are in Lake County and we do have a new gluten free cookie called Toffee Tastic………my e-mail is posted on my profile…let's talk!!

  • 127. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:33 am

    Remember Utah officials.

  • 128. RQO  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:26 am

    AG's are elected officials, and it's safe to say that in really red states no Republican who doesn't scream and holler and do everything possible to fight ME to the bitter end, no matter how pointlessly, will never be elected to any office again.

  • 129. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:06 am

    And MOST shouldn't be reelected to ANY office in the first place……..these folks are so corrupt and so far gone in their thought process that they NO longer can see the tress through the forest!!!

  • 130. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Self-deception and cognitive dissonance create delusional thinking.

  • 131. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:04 am

    Thanks Dave for the laugh…… nailed it though!!!

  • 132. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    Even if the filing had been competent, I wonder how many stays of ME cases have been granted at the district court level when the original ruling did not contain a stay. I'd presume, not many, if any. Several stays were put on favorable (for GLBTs and supporters) district court rulings of unstayed ME cases (MI, for example), but those stays were imposed either by a Circuit Court or SCOTUS.

    Either way, the appeal will go to the 11CA, then on to SCOTUS, since there is no question all parties have standing. I don't know if either court will stay the request for stay, but either side can appeal to the court above.

  • 133. ebohlman  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    The only one that comes to mind is Judge Crabb's ruling in Wisconsin, where various sub-branches of the state's executive branch didn't appear to be on speaking terms with each other and she stayed her ruling seemingly to prevent civil war from breaking out.

  • 134. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:05 am

    A compliment to your excellent memory. I would have answered there were no cases where there was no stay and the district court judge reversed themselves. It is true that AG Van Hollen issued warnings about prosecuting county clerks:

    Judge Crabb cited her reasoning for not issuing either an injunction or a stay: "However, I did not resolve plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief or defendants’ request to stay the injunction because plaintiffs had not proposed an injunction that complied with the specificity requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Accordingly, I gave both sides an opportunity to file supplemental materials regarding the content of the injunction."

    In retrospect, this was an odd position. Normally, issuing a stay pending resolution of the injunction language would have made more sense. But, it is clear Crabb was very sympathetic, "After seeing the expressions of joy on the faces of so many newly wedded couples featured in media reports, I find it difficult to impose a stay on the event that is responsible for eliciting that emotion, even if the stay is only temporary."

    She placed a stay on her ruling, "Because I see no way to distinguish this case from Herbert, I conclude that I must stay any injunctive relief pending appeal.."

    Geez, this was only 7 months ago and I feel like I'm writing about something that happened decades ago.

  • 135. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Brandall, that recounting stirred up fond memories of exciting events, so apparently we are going back into "historical times," even if the vintage is only that of 7 months ago! In some odd respects, it feels like a lifetime.

  • 136. RobW303  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:29 pm

    The AG failed to address all the points required for the granting of a stay, and totally ignored the continuing harm to plaintiffs from the state and (in part) federal government denying them the rights, privileges and protections afforded by recognition of their legally-entered marriage. I know the courts have discounted this in the past (as does the AG, in claiming that their status remains unchanged and therefore no harm is being done—huh??), but the instability/"things could change in June" argument (highly unlikely) no longer seems convincing in balance. Given a choice of which situation I'd rather be in—totally unprotected or potentially reversed—, there's little question which I'd opt for.

  • 137. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:36 am

    Did they have to consider harms to the oposite side?

  • 138. RobW303  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:01 am

    Yes, if they want to argue convincingly on the balance of harms aspect. Presumably, these are well-meaning folk trying to make the stronger case, not spoiled schoolchildren, though sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference.

  • 139. FredDorner  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    And given that this originated in an adoption case, the harm to the plaintiff is already clear to the court.

  • 140. 1grod  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:05 am

    In other states where the State has not initially sought a stay, and the state AG requests a stay with the district court, the plaintiffs are given an opportunity to reply. And there may be a hearing. Which creates the Monday morning scenario. If the district court does not act across this weekend, can the State ask the Circuit court for an emergency stay? Utah dis a year ago.

  • 141. RQO  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:32 am

    And Utah's emergency request to the 10th CA was smacked down immediately for being out -of-turn.

  • 142. Raga  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:52 am

    The AG has failed to even caption this motion as an emergency motion. There doesn't seem to be any wording indicative of an emergency. So the judge could treat this as a normal motion and have briefing on this motion unfold over the next two weeks or so. If the AG wanted emergency relief, they must say so!

  • 143. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    So a G. W. Bush appointee in Alabama struck down a marriage ban. In Alabama, I repeat again. Now I've seen it all.

    Is this a way for judge Granade to send a message to SCOTUS since she ruled after SCOTUS granted cert ?

    I don't know what to say but a big congrats to all couples in Alabama. No stay for now. Let's see if the district court grants it first and then moving upwards.

    Honestly I am speechless right now…!

  • 144. srandy6977  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    "Additionally, these laws further injures [sic] those children"

  • 145. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    So with that done, we now have : North Dakota (proceedings stayed), Georgia (proceedings stayed ? I am not sure..) and Nebraska with the hearing on Thursday, which has not been cancelled yet I believe. That means that maximum 3 states (minimum 2 states) won't be out of district court till SCOTUS rules. And out of the rest, only one had its ban upheld in district court (not counting Puerto Rico here, sticking to states). SCOTUS is definately paying attention to Alabama right now, that's for sure.

    UPDATE : Damn, I should have bitten my tongue, Nebraska officials want to stay proceedings in federal lawsuit :

  • 146. scream4ever  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    Yah but Battalion will likely still hold a hearing and rule in our favor. Remember, he did so back in 2005.

  • 147. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Yes I do hope he does not stay proceedings. It would be really nice to get a ruling out of district court in Nebraska. And if we do I have little doubt about the result. Bataillon ruled for ME at times no one would dare to even think about it, he will definately do the same this time around if he gets to it.

  • 148. tornado163  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    The Nebraska hearing was cancelled

  • 149. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    I knew it :-\ I would hope he cancelled it to rule without oral arguments but my bet is he will stay proceedings I am afraid..Oh well…

  • 150. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Just as well, why give SCOTUS another circuit that will rule against us?

  • 151. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    While the 8th seems kind of determined to rule when it expedited the Missouri case, I doubt they will have the time to do so after all. And even if they did it wouldn't be on the Nebraska case anyway so a positive ruling from the district court there would only benefit the equality cause.

  • 152. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    He most likely is staying proceedings, but it would be wonderful to see him rule without a hearing as Alambama did today or even SD in the same circuit this past month. I remember some of the trepidation when the judge in Montana (I believe it was) canceled the hearing that was set a long ways off and finally just issued the ruling.

  • 153. franklinsewell  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:57 am

    The state defendants in Georgia asked for a stay. The judge has asked the plaintiffs for replies, so I think the judge does not intend to grant one.

    Apparently, the plaintiffs did not brief on the request for a stay, but the judge required them to do so, and gave them until January 28 to file:

  • 154. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    This latest judge simply shows that despite the best efforts of George W and the Federalist Society to stack the courts with hacks like Sutton and Cook, there are still judges that will do their jobs instead of simply rubberstamping the agenda of the far right.
    And make no mistake, if Sessions and Shelby had any inkling she would rule like this, she would have been kept off the bench.

  • 155. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    The sad thing is that most of those republican appointees are on district court level. When we move higher, to courts of appeals or SCOTUS, they have been much more effective on putting these hacks. There will be the occasional Holmes or the more libertarian Reagan appointees such as Posner or, most probably, Higginbotham but the rest (Sutton, Cook, Kelly, Niemeyer) have been exactly what the people who wanted them there wanted them to be on that issue (and other issues of course..)

  • 156. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    Indeed, and that is what sucks about Obama not taking the courts seriously when he had the power to do so.
    He should have been nominating young, liberal judges left and right, something he only started to do five years in with only a few months left of Democratic control.
    We got some progressive judges on the circuit courts but not enough for my liking.

  • 157. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    This has to be the shortest opinion we had yet. The judge simply mentions numerous cases who held similar laws unconstitutional to get rid of Baker and crashes the state's child-centric arrgumentation in one and a half page essentially. A simple analysis on the merits, a simple application of strict scrutiny as the fundumental right to marry is under review and a sense of deference to the vast amount of other rulings who have said the same things essentially.
    Not a legal masterpiece (and one is not needed at this point) but does its job in a very direct and honest way.

