Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

READ IT HERE: Plaintiffs in Idaho same-sex marriage case oppose Supreme Court review

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The same-sex couples challenging Idaho’s marriage ban (who are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)) have filed their brief in opposition to the state’s and the governor’s petitions for Supreme Court review.

The brief points out that the Court is already set to hear marriage cases from four states, and suggests there’s no need to add more cases. The brief also asks the Court to simply deny the petition outright as it has done in several other instances, instead of holding on to it for the final decision in the four cases.

You can read the filing here:

Otter/Idaho v. Latta Plaintiffs' opposition to Supreme Court review by Scottie Thomaston


  • 1. hopalongcassidy  |  January 30, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    This is fine but probably unnecessary………..if the SC is already prepared to hear one, wouldn't they just ignore requests for added cases? Why would more be helpful…to either side?

  • 2. VIRick  |  January 30, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    '… wouldn't they just ignore requests for added cases?"

    Of course, the Supreme Court will ignore Idaho's request. However, the plaintiffs still have to follow procedure, and file their opposition. Besides, in the end, the state of Idaho will be stuck footing the bill for the additional legal expense.

  • 3. FredDorner  |  February 2, 2015 at 9:39 am

    The only reason I can see why SCOTUS might grant cert to Idaho is if they want to directly address the heightened scrutiny issue.

  • 4. bythesea66  |  February 2, 2015 at 9:49 am

    True, but they don't at all need to take this case to be able to address heightened scrutiny. If that's what they want to do it can easily be addressed in the ruling on the case before them without bothering with the ID case, so I'd figure they still won't.

  • 5. RnL2008  |  January 30, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    Ugh, 41 pages to simply ask SCOTUS to deny the cert request………it's no wonder I can't sit and read them like I use to……….hopefully SCOTUS does deny cert to Idaho…….they are governed by the binding precedent from the 9th CA and there is truly no reason in my personal opinion for cert to be granted…..unless Butch is trying to halt the issuing of Marriage Licenses for a bit of a delay……which I don't believe will do anything….in the end, he'll lose and marriages will continue!!!

  • 6. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    I can not see SCOTUS granting cert to any more ME cases this session, defendants or plaintiffs, unless the requesting party comes up with and poses new and heretofore unique or unasked questions.

    Marriage Equality (between TWO PEOPLE of the same sex) is a DONE DEAL in Idaho. It's also a DONE DEAL in EVERY state under a Circuit Court ruling striking down the bans OR as provided by a state legislature, state supreme court or ballot vote of the plebiscite. And I'm sure you know that ;D

    If Governor Otter wants to keep wasting tax payer dollars on an indefensible law and a lost cause, it's his fight to loose. I just hope when Idahoan voters go to the polls next time, they remember why their children's school lunch program is in the red and who is responsible.

  • 7. RnL2008  |  January 30, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    I totally agree with ya…….especially seeing that the 9th's ruling is precedent now… continue to fight a losing battle is not politically good and it would be nice that the folks of Idaho dumped their bigoted politicians…..but most won't and still whine about it!!!

  • 8. Pominax  |  January 30, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    never underestimate the capacity of some people to be convinced that it is obama's fault, no matter what 'it' is.

  • 9. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Well some people just better get used to the fact that they're living in an Obamanation!

  • 10. Pominax  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    facts don't seem to matter to reality-deniers.

  • 11. GregInTN  |  January 30, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Idaho feels that their argument that allowing same sex couples to marry will result in heterosexuals behaving more irresponsibly is (a) important to present to SCOTUS and (b) not presented in the other cases. Besides that, they may just want to try to delay the inevitable for as long as they can.

    The couples don't want SCOTUS to simply ignore Idaho's petition. They want the Court to deny it now (as the Court did with cases from the 4th, 7th, & 10th Circuits in October) rather than holding it until the cases from the 6th Circuit are decided.