    As for the filing asking for the stay :

    "The request for a stay doesn’t mention the district and Eleventh Circuit courts’ denials of a stay in the Florida marriage case, nor does it mention the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay in that same case."

    Of course, you have to mention what another circuit did, rather than your own, so much more relevant. These people never learn, do they ?

  • 158. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    I think the UCC North Carolina decision was only a few pages, mostly basing everything on "see Bostic." A couple of the post Oct 6 decisions in the affected circuits were short and simple. But yeah, there's really not much more to add at the district level for these last few states.

  • 159. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    "…. by Alabama's Strange AG: "

    Raga, that's an excellently cute way of phrasing it.

  • 160. StraightDave  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    Now it's time for the 5CA to say F it. If li'l ol' Bama can do it, we certainly can too. No reason to wait if SCOTUS keep turning down stays. Yeah, yeah, en banc, I know … so what. Just do it. Make a point.

  • 161. guitaristbl  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Oh the surreal situation of us wanting the 5th to rule now lol !

  • 162. StraightDave  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    Indeed. The whole last 19 months has been one wild-ass trip. I would have lost so much money betting on all the "likely results" out there. You can't make this stuff up.

    I'm looking forward to July when somebody starts a couple Top 10 and Bottom 10 threads.

  • 163. RobW303  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    I want them to rule in late March, shortly before SCOTUS hears oral arguments, allowing no opportunity for an en banc review (much less ruling) before SCOTUS begins work on their own ruling, yet giving the pro-ME arm of SCOTUS more fodder and another circuit.

  • 164. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    Even early April would be fine with me, since SCOTUS won't hold oral arguments until later that month, and it still shouldn't give enough time for an en banc hearing.

  • 165. scream4ever  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    The 5th Circuit is one of the quicker circuit courts, having an average period between oral arguments and handing down of rulings at only 1.5 months, although they took near 3 months to hand down the ruling in the abortion case. Regardless, the 5th Circuit won't even have time to issue a negative ruling if the 5th handed down theirs tomorrow.

  • 166. Zack12  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    This is the best line of the ruling.
    The Court notes that the Sixth Circuit recently concluded that Baker is still binding precedent in DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), but finds the reasoning of the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits to be more persuasive on the question and concludes that Baker does not preclude consideration of the questions presented herein."
    In other words, Sutton and Cook have been told by yet another judge that their option isn't worth the paper it was printed on.

  • 167. VIRick  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    "…. Sutton and Cook have been told …."

    Yes, Zack, precisely. Sutton and Cook have been told.

    And when you've been told by a Deep South Southerner, you've been told.

  • 168. RobW303  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:29 am

    Only way it could have been better is if she had added "bless their hearts."

  • 169. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:46 am

    Or that those are not arguments of serious judges (people)…

  • 170. hopalongcassidy  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:21 am

    Uh, the proper verbiage is "pea-pickin' hearts", I gar-on-tee.

    (a popular variation is "li'l pea-pickin' hearts")

  • 171. StraightDave  |  January 23, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    "If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children. "

    Now we have come full circle and gotten to the hard truth. A Deep South judge tells it like it is and throws the excuse right back in the bigots' faces. And it's still "only" 2015. Just wow. I get stunned every month with something new.

  • 172. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    YES! YES! YES!


  • 173. jpmassar  |  January 23, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    No waiting period in Alabama:

    After I submit my application how long do I have to wait before I receive my marriage license?

    There is no waiting period. You will receive your marriage license immediately after you submit your application.

    Is there a waiting period from the moment the license is given to me to the date I'm allowed to actually marry?

    No, you can get married immediately after your marriage license is issued.

  • 174. RnL2008  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    Just came across this article about Judges here in California that appear to not be able to be a part of the Boy Scouts……not sure why this bother's me to some degree, but it does…….and if it doesn't interfere with their Judaical duties, is it even legal to do that? Here's the link to the article:

  • 175. JayJonson  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:45 am

    It doesn't bother me a bit, any more than the similar rule that prohibits judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of race.

    This is a rule adopted by the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics; not a law. I am not sure what enforcement powers the Supreme Court has in disciplining any state judges who violate this law. I suppose a judge could refuse to comply with the rule and, if disciplined, sue the California Supreme Court. I would not think the odds of success would be very high.

  • 176. A_Jayne  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:48 am

    I read the same article and am also uncomfortable with the restriction to a degree. Do court ethics also insist they not buy food from Chick-fil-a? How far does this carry, and is it valid in what is otherwise a personal realm?

  • 177. Eric  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:07 am

    No, ethics don't specify where one buys food, only which discriminatory organizations one can't join.

  • 178. JayJonson  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:39 am

    California judges have been barred from membership in groups that discriminate based on sexual orientation since 1996–with the exception of youth nonprofits. In 2003, the California Supreme Court amended the rule to say judges who are members of the Boy Scouts must disclose their affiliation in gay-rights cases and recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest.

    The ethics advisory committee's recommendation eliminating the exception altogether was backed by the California Judges Association, which represents three-quarters of the state's judges.

    It is hard to see how a judge can be impartial when considering cases involving gay people or gay issues if he or she is a member of an organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Judges may be members of religious groups that discriminate, but that exception recognizes that religious organizations are exempted from some civil rights laws.

    Read more:

  • 179. flyerguy77  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    I can't wait till Monday morning when same sex couples are going to knock on the counties clerks doors lol…. no stay= getting married

  • 180. DrBriCA  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:59 pm

    No word tonight on if any liberal clerks want to open up tomorrow (ala Michigan last year). But even so, given the 11th's and SCOTUS's refusal to stay the decision in Florida, I imagine the current request to stay Alabama's decision will take enough time going through the proper channels that marriages should be able to start Monday!

  • 181. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:07 am

    I'm with you. I'll be up Saturday morning scanning the news for Alabama Clerks opening their doors and issuing licences.

    I see that the AG has already filed a request for a stay. I can't imagine that he could meet all the 4 prongs necessary for a stay…maybe not even none of them. Will the state then try to go the Florida route? The injunction only applies to the plaintiffs involved and no one else? Will they say it does not apply to state agencies, only the defendant AG?

  • 182. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Wasn't expecting county clerks to rush to open Saturday morning… their state government masters would be displeased. I do expect most of them will issue licences on Monday, though.

    I have a fantasy that the stay request process will be a leisurely one. Judge Grenade will ask for a reply, before denying a stay. The 11th Circuit will ask for a reply, before denying a stay. Justice Thomas will ask for a reply, and will refer the matter to the full court. Don't know whether there will be a stay or not, but looking forward to a week or so of marriages in Alabama before they do.

  • 183. JayJonson  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:48 am

    Are there any liberal clerks in Alabama? I wouldn't think so. I assume that most will grudgingly obey the law, but I would not be surprised if others refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

  • 184. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:12 am

    Google: No results found for "liberal county clerk alabama".

  • 185. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:59 am

    An old scientific principle:
    'The lack of evidence does not mean no evidence'. For decades, it was ASSumed that the Universe was stable until it was proven that it was expanding. For centuries, most people thought that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, if not the universe. (At the time, there was no concept of other galaxies.)

    The school of thought that the lack of evidence is all you need to prove no evidence is called 'Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic.'

    It's like my mother – cat and dog hair looks very similar to worms, ergo cat and dog hair, if ingested, will give a person worms. My brother, (half-)sister and I gave up at very early ages in attempting to show she was incorrect on her ASSumptions.

    And the term 'liberal' is quite subjective. One could argue that the Soviet generals who led the attempted coup against Gorbachev were conservatives, since they wanted to keep the Soviet Union exactly the same as before -noGlasnot; no Peristroika; no honesty in government's proclamations (after all, those who don't need to know shouldn't know), etc.

  • 186. hopalongcassidy  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    There is a frightening number of self-proclaimed 'christians' who use 'liberal' as a pejorative while completely ignoring the words of their purported deity/demigod Jesus in his "sermon on the mount". Either that or they can't recognize liberal thought when they see (read) it. It's maddening.

  • 187. guitaristbl  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:53 am

    "No word tonight on if any liberal clerks want to open up tomorrow"

    Liberal clerks in Alabama is like saying black members of the KKK or gay members of the WBC really…

  • 188. ianbirmingham  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:27 am

    The Alabama ACLU Facebook page has about 5,500 likes, which is about 0.1% of Alabama's population, so it's at least possible that a clerk or two could be on the progressive side.

    Equality Alabama has about 9,400 likes, which is about 0.2% of Alabama's population.

  • 189. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:54 am

    Well, it looks like that won't be happening in Alabama. The probate judges' association has decided to follow Alabama law, while denying that this Federal ruling applies to them. Sigh…. What is the next step? Is there anyone who has a legal opinion on this?

  • 190. F_Young  |  January 23, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    Despite Legalizing Gay Marriage These States Forbid Teaching About Gay Sex
    Meanwhile, some states still require sex ed teachers to treat homosexuality as a crime.

    Amazing, isn't it? This article is a good reminder that we still have plenty of work ahead of us.

  • 191. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:36 am

    We as a community truly need to stop using the words "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" in front of marriage…..that is one of the reasons SCOTUS removed the word because if we keep using the word, then some idiot can keep saying what Judge Sutton stated in his idiotic ruling…..that it is some NEW right instead of being INCLUDED into the existing FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.

    If we are truly going to continue to educate people about this fight and what's it all about, we need to make sure we stop using a word that is NOT helping…'s just a real irritant for me.

  • 192. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:11 am

    I agree. I've been using Marriage Equality or now the Courts term, marriage between TWO people of the Same Sex.

    I really don't see how some of these states can instruct their teachers to teach mis-truths, or lies to students…it seems beyond the pale to knowingly teach untruths or lies as we call them here in my state.

  • 193. Ned_Flaherty  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:05 am

    For several years, I've been pushing these 4 rules in all my articles.

    — "Same-gender civil marriage" is what is being fought for.
    — "Mixed-gender civil marriage" (by itself) is discriminatory.
    — "Religious-marriage" is a private, non-government matter, and thus irrelevant.
    — Avoid plain "marriage" because it's too vague, and allows conflation ("civil-marriage" + "religious-marriage" + "sexual-marriage") and that conflation facilitates the religious-right's demand to put [religious] marriage criteria into [civil] marriage statutes.

    Note: Bush's 2004 presidential campaign added the word "sex" and emphasized it as often as possible ("same-sex marriage," "SSM"), precisely because "sex" forced squeamish people to have to ponder habits which they and their deities fear, thereby increasing the votes to ban "same-sex" marriage in constitutions.

  • 194. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:53 am

    Exactly…….and that's why it's so important for us to correct folks…….to claim it as
    "SAME-SEX" or "GAY" allows those who fight hard against us to make it seem we are fighting for some NEW right instead of fighting to be part of an existing right…….and I believe that's why SCOTUS removed the wording "SAME-SEX" in order to clearly see and rule in our favor!!

  • 195. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:48 am

    "This court has jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state laws because such challenges are federal questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331".and from here tossed out Baker as irrelevant. Wow, wow, wow…

  • 196. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:15 am

    How stupid is Sutton going to feel/look when just about every court in the nation got that Baker is no longer binding precedent, and then the Supreme Court confirms it? He's supposed to be a top legal mind, but this exposes him for the hack he is.

  • 197. Zack12  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:01 am

    About as stupid as Scalia and THomas will, that is not at all.

  • 198. JayJonson  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:51 am

    He is not going to feel stupid at all. He believes that his opinion is his ticket to the Supreme Court of the United States, courtesy of President [Romney, Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Pence, etc.]

  • 199. hopalongcassidy  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:39 am

    Sutton and the 9 dwarfs…..urp.

  • 200. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:49 am

    As has been pointed out before, Sutton is too old to appointed to the Supreme Court. Taking next best, I believe he very much wanted his name to be on the decision that split the circuits and is heard by the court.

  • 201. StraightDave  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:54 am

    Oh his name will be on the case all right, but on the wrong side of the scoreboard. I can't see how being overruled by SCOTUS, and unofficially denigrated by most of his peers, helps him feel good about himself

  • 202. hopalongcassidy  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:19 am

    Who can explain a propensity to martyrdom?

  • 203. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    That's more of the answer I was looking for 😉

  • 204. Raga  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    If SCOTUS reverses Sutton, he will be an "unlikely hero" of the marriage equality movement (not very different from Scalia's dissent in Windsor that provided guidance to many courts in striking down the bans), because if not for him, it could have taken several more months for nationwide marriage equality. How he ultimately feels about that – I don't know 🙂

  • 205. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:02 am

    For gay couples in Florida, an easier path to adoption

    This is a very informative article about a little known but serious issue that has now largely been resolved by marriage equality.

  • 206. josejoram  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:23 am

    "This court has jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state laws because such challenges are federal questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331".and from here tossed out Baker as irrelevant. Wow

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

    Conservatives put the burden of proof on plaintiffs seeking rights.

  • 208. A_Jayne  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:42 am

    What they fail to see is we already have those rights, as humans and (legally) as Americans; what we seek is for the court to make them recognize that.

  • 209. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:33 am

    Obama Says Homosexuality Is A ‘Lifestyle Choice’

    This article has an anti-gay slant, but the author is right that Obama screwed up.

  • 210. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:05 am

    Did you watch the video? I can't sit through all 3/4 of an hour of it right now…

  • 211. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:30 am

    Wolf of Raging Fires: "Did you watch the video?"

    No, I didn't watch the video of Obama's interview. I just read the article.

  • 212. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:36 am

    They don't cite any sources except for the video. If it's not in the video, which they link to, then they're lying.

  • 213. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:59 am

    I have only watched snippets of the video, but it's been online for a couple of days. If Obama actually used those words, I would have thought it would have been mentioned before now.

    That said, it was a pretty unusual interview, with the interviewers making 'startling' comments; Obama would have had to be on his toes, and perhaps some poorly chosen language slipped through.

  • 214. OctaA  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:20 am

    I have watched the interview, which was an interview between three youtubers and Obama and they asked him questions which Obama hadn't seen beforehand so he was answering on the fly. Here is a transcript I wrote of the question, and Obama's answer.

    Glozell Green: This is dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, but do you think that same sex marriage will be legalised in all of the United States during the time that you’re in office, and what can you do to push that along?

    Obama: Well we’ve done a lot obviously to push it along, you know I announced my belief that same sex marriage should be legal, that people should be treated the same, we argued against… as an administration before the Supreme Court, we argued against the Defense of Marriage Act that was treating married couples, same sex couples differently in terms of federal benefits. The Supreme Court now is going to be taking on a case. My hope is that they go ahead and recognize what I think the majority of people in America now recognise, which is two people who love each other, and are treating each other with respect and aren’t bothering anybody else, why would the law treat them differently?

    Glozell: Why?

    Obama: Why?

    Glozell: I mean why?

    Obama: There is no good reason for it and so as a consequence I think that uh, I’m hopeful the Supreme Court comes to the right decision, but I will tell you, people’s hearts have opened up on this issue. I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice, the fact of the matter is they’re not bothering you. Let them live their lives and under the law they should be treated equally and as far as me personally, just to see all the loving gay and lesbian couples that I know, who are great parents and great partners, the idea that we would not treat them like the brothers and sisters that they are, that doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Glozell: Yes, thank you.

    Obama: You’re welcome.

  • 215. RobW303  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:12 am

    Would you not consider deciding to marry a lifestyle choice, whoever's involved? It's not mandatory or genetic, although our culture does condition people early to desire it.

  • 216. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:52 am

    WRobW303: "Would you not consider deciding to marry a lifestyle choice…"

    That would be an unusual use of the phrase, but it would be okay if it was clear that this is what he meant.

    However, as a pro-LGBT rights politician, he should really avoid that phrase since it's typically used in the sentence "being gay is a lifestyle choice, which is untrue and a favorite anti-gay accusation.

  • 217. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    Could it be he was addressing from Glozell's perspective? I don't get the feeling he meant it in a definitional sense.