  • 12. davepCA  |  January 30, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Oh Yeah. It would go something like this – straight married guy talking to the gay couple who live next door:
    Straight guy: So, what do you guys think about the fact that our state is now allowing you guys to legally marry?
    Gay guys: We think it's great, thanks for asking!
    Straight guy: So……. what are YOUR plans…?
    Gay guys: What do you mean?
    Straight guy: When exactly will you be getting legally married? I need specifics.
    Gay guys: Well, we don't know if we'll have a big wedding, but we'd be happy to invite you if we do….
    Straight guy: That's not good enough. I need to know exactly when you will become LEGALLY married.
    Gay guys: Um…why?
    Straight guy: Because I want to start cheating on my wife, and I can't justify doing that until you guys have that legal document to show that you are legally married!
    Gay guys: ……. uh ….what …?

  • 13. josejoram  |  January 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm


  • 14. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    It's just my opinion, but I think hetero sexuals who act irresponsibly should be punitized…not rewarded with marriage, Or is marriage THEIR punishment….hmmmm??? O_o

    If Idaho has to offer carrots (incentives) to get their wayward, irresponsible unmarried heteros from recklessly pro-creating and running amok….well that doesn't say a lot for Idaho now does it? Perhaps the people of IDAHO should think about changing their name from "I-Da-Ho" to something a little more responsible no?

  • 15. VIRick  |  January 30, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    '…. think about changing their name from "I-Da-Ho" to something a little more responsible, no?"

    Tony, that's awful. Ridiculously funny, but still awful.

    So, the "lost-cause" drama now includes "I-Da-Ho," Butch Otter, Gay Otter, and Dead Horse?!?

    Oh wait! Given their cross-pollinated affiliation through the LDS Church, maybe they could merge with Utah and sanctimoneously be U-Da-Ho.

  • 16. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    OMG Rick! I Totally forgot about, people such as those Idaho politicians, beating a horse dead. Animal Cruelty is so heinous it is beyond the pale, beyond description. They should be charged with animal cruelty, with high crimes and felonies. Does PETA know about this?

    I don't think it will help their cause, Rick, for them to keep saying (in court no less) how irresponsible they are and how they're so irresponsible that the government must lure them into marriage…like rats to a trap. I don't see how taking on the moniker WeDaHos will help their cause.

  • 17. VIRick  |  January 30, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    Tony, seriously, for a moment:

    What's really pulling their chain is the precipitous decline in the marriage rate over the last number of years in most parts of the USA. Basically put, among heteros, almost no one is bothering with it any more. Wait! Actually, they are bothering with it; they're just not getting married as a result. So, if current trends continue, in 10 years time (or whatever), about the only people still getting married will be the gays. And that's what's truly freaking them out, so much so, that they can't even verbalize it for fear that that will only hasten the day.

  • 18. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    Seriously Rick,

    They, the non gays, have been less than stellar stewards of the institution of marriage. They claim it as something that god gave to them and to them alone. Yet in the 21st century, they're divorcing at a rate approaching over 50%. And as you say, they're marrying less and less. The truth of the matter lies not in their desire to "protect" marriage. If that we're so, they'd also protect the tenet of one man staying married to one woman for life. That tenet not so important, that definition…ehh, lets through it out so we can marry as often as they want, regardless of the children they have pro-created or won't pro-create with spouse, 2,3,4,5 6. I'm thinking Liz Taylor, Rush Limbaugh, Ron Reagan, John McCain, Glenn Beck, Pam Bondi and many many others who have been married and re-married and even re-married, on both sides of the political aisle.