  • 218. A_Jayne  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:39 am

    While being gay and falling in love (or having any kind of intimate relationship) with someone the same sex as me is not a choice I make, living out and proud in the process certainly is. (I could remain in the closet, after all, but I choose not to…)

  • 219. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:55 am

    England & Wales: Sharp rise in number of children adopted by gay and lesbian couples

    "The law was changed in 2005 to allow unmarried and same-sex couples to assume joint responsibility for an adopted child for the first time."
    "Since then the law was changed again making it illegal for charities to discriminate against gay couples, a move which effectively forced the closure of all Roman Catholic adoption agencies in England."

  • 220. cpnlsn88  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:38 am

    I can remember a while back the reference to the so called 'Alabama problem' whereby SCOTUS might like to bring about marriage equality nationwide but may refrain to do so because of the fear of a backlash in the Deep South (including Alabama), hence talk of 'split decisions' or closely reasoned decisions that give equality to some states and not others.

    See for example… prior to the Windsor ruling.

    With not just Alabama but also Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Kansas (sort of) in the fold of equality the Alabama problem has kind of evaporated (and if it hasn't it can't be called the 'Alabama problem' any more!). So for this reason I don't think there is reason to fear a split decision from SCOTUS.

  • 221. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:57 am

    There is a backlash right now, though. The probate judges' association has said they will follow Alabama law and not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, even though the law has been struck down by a federal judge. Sigh… But, on a different note, I hope the 5th circuit court (TX, LA, MS) rules in our favor before the Supreme Court does. That would be helpful.

  • 222. Jaesun100  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:21 am

    Okay I've lost count how many states is that now?

  • 223. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:51 am

    37 out of 50 once we see marriages licenses issued on Monday.

    This assumes Texas does not secede from the U.S. when the 5th AC strikes down the ME bans before June. If that happens, it will be 37 out of 49.

  • 224. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:49 am

    We will need to annex Austin if that's the case.

  • 225. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:36 am

    The state may have a little difficulty seceding, since the 1869 'Texas v White' decision by SCOTUS pretty much answers the question of whether a state can or cannot secede. SCOTUS decided they cannot.

  • 226. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 11:45 am

    "Do we really surrender the entire American system of government to five people, unelected, appointed for life, with no consequences for the decisions they make? The founders never intended for there to be such incredible, almost unlimited power, put in the hands of so few people." – Mike Huckabee


  • 227. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    I guess Mr. Huckleberry has not read the Constitution?

    Article III (which I believe was written by 'the founders') establishes the Supreme Court, also establishes how the members become members of the court, states that they are appointed for life, and also gives Congress the power to establish 'inferior' courts as it sees fit (and how that is to be accomplished).

    I also doubt that Mr. Huckleberry has any knowledge of what Article VI of the US Constitution says. It isn't much in the news, since it hasn't been changed since it was written in 1787.

    (In case people haven't noticed, I have extremely little respect for that particular former governor.)

  • 228. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Texas has been threatening Seceding from the United States now almost as long as it has been a State…….my question is this….how do those who support seceding from the Union plan on actually running their new individual country? I mean they SHOULDN'T be allowed to use our currency, nor any thing else that applies to the Citizens of the UNITED STATES, just saying that the grass is NOT always greener on the other side of the fence!!!

  • 229. Ned_Flaherty  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:14 am

    Today, it's 38 out of 56.

    38 jurisdictions when you include DC (39 when PR gets added this spring).

    The nation of America has 56 [lower-case] states:

    50 [upper-case] States (with stars on the flag and senators in Congress)
    01 district:
    — District of Columbia (DC)
    02 commonwealths:
    — Puerto Rico (PR)
    — Northern Marianas Islands (MP)
    03 territories:
    — American Samoa (AS)
    — Guam (GU)
    — U.S. Virgin Islands (VI)

  • 230. Steve27516  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:50 am

    In regards to Puerto Rico, is there action from the First Circuit that you anticipate? What's the latest, please?

  • 231. Ned_Flaherty  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    On 25 March 2014, 5 same-gender couples and Puerto Rico Para Tod@s challenged PR's ban on same-gender civil marriage in a federal court.

    On 21 October 2014, the judge used 3 excuses to dismiss the case: (1) same-gender marriage bans are valid now because they were valid in 1972 and 44 years later nothing has changed; (2) same-gender civil marriage might cause human extinction; and (3) nothing's unconstitutional if enough people vote for it.

    On 28 October 2014, the plaintiffs began their appeal at the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs' brief is due 26 January, the governor's brief 26 February, and the plaintiffs' reply brief 9 March.

    The hearing date is not yet set.

  • 232. Steve27516  |  January 26, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Thank you, Ned_Flaherty. I have many friends in Puerto Rico so I don't want us to overlook the status of ME on the island.

  • 233. DrBriCA  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:11 am

    37 +or- Missouri, depending on how you count it. Some just leave it at 37, since Kansas won't recognize licenses and Missouri will but has only a few places licensing, so they kinda balance each other.

  • 234. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:48 am

    I'm trying to get local Alabama media updates for this weekend. Equality Alabama's website ( appears to no longer be supported.

    But, I did find a Facebook page <a href="http://(” target=”_blank”>( Not much there, so far. Scottie, are there any other good sites for Alabama ME updates?

    By far the most interesting reading this morning is from the link at the bottom. While the article is the now-standard explanations of how the courts work, the comments below it are quite fascinating. I am assuming the comments are from folks living in the state:

    "Being around them gays makes me uncomfortable.I didn't realize there were so many."

    "Makes me think of my great uncle who passed away 25 years ago. He always had to pretend that the love of his life for 50 years was just his friend. Too bad this didn't happen back in the day."

    "Thats the problem, they are less than 1% of the pop. But they get 60% of the news, think about it….."

    "Alabama went through this with inter-racial marriage. As a kid I was told the bible was against it and it was wrong in God's eyes. And sadly I still know people who believe this in Alabama. But what's changed is that these hateful people can force their beliefs on other US citizens. "

    "no state is free to follow their own path when it is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States. The Civil War is over it is time the Southern states accept that as fact."

  • 235. BillinNO  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Brandall, I was looking to reach out to the Alabama folks a year ago, and the word was that Equality Alabama had folded. LGBT issues were being handled by…N.O.W (I think it was) at the Legislative Level. I have nothing further except to add that as a Louisianian with Alabama ties we are thrilled!

  • 236. hopalongcassidy  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    I think your facebook link got farkled. I believe this tweaked URL will work

  • 237. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Less than 1% of the pop? What kind of special rock is he smoking?

  • 238. Fledge01  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Even though the 1% figure is wrong, A better way of describing the marriage equality news would be to say "the bigots are 99% of the population, but the news about their discriminatory laws only get 60% of the news.

  • 239. RQO  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:25 am

    The tragic irony here! I so look forward to being 1% of the news – no discrimination stories, no lawsuits, no endless excoriation of gay actors, athletes, teachers, or parents, and no gay bashings.

  • 240. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    Alabama Rep. Mike Hubbard of Auburn was re-elected speaker of the House during the Alabama Legislature organizational session on Tuesday, 13 January 2015.

    Alabama's Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard opened the proverbial can of worms Friday night, 23 January 2015, when he issued a statement in regards to the ruling that declared Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Here's what he said:

    "It is outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment. The Legislature will encourage a vigorous appeals process, and we will continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live."

    Hubbard has been indicted by a grand jury in October 2014 on 23 charges accusing him of misusing his office as speaker as well as his previous post as chairman of the Alabama Republican Party. Hubbard has refused to resign in advance of his trial.

    On the other hand:

    Alabama's first openly gay legislator said she was elated at the news that a federal judge in Mobile has overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. "It's a historic day," said Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham. "I can't tell you how ecstatic I am. Lots and lots of people can celebrate their love today." Todd said she thought it would be a waste of time and resources for the state to appeal the ruling. She said she is confident the U.S. Supreme Court will rule later this year that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

    In Alabama, probate judges, one for each of Alabama's 67 counties, are the state officials with oversight on issuing marriage licenses (very much like in South Carolina).

  • 241. DeadHead  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:11 am

    One Texas lawmaker wants to nullify local nondiscrimination laws. “The objective is to create a uniform standard across the state,” said Texas Pastor Council Executive Director David Welch, who’s working to introduce legislation banning municipal equal rights ordinances this session. Local nondiscrimination laws, he continued, “are solutions looking for a problem.”