    In truth Rick, Anthony Kennedy (and Company) illuminated the real reason for denying marriage to gays. Animus. The non gays simply do not like the icky gays. They do not want the gays in their towns, in their schools in their neighborhoods, in their PTAs, in their bars, in their town councils. They don't want them working in the cubicle next to them, they don't want them on their sports teams, in their car pools, in their municipal swimming pools, in their St. Patty's Day Parades, in their hospitals or in their lives. That is why some want to convert us via conversion therapy and while others would have us go back in the closet and others would intern us behind concrete and barbed link fences. And yet others who would have the gays wiped off the face the earth. No not all those people have that degree of malice Rick, but there is a horde that do. They fear people, gay people, simply because gay people are different than them. And Fear, Rick, leads to anger. Anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. And gay people have been suffering and dying and having their relationships denied and disparaged at the hands of the fearful Rick… for millennia. It's that serious Rick.

    Gays are here on this earth to save marriage…and mankind, not destroy them.


  • 19. VIRick  |  January 30, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    "Gays are here on this earth to save marriage…and mankind, not destroy them."

    That's why I found it to be so appropriate the first time we got "married," when we simply, yet boldly, exchanged matching Superman rings in the parking lot of that Jacksonville Beach pawn shop.

  • 20. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    …" we got "married," … exchang[ing] rings in the parking lot …"

    Ahhhhh yes, what every young boy grows up dreaming his "wedding" Happily Ever After day will be like…

    Minus the square quotes. And they say Romance is dead ◔_◔ Oy…

  • 21. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Tony, I'm teasing you.

    I already know you want a massively big, expensive, attention-grabbing gay wedding, complete with all the fanfare and trimmings.

    Truthfully now, I save most of my romance for the other thing.

  • 22. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    …And don't forget the huge surprise flash mob proposal at Disney World.

  • 23. andrewofca  |  January 30, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    Off-topic: our own EoT Editor Scottie Thomaston quoted in an article on AL ME in the Guardian today:


  • 24. JayJonson  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:03 am

    Nice to see Scottie quoted. My favorite passage in the article is this:

    "Sisson and her fiance, Shanté Wolfe, plan to be “the very first in line” when Alabama marriages start happening, perhaps as early as 9 February. “There could be some crazy people,” she says, but “so many people before us have done so much work, we are called to be fearless.”"

  • 25. josejoram  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:37 am

    Equality is not a matter of "once and forever". It is built everyday and perhaps we won't see it fully acomplished.

  • 26. Zack12  |  January 30, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    Here is a post about Roy Moore and whether judges can ignore federal court rulings.

  • 27. sfbob  |  January 30, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    The author of the post is SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston. Reading Denniston can be frustrating and this one is an example. He seems almost to be going out of his way to credit Roy Moore's arguments. That's probably not precisely what he's doing and I think most of us here would find it grating simply to have it suggested that Moore may have any legitimate point whatsoever.

    I wonder if Denniston presumes he has to carry giving the appearance of being neutral and dispassionate to a fault in order to not jeopardize his standing as a respected Supreme Court observer.

    Of course Denniston also goes on to note the complaints that have been filed against Moore not to mention the fact that Moore had previously been removed from the bench only to be elected to it again. Perhaps Denniston is simply inclined to let his readers read between the lines regarding Moore's ultimate credibility but then again maybe I'm giving Denniston more credit than he deserves.

  • 28. Zack12  |  January 30, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    I agree with you about Denniston.
    His article about how the bigoted dissent in the Idaho case is one of the biggest jokes I've seen in a while.

  • 29. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Zack, Indeed. He went on and on as if O'Scannlain (who also went on and on), and O'Scannlain's completely unnecessary dissent on the subject of the simple "Yes" or "No" vote as to whether or not to re-hear the Idaho appeal in an en banc review by the 9th Circuit Court, was actually a substantive opinion which meant something and which had merit all unto itself.

  • 30. Rick55845  |  January 30, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    I think Denniston is simply stating the truth as it relates to a divided and independent State and Federal court system. I doubt it has anything to do with appearances, just legal fact.