    Emma Margolin at MSNBC has a recap of anti-gay bills being moved in state legislatures at

  • 242. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    The Churchislature here in HATU—The Bass Ackwards State (Utah)—tried to ban city and county non-discrimination laws, arguing that such laws would create a "protected class." (The real reason for nullification was Mormon animus.) The Salt Lake City non-discrimination ordinance (the first to be passed) received public support from an LDS spokesperson. Repeated reminders of that support eventually killed the bill.

  • 243. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    David_Midvale_UT, did the HATU Legislature try to pass this in 2014 or 2013? I am trying to find the language used in the proposed bill to compare it to Colorado's Amendment 2 that was the basis of Romer v. Evans. There is no information on the Equality Utah site to this bill.

    Any links or the sponsor names of the proposed bill would be appreciated.

  • 244. David_Midvale_UT  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    The nondiscrimination ordinance was passed in Nov. 2009. See for example… and

    After Salt Lake County passed a similar ordinance, some of the clowns in the Churchislature started bloviating about killing the ordinances state wide. Equality Utah and others renewed their support for a state-wide non-discrimination law.

    The bill to kill the anti-discrimination ordinances is discussed here:

  • 245. guitaristbl  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    Someone should sent him a copy of Romer. I doubt it will stop him from submitting the bill but voters must know that this man knowingly submitted a bill he knows it is unconstitutional.

  • 246. davepCA  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:51 am

    I'm a bit late to the party here since I'm working out of town with limited time to check in here, so a slightly belated "congratulations!!" from me to the folks in Alabama! Looking forward to some news about the first same sex couples legally marrying in Alabama on Monday morning!!

  • 247. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:56 am

    My favorite line of the ruling; "In sum, the laws in question are an irrational way of promoting biological relationships in Alabama." THANK YOU!

  • 248. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    "Gay marriage hasn't been legal in Alabama until now, bestiality wasn't outlawed here until 2014"

    Following up on my quest to find for the best local Alabama media source in preparation for the legal briefs flying back and forth over the next few days.

    The best site I found is the Birmingham News – "" ….They have published 11 separate ME articles in less then 18 hours since the AL ruling was announced. They are all well written and appear to be factually correct. It is clear they are leaning on the "it's about time" side of the debate.

    Here is one opinion page from an columnist talking to his dog at home and hence the headline above. Very amusing and full of interesting facts.

  • 249. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    This site has some of the most ridiculous laws on the books or were at one time…….should take a look at them….good for a laugh or two:

    Speaking of laws in Alabama:
    Incestuous marriages are legal.

    Section 30-1-3
    Issue of incestuous marriages not deemed illegitimate.

    The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate.

    (Code 1852, §1945; Code 1867, §2334; Code 1876, §2673; Code 1886, §2310; Code 1896, §2840; Code 1907, §4880; Code 1923, §8994; Code 1940, T. 34, §3.)

    Another one:
    Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.

    Section 13A-12-1
    Certain acts prohibited on Sunday.

    Any person who compels his child, apprentice or servant to perform any labor on Sunday, except the customary domestic duties of daily necessity or comfort, or works of charity or who engages in shooting, hunting, gaming, card playing or racing on that day, or who, being a merchant or shopkeeper, druggist excepted, keeps open store on Sunday, shall be fined not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the operation of railroads, airlines, bus lines, communications, public utilities or steamboats or other vessels navigating the waters of this state, or to any manufacturing establishment which is required to be kept in constant operation, or to the sale of gasoline or other motor fuels or motor oils. Nor shall this section prohibit the sale of newspapers, or the operation of newsstands, or automobile repair shops, florist shops, fruit stands, ice cream shops or parlors, lunch stands or restaurants, delicatessens or plants engaged in the manufacture or sale of ice; provided, that such business establishments are not operated in conjunction with some other kind or type of business which is prohibited by this section. It shall also be lawful to engage in motorcycle and automobile racing on Sunday, whether admission is charged or not; except, that this proviso shall not be construed to prevent any municipality from passing ordinances prohibiting such racing on Sunday.

    (Code 1852, �73; Code 1867, �3614; Code 1876, �4443; Code 1886, �4045; Code 1896, �5542; Code 1907, �7814; Acts 1923, No. 417, p. 559; Code 1923, �5539; Code 1940, T. 14, �420; Acts 1951, No. 433, p. 783, �1; Acts 1953, No. 230, p. 297; Code 1975, �13-6-1.)

  • 250. ebohlman  |  January 24, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Section 30-1-3 doesn't make incestuous marriages legal; it just grants the offspring ("issue") of such marriages legitimacy. There's quite a bit of precedent that children can't be legally disadvantaged for the sexual choices [1] of their parents, whether good or bad; in fact that precedent supported several of Kennedy's statements in Windsor.

    [1] While sexual orientation isn't a choice, whom one marries is.

  • 251. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    I posted this as a way to point out some rather ridiculous laws that have been passed in various states over their history…….not to start anything serious.

  • 252. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    Brandall, this current article contains a quote from the chairman of Equality Alabama:

    Ben Cooper, chairman of Equality Alabama, said in a statement that he was thankful the state's "irrational" marriage law had been struck down.

    "I am positive with this landmark decision there will be many questions," he stated. "Yet opportunities now to reinforce and bring Alabama among its fellow states where equality is undeniably a reality."

  • 253. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    An interesting article regarding marriage throughout history:

  • 254. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    I've read this article and it's another view on Same-Sex marital rituals……..interesting and enlightening as well, though the anti-gay folks ignore it because of who the Professor is who researched it.:

  • 255. brandall  |  January 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm

    Compared to Florida, the Alabama court clerks are certainly not publicly saying much after Friday's ME decision. Other than the Gov and AG's statements, this is the only clerk on the record so far.

    "Limestone County [just outside of Huntsville] Probate Judge Charles Woodroof doesn’t anticipate a long line of same sex couples in his office next week seeking a marriage license. However, Woodroof said, if the state of Alabama and the court system recognizes same sex marriages, the probate office will issue licenses in accordance to the law. Woodroof knows that decision could take some time."

    David Dinielli, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center LGBT Rights Project, said in his personal view, couples should be able to seek marriage licenses when the doors of the county clerks' offices open Monday. However, he said it will likely take much more litigation for that to happen.

  • 256. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    I visited Norman, Oklahoma once on business, in 1984. It is the smallest, most remote of southwestern towns, in the middle of the Oklahoma panhandle. Tracy and Kathryn are unimaginably brave. This is how hearts and minds are opened. Best wishes to them.

    Deeply conservative Oklahoma adjusts to sudden arrival of same-sex marriage [Washington Post]

  • 257. pshtar  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    I'm not sure what town you visited, but Norman is a university town located very close to Oklahoma City. It's not anywhere near the panhandle. It's one of the most liberal places in the state.

  • 258. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Sagesse, I'm confused. Norman OK is the county seat of Cleveland County OK, the 3rd most-populous county in OK (right after Oklahoma and Tulsa), is the home of the University of Oklahoma, and directly abuts against Oklahoma County on its southern flank. Today, it's probably considered to be within the metro area of Oklahoma City. It's nowhere near the Oklahoma panhandle.

  • 259. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    Apologies, you are correct. The town I am thinking of is Guymon, which is in the panhandle.

  • 260. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Ah, OK. Guymon certainly IS in the middle of the panhandle. But, as per the linked article, Norman is where the wedding took place.

  • 261. pshtar  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Apparently, Guymon is best known as the birthplace of Michael "Heckuvajob" Brown. And yeah, it seems like a place where you'd need a lot of courage to be openly gay.

  • 262. Zack12  |  January 24, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    Sad to say but there are a lot of places like that, even in Blue States.

  • 263. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Top Anti-Gay Leaders Offer Liberals A Surprisingly Good Deal On The Supreme Court

    "Huckabee and Vander Plaats, in other words, might want to rethink what they are asking for. If Supreme Court decisions actually were something that could be ignored, as these two men suggest, American history would have been much less friendly to conservatives and far better for workers, women and racial minorities."

  • 264. ronbk  |  January 24, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Not gonna happen, but the article does illustrate historically why control over Supreme Court nominations (by the President and by the Senate) is so incredibly important. On the other hand, it's probably easier to just point to Scalia and say "Imagine this clown times five… if you don't want this nutcase to control (destroy) your fundamental rights, then vote Democrat! If you stay home on Election Day, this is what happens – Scalias on the Supreme Court…"

  • 265. F_Young  |  January 24, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    Macedonian lawmakers approve same-sex marriage ban

    "The former Yugoslav republic decriminalized homosexuality in 1996, but the country’s anti-discrimination laws currently do not include sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Same-sex couples in Macedonia also lack legal protections.

    "Anti-LGBT discrimination and violence remain commonplace in the country."

  • 266. Zack12  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    I'm trying to find the current panel for the 11th circuit who will hear stay requests this week and not having any luck.
    Anyone else want to take a shot at it?

  • 267. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    If there was any doubt as to why there should be ME nationwide…

    2 hours before Alabama same-sex marriage ruling, gay Decatur couple told they can't adopt children

  • 268. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    That's truly so sad and for people to do this NOT only to the men, but the children as well is just wrong……..I hope they sue DHR for the incentive comments and attitude.

  • 269. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    The arc of history, bending…

    What people told Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard about his same-sex marriage comments

  • 270. montezuma58  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:48 am

    Mikey is facing 20+ charges of violating ethics laws. Laws which he was heavily involved in crafting and getting through the legislature. I'm not sure if he's dreading or looking forward to the prison relationship stereotypes.

  • 271. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:30 am

    "I'm not sure if he's dreading or looking forward to the prison relationship stereotypes."

    OMG! You mean as the bottom half in same-sex "married?"

  • 272. Sagesse  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:02 pm


    Alabama Probate Judges Association says Gay Marriage is still Illegal

    "Judge Granade's ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter," Al Agricola, attorney for the Alabama Probate Judges Association, explained. "The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same-sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner's child. There is nothing in the judge's order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples."

  • 273. Zack12  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Did anyone think the bigots would give up that easily down there?

  • 274. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    States have tried this tactic and failed…….this is just more delay by idiots who obviously DIDN'T read the ruling!!!

  • 275. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    And if this were true….why is the AG asking for a stay? I mean if it is really ONLY about 1 couple and more specifically 1 person of this married couple…….then why the need for a Stay…….somethings NOT kosher!!!

  • 276. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    Sagesse. Here's the plan:

    Last night, Zack accidentally said it, and I quoted from him, "…. Sutton and Cook have been told …."

    There's a Deep South expression that says when you've been told, you've been told.

    In Florida, it took Judge Hinkle's "Orders of Clarification" before AG Bondi and the lawyers representing the Florida Clerks and Comptrollers Association to finally get the full essence of the message: "You've been told."

    Judge Hinkle is a District Court judge. Judge Granade is a District Court judge, and therefore, has precisely the same level of authority, and can just as easily issue her own "Orders of Clarification" directed toward any/all obfuscating Alabama state officials and whatever lawyers are representing the Alabama Probate Judges Association. Following in the footsteps of Judge Hinkle, the essence of her clarification will be: "Dudes, you've been told." They understand that kind of language. Perhaps Scottie can start the "You've Been Told" campaign.

    Alternatively, look to South Carolina:

    In South Carolina, after Judge Gergel ruled on 12 November 2014 to strike down South Carolina's ban on in-state marriage performance in "Condon v. Haley," there was lots of hyper-ventilation on the part of the South Carolina AG, as he ran around, appealing in every direction imaginable (to the South Carolina Supreme Court, to the 4th Circuit Court, and even to the Supreme Court).

    But then, the double-whammy. Judge Childs ruled on 18 November 2014 in "Bradacs v. Haley" to strike down the out-of-state recognition ban, and named, as applicable and applying to, every imaginable state official and all their agents, representatives, underlings, servants, delegates, sub-delegates, and parties acting in concert with, whether consciously, semi-consciously, or otherwise. In effect, by brilliantly dovetailing her ruling with Judge Gergel's, she said, "You've been told."

    So, with several pending Alabama cases still out there, perhaps a second judge in a second Alabama federal ruling will be able to do the same thing: "You've been told."

    Also let's not worry too much about the Alabama Speaker of the House, Hubbard, as he's already been indicted on 23 counts of abuse of his authority as Speaker and as head of the Republican Party in Alabama, and will be standing trial soon on those counts. Someone already in jail will most likely be deemed as not having standing, should there be any appeal.

  • 277. DACiowan  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:21 am

    Hopefully it won't be like the Kansas "you've been told" where it's been two and a half months and the judge still hasn't issued a clarification.

  • 278. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:05 am

    Perhaps Kansas isn't Southern enough to understand the language. Still, I'm equally baffled as to why there hasn't been quicker movement on issuing a clarification there.

    However, I already smell a closer parallel between Florida and the lawyers representing the Florida Clerks and Comptrollers Association, matching up with Alabama and the lawyers representing the Alabama Probate Judges Association. To begin, they're already claiming the same "only one couple in one county" routine. That line of twaddle needs a quick slap-down, as that's not what the ruling says.

    My own thought back to the lawyer representing the elected Probate Judges is this: What part of "unconstitutional" and "permanently enjoined from enforcing" don't you understand? I know some of the words are multi-syllabic, and perhaps need to be re-phrased in simpler language that even a good ole 'Bama boy can easily grasp.

  • 279. 1grod  |  January 25, 2015 at 4:09 am

    DA: 56 Kansas counties, with 80% of the population of the state, issue licenses; 27 counties in 6 judicial districts, representing 8% of the population apparently have not declared intentions at the time of Kansas Equality's canvas a month ago, and 21 counties, representing 12% of the population have decided – for now – not to issue licenses. In November ACLU said it will seek assistance of the federal court to require two of these counties to issue them. The clarification being sought is more about recognition of in-state [and out of state] marriages, than celebration. On January 20, '15, state defendants filed a motion to dismiss siting in part DOMA Section "3" (sic).

  • 280. Sagesse  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:24 am

    Dejà vu all over again…

  • 281. VIRick  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    They really do need to be told:

    "Judge Greg Norris, President of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, hopes that misinterpretation of Friday's ruling will not cause confusion among the general public.

    "As probate judges, our duty is to issue marriage licenses in accordance with Alabama law and that means we can not legally issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," Norris said. "The recent federal ruling does not change that."

    Probate Judges are elected in all 67 counties in Alabama and are statutorily given the responsibility of issuing and recording marriage licenses."

  • 282. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 8:16 am

    Sunday update: Members of the association will hold a teleconference with reporters at 2 p.m. today to discuss the ramifications of the ruling.

    Alabama is in the Central Time Zone.

  • 283. Steve84  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

  • 284. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 24, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    Off topic:

    According to the Advocate, there will be an episode of Jeapardy! this coming week that the GLBT community is starting to talk about in a very favorable manner:
    (… )

    On Wednesday's episode, under the category "Civil," the answer-and-question show unveiled the answer "Some opponents of same-sex marriage say, 'hey gay folks, how about these? Wouldn't these be good enough?'" The correct question is "What are civil unions?"

    Jeopardy! appears on various stations at various times, but usually in the 7:00 to 7:30 PM or 7:30 to 8:00 PM time slot (Central Time Zone is generally an hour earlier).

  • 285. RnL2008  |  January 24, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    That boat sailed long ago regarding Civil Unions………maybe had the Fundies NOT taken such a hard stand against them, maybe we'd still be further away from having full Marriage Equality….so they have NO ONE but themselves to blame………..again stupid should hurt!!!

  • 286. 1grod  |  January 25, 2015 at 8:30 am

    Equality Alabama's Facebook states today:- We firmly believe that this court ruling is now the law of the land in the Yellowhammer State, and that marriage equality is now legal in Alabama.
    We ask those of you who are legally qualified to marry a same-sex couple in the state of Alabama to contact Benjamin Newbern @, so we can share this information with other LGBT-allied organizations in Alabama, based on your Monday availability. We are specifically looking for officiants on a county-by-county basis. ….
    Equality Alabama does anticipate push back from probate courts from various Alabama counties who might want further clarification of the decision handed down Friday evening.

  • 287. JayJonson  |  January 25, 2015 at 8:53 am

    Where are the ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, NCLR, HRC, etc.? I understand the suit was filed by private attorneys. I suspect that they now need help to force the yahoos to obey the law.

  • 288. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:13 am

    There are 3 other Federal ME cases pending in Alabama. Aaron-Brush v. Bentley was filed by the ACLU and is a recognition cases and as of 11/13/14 motions for summary judgment are fully briefed. Hard v. Bentley was file by the Southern Poverty Law Center for recognition of a widower and as of 10/29/14 motions for summary judgment are fully briefed. Richmond & Richmond v. Madison County Circuit Clerk is a divorce handled by private attorneys.

    I have not found any comments from any of the ME orgs willing to assist in the Searcy case.

  • 289. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    Brandall, I've just sent you a private message containing some additional information which I am reluctant to post here, as it may or may not prove to be meaningful.

  • 290. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    The ACLU of Alabama just jumped in. It's a photo-text, so I can't paste the message:

  • 291. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    As of 3 PM PST, we now have Equality Alabama (EA), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU) and The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) engaged.

  • 292. JayJonson  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    So glad to know that the forces are on the ground. I hope that those who would stand in the way of justice know that they will have to pay a price in legal fees and fines.

  • 293. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:31 am

    From Judge Granade's MEMORANUM OPINION AND ORDER: CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY MCKEAND, individually and as parent and next friend of K.S., a minor, Plaintiff's VS. LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Defendant
    For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is DENIED
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that A LA. CONST. A RT. I, § 36.03 (2006) and A LA CODE
    1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing those laws. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.
    From a comment I posted yesterday, "Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis' "If we have the status quo Monday morning as we have now, right off the cuff my thought is that I'm going to seek an emergency attorney general's opinion," Davis said."Elected officials in Alabama can often seek an opinion from the attorney general on matters "relating to the operation of our offices," Davis said. "I would do so and indicate that it's of an urgent and immediate nature…And then we would wait to see the attorney general's advice."

    "Officials with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange's office were not able to immediately comment Saturday on whether they had any guidance prepared for judge before the week starts."
    From the AG's own website: "The Attorney General defends the state in all lawsuits in which the state is named as a defendant. He represents the state in all court proceedings wherein the constitutionality of a state statute is challenged."
    From Title 36, Chapter 15, of the Code of Alabama (1975): The Attorney General shall give his or her opinion, in writing or otherwise, as to any question of law connected with the duties of the following county or city officers when requested so to do in writing: Judge of probate, clerk of the circuit court….. <a href="http://.” target=”_blank”>.

    The correct defendant was named in the lawsuit. The Judge's ORDER is clear as to the laws in question. The Probate Court clerks take their direction (opinions) from the Attorney General.

    Just WHERE is the problem? There isn't one. For EoT'ers previously commenting a clarification needs to be issued..WHAT is there to clarify?

    PERHAPS a cut and paste from Judge Hinkle, "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."

    P.S. Sorry for the long post, but the facts need to be posted for your thoughts or comments.

  • 294. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    Nice job brandall……and you're right…..what needs to be clarified? The Judge ruled that the ban is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and not just the recognition part, but the ENTIRE ban……therefore this Association is playing it's typical game and needs a SMACK-DOWN placed on them……..STUPID should hurt.

  • 295. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Brandall, thank you, indeed, for clarifying that nothing whatsoever needs further clarifying by the issuance of any sort of "Orders of Clarification." However, when obfuscating individuals in some position of authority start spinning the ruling to suit their own narrow interpretation, a cut-and-paste from Judge Hinkle would seem to be extremely appropriate, given that the lawyer representing the Alabama Probate Judges Association appears to be following the same narrow path that was taken by the lawyer representing the Florida Clerks and Comptrollers Association.

    In other words, the legal ramifications of their NOT following Judge Granade's ruling need to be spelled out for them, quite clearly, in black-and-white, in simple language, like this: "You will be sued, and when you lose, you will be stuck paying all the court costs and attorneys' fees out of your own pocket. You ran for and got elected to that position. Do your job. If you didn't understand what the job entails, too bad. You wanted the job. You got it."

  • 296. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    According to his Twitter account, the Probate Judge from Montgomery says that Montgomery will issue marriage licenses tomorrow to ALL couples who wish to be married, IF there is no stay by the federal judge. Should be interesting!

  • 297. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    Yes!! Very good!!! At least one person in Alabama understands the scope of the ruling.

  • 298. JayJonson  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    Montgomery is the state capital and home to a branch of Auburn University. It may rank with Tuscaloosa, the home of the University of Alabama, and Mobile as the most open-minded cities in Alabama. These cities, along with Birmingham and Selma, should know about the state's sorry history in fighting equal rights for African Americans, so they should also know the futility of standing in the schoolroom door.

  • 299. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:42 am

    According to the Judge's order (which has been posted by others on this thread) it is clear that she has ruled the Alabama law unconstitutional, yet the Probate Judges' Association has said they will follow Alabama law and not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So what happens next?

  • 300. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:56 am

    My guess is possible more lawsuits or a mere smackdown by the the Judge like what the Judge did in Florida!!!

  • 301. 1grod  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    RnL: As you are aware, there is a process for addressing a Request/Motion for a stay ex post facto. It is surprising that the AG had not made this request earlier, giving similar circumstances a year ago in Utah.
    The Request for a stay "enjoining him from enforcing Alabama's marriage laws" does not read as if the Court's Ruling had limited application as suggested by the Probate Judges Association: – "a stay will serve the public interest by avoiding the confusion and inconsistency that will result from an on-again, off-again enforcement of marriage laws".
    After hearing from the plaintiffs, Judge Granade's might grant a 72 hour stay, giving the State or plaintiffs an opportunity to ask the 11th Circuit Appeals Court to also rule on the merits of a stay. As noted elsewhere on this thread, the AG did not mention the decline of a request for a Stay in the Florida case of similar circumstance which was denied at all levels, including the Supreme Court. The suggested smack-down may come in the written decision regarding the stay.

  • 302. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    I seriously doubt the 11th is going to grant a stay nor is it likely SCOTUS will either, but it is possible because they will be hearing oral arguments in April…….and exactly how will a stay serve the public's interest? The ONLY interest the AG is concerned about is their own, they know that ANY marriages solemnized will remain legal and their bigotry just CAN'T handle that!!!

  • 303. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    "The suggested smack-down may come in the written decision regarding the stay."

    Precisely. Judge Granade, in her ruling denying the request for a stay (a stay request which has already been filed, even if poorly done, but therefore, something which she must act upon), could very well do her "cut-and-paste" of Judge Hinkle's "Orders of Clarification" at that time, listing all the potential consequences that could befall the probate judges for not following the NEW law.

  • 304. hopalongcassidy  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:58 am

    One thing for sure, it is not analogous to the old "immovable object vs irresistible force" meaningless puzzle…something's gotta give, and if I were a betting man (which actually I am), I'd go with the federal judiciary. But like pulling teeth with no anesthetic it might take awhile.

  • 305. bythesea66  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:59 am

    According to their news stream on FB the one in Montgomery will be issuing licenses if there is no stay.

  • 306. ReadLearn  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    I just looked, and I see that you are correct. Very happy to see that, even if it is only one clerk!

  • 307. montezuma58  |  January 25, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Tweet from Montgomery County probate judge:

    @stevenlouisreed: @ItsJustMeMia Unless the federal judge issues a stay then MGM Probate Court will issue a license to ANY couple that wants to be married.

  • 308. Sagesse  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    From the Alabama Probate Judges Association press conference

    Alabama Probate Judges Association issues guidance on issuing same-sex marriage licenses

    "However, while the association advises that probate judges should not issue marriage licenses on Monday, it was also noted that individual probate judges have jurisdiction over their own counties. The association only provides legal counsel.

    "The association’s attorney,Al] [Agricola elaborates that the association is private, and the position comes from its executive committee. It is not binding. It’s a service to members, who must make up their own mind."

  • 309. hopalongcassidy  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    "their own mind"? So they are like the Borg. Wotta surprise.

  • 310. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    Alabama Probate Judges Association – Executive Committee. These are the one's making today's pronouncements with no communication with the AL AG. They are obviously not following the processes I posted earlier this morning. They have not polled their members. This is Florida again as others have already commented.

    The Executive Committee is straight, white and male with 2 Baptists, 1 Methodist and 1 Church of Christ member. (with no offense to our straight, white, male EoT'ers). What a surprise…..

  • 311. Steve84  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    And Agricola's wife is a local Teabagger leader

  • 312. JayJonson  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    They are already covering their asses.

  • 313. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    My thoughts exactly.

    Notice how they made it clear that they are ordering the other judges to not do something, or do something? The whole aim is to make sure the other judges do not issue licenses.

  • 314. Sagesse  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    Plaintiffs respond to AG's stay request; I don't see a link to the filing.

    Gay couple's lawyers: Alabama probate court judges 'like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door'

    "Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case that struck down Alabama's same-sex marriage ban shot back an argument early Sunday, filing an 8-page response to the state's request to hold off on issuing marriage licenses to couples who may be seeking to wed immediately."

  • 315. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Alabama : Here is this morning's Plaintiff's filing which clearly shows us Alabama has tried to ignore the courts before. … 3 years after the time of Loving v. Virginia


    Page 7 – "Plaintiffs assert that this particular issue of enforcement in Alabama was specifically addressed in the anti miscegenation laws deemed unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, when a similar issue of nonconformity through the Probate Judges was heard in United States v. Brittain, 319 F. Supp. 1058, 1061 (N.D. Ala. 1970). The Court in Brittain, stated, “It would be inappropriate to withhold the general declaratory relief sought here until another similar request can be presented. Although the unconstitutionality of these miscegenation laws cannot be seriously questioned by any trained in the law, we find a situation where the chief law officer of the State of Alabama is not free (and this has been so stipulated) to advise Judges of Probate who are not members of the bar that these miscegenation laws are unconstitutional and should not be followed. Such advice could only (by force of custom if not of law) be given after the Alabama laws had been declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction. Given such a situation, there is no reason for this Court to delay making such a declaration until another couple in just the right circumstances next feels the pinch of these laws. A judgment will be entered, declaring null, void and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution the Alabama laws in question; enjoining the State of Alabama, its officers, agents, employees, and their successors, and all those acting in concert or participation with them from enforcing or giving any effect to such laws; and requiring the Attorney General of the State of Alabama to advise the Judges of Probate of the several counties of Alabama of the invalidity of Title 14, Section 361, 1940 Code of Alabama under the decision of this Court."

    "As it was necessary to educate the Probate courts across Alabama in 1970 it is again necessary that the Attorney General in this case be so ordered to educate the Probate courts across Alabama in 2015 that a judgment declaring a law in Alabama is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is not subject to interpretation as to enforcement county by county."

  • 316. F_Young  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Why Are Muslim Countries and the Southern Evangelical USA Bible Belt the #1 Porn Users?

    This is a provocative, not to say click-baity, article. It is certainly interesting given the problems we have seen enforcing marriage equality in the Deep South.

  • 317. hopalongcassidy  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    Fundies have built-in perpetual get-out-of-jail/hell cards which they have bought from snake oil salesmen called preachers. They actually believe the 'certificate of authenticity' that comes with them, even with its components that are logically, physically and even philosophically impossible, is valid. Faith is a piss-poor but powerful substitute for thinking.

  • 318. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Equality Alabama (EA), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU) and The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):

    Birmingham, AL – – On Friday, January 23, 2015, Federal District Court Judge Callie Granade, ruled that Alabama’s marriage laws prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    Judge Granade’s order is immediate and applies statewide in Alabama. Absent a stay, Alabama Constitution Article I, 36.03 and Alabama Code 30-1-19, which prohibit same-sex marriage are no longer valid.

    The Alabama Probate Judges Association is a private organization whose legal advice is non- binding. Simply put, the non-binding legal opinion of the Probate Association cannot and does not preempt a Federal Order. Probate judges should comply with their constitutional obligations as declared by a federal court rather than the desires of the leaders of a private professional organization.

  • 319. hopalongcassidy  |  January 25, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    Those picking into Judge Granade's ruling for some vacuous end-around means to oppose it remind me of

    Rules of bible quoting:

    Whenever a bible passage can be used to support someone's belief and bigotry, that passage is clear, stands on its own, and does not depend on any other context or special interpretation.

    Whenever someone points out any of the hundreds of bible passages showing god literally ordering or approving killing of children,
    raping of young girls, correct treatment of slaves, death penalty
    for minor infractions, and genocide, the proper response is

    (pick one or more of the following):

    1. It is taken out of context
    2. Can only be understood by special understanding of context
    3. The OT is not relevant
    4. God can't be understood by humans
    5. This is selective quoting
    6. The quoter doesn't understand the bible
    7. God didn't say that, he was "misquoted"
    8. God meant some special application, such as to Israelites or
    ancient clergy, etc.

  • 320. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Isn't there a #9: ALL of the above

  • 321. hopalongcassidy  |  January 25, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Feel free to add it to the list! I don't know who the real author is, I shamelessly stole it, and modified it quite a bit. It might be one of those memes that evolved by decreasing entropy from an infusion of energy/information from outside the system. 😀

  • 322. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Another reason why the Republicans screw themselves out of the White House in my opinion:

  • 323. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    If Chris Geidner (who I am normally a fan of) was reading EoT this weekend, he would not be writing an Alabama ME fluff piece based on today's Alabama Probate Judges Association press conference. We certainly have more factual information about the relationship between the Probate Clerks and the Attorney General than he does:

    “[t]he attorney general in Alabama has no role to play in the issuance of marriage licenses, so there is no party to Judge Granade’s case who has any role to play with regard to the issuance of marriage licenses in Alabama,” said the group’s lawyer, Al Agricola."

    Well, I have news for Alabama. Like Florida, the state requested the suit be amended to only name the Attorney General who is responsible for the enforcement of constitutional issues. Here are the names of the defendants named in the initial lawsuit:

    Robert Bentley, individually and in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Alabama

    Luther Strange, individually and in his capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama

    Don Davis, individually and in his capacity as the Judge of Probate for Mobile County, Alabama

    Catherine M. Donald, individually and in her official capacity as the State Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of Alabama

    Nancy T. Buckner, individually and in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources for the State of Alabama

  • 324. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    Good find, Brandall, as the state can't have it both ways. By requesting that the other named defendants be dropped, the state is admitting that the Attorney-General does indeed have supervisory control over the actionss of each and every county probate judge.

  • 325. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 4:54 pm


    "It is not reasonable to expect that fundamental changes to the administration of Alabama’s marriage laws can be uniformly and efficiently implemented between Friday evening of one week and Monday morning of the following week without mass confusion in probate offices across the state of Alabama. Further, there has been no opportunity to train probate office personnel concerning these changes."


  • 326. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 25, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    May I ask why Alabama is so different from Indiana and Wisconsin, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Oklahoma, etc. that they can't follow the law immediately rather than have to have more than three days to 'train probate office personnel concerning these changes"? Are the 'probate personnel' so stupid they have to be led on how to follow the law?

    What happened in Alabama in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled that people of different ethnicities can marry? How long did they stall and delay?

    Did Alabama train ALL personnel on how to handle any other stalling and delaying tactics for any other SCOTUS decision?

    Is there ANY VALID reason the office personnel cannot follow the law?

  • 327. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    "What happened in Alabama in 1967 when SCOTUS ruled that people of different ethnicities can marry? How long did they stall and delay?"

    Mike, it "only" took Alabama 3 years and a separate federal lawsuit before a mixed-race couple was finally able to obtain a marriage license from the probate judge in Anniston AL Furthermore, it "only" took them 33 years (until the year 2000) to remove the unconstitutional, permanently enjoined law from the books.

    The specifics of this case are cited in the plaintiffs' filing in opposition to the state defendants' stay request. Brandall posted a link to the plaintiffs' filing earlier today.
    The case was "United States v. Brittain," 319 F. Supp. 1058, 1061 (N.D. Ala. 1970).

  • 328. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    Mike_Baltimore is correctly being sarcastic. He knows the answers are all indicative of a foot dragging, pretending to be ignorant, backwards state governement.

  • 329. StraightDave  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    "pretending" ???

  • 330. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Judge issues 14-day stay on Alabama marriage ruling ….

  • 331. flyerguy77  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    it's 14 day stay.. 11th Circuit will deny their stay

  • 332. flyerguy77  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    the judge granted the stay for 14 days…… ONLY

    This is a GOOD THING IN REAlity.. its 2 weeks stay.. 11th Circuit will deny the stay.. I don't know what SCOTUS will do after they accepted 6th Circuit appeals.. in my honesty opinion, they are showing their hand with past actions since October..

  • 333. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    Scottie posted a new article so we can move to a new set of comment threads!

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