  • 31. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    I thought Mr. Denniston's position was pretty clear. He was just pointing out, it seemed to me, that historically and as a matter of course, the Federal Courts oft begin from a starting position of deference to a state, it's courts it's officials and it's position on the law. That said, a Federal Court is well with in it's jurisdiction, it's duty in fact to make sure the state isn't crossing any constitutional lines. Once the state is accused of crossing a constitutional line, they invoke a Federal Constitutional Question which then gets the Federal District Courts involved. The Supreme Court put Virginia and 15 other states in their place in it's 1967 Loving case. They put Texas and 15 other states in their place for violating the constitutional rights of gays in 2004's Lawrence.

    When the state mini DOMA's began to fall like Dominoes in Dec 2013 with Judge Hinkle's decision, the Supreme Court gave deference to the states governors and their request for stays… at first. The Circuit courts which were closer to the facts weighed the balance of harms in favor of the same sex couples. But as time marched on, the Supreme Court changed course. The Court's deference to the States, their laws and Governors ended because their anti-ME arguments shown in the light of day to be completely specious after judicial review. I think another term for it is "giving them the benefit of the doubt"…[that what they're doing is constitutional] until they prove otherwise. Denniston made it clear though that in the final act, the Supreme Court is the final word on the constitution, and all lower courts, state or federal come under complete jurisdiction of the highest court in the land.

    Judge Moore just doesn't like when anyone has the audacity to subvert his biblical views and his supposedly superior biblical based judgement . Judge Moore is simply an arrogant christo-fascist who thinks he can get away with being insolent. In the end, this insolent stand will be his Waterloo.

  • 32. VIRick  |  January 30, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    "…. in Dec 2013 with Judge Hinkle's decision …."

    Tony, you just like Judge Hinkle and his famous "Hinkle Maneuver," don't you?

    On 20 December 2013, Judge Shelby in "Kitchen v. Herbert" struck down Utah's ban, the first of the dominoes.

    Ass-hat Moore's problem is that he has expressed zero credence in, and shows zilch deference to, ANY federal court lower than the Supreme Court, at which point he becomes "all-holy" in a facetiously phony manner, while wrapping himself in his own self-righteousness. The current Kansas officials have the same attitude, as do the current Idaho officials.

    It's ridiculous to think that the federal government could have a single court, called the Supreme Court, with no lower federal courts under it. Yet, he wants us to believe that that ridiculousness holds merit.

    Lyle Denniston's problem is that he repeated Moore's ridiculousness as if it actually were an acceptable judicial position.

  • 33. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 30, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    Judge Shelby (and his "Shelby" Maneuver) is my Hero.

    I really did not read Mr. Denniston's article in that light. Sometimes, in order to make a point, one has to play the devil's advocate and for the sake of illustration and proving a point, articulate the ridiculousness of the other side. I find it a stretch to think that Mr. Denniston's intent or effect was to uplift Judge Moore's asinine stance. But maybe I'm guilty of giving him [Mr. Denniston] the benefit of the doubt and reading between the lines.

  • 34. DACiowan  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:42 am

    I second this. Dennison is merely giving all sides of the legal situation, even the ridiculous-but-present one, and letting the reader evaluate. To our non-neutral position, that is going to look biased simply because of how far to the (correct) side our viewpoint is.

  • 35. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    I Third your second!

  • 36. 1grod  |  January 31, 2015 at 10:40 am

    While Tony considers Shelby, and Rick consider Hinkle as their heroes, imo NJ Judge Mary Jacobson who set Oct 21 2013 as the date New Jersey's ban was to be lifted is my hero.… When on October 18, the state Supreme Court agreed with her well-reasoned decision and lifted the stay, Christie and company backed down, but insisted on the usual 72 hours interval between application and celebration remain. That was the 1st domino

  • 37. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    "NJ Judge Mary Jacobson who set Oct 21 2013 as the date New Jersey's ban was to be lifted is my hero."

    1grod, Indeed! There are so many heros throughout the marriage saga.

    Still, Judge Shelby in Utah is the federal judge whose action set the precedent at the federal level upon which one federal judge after the other has continued to build, state by state, circuit after circuit.

    I also worship the Boulder CO County Clerk who simply began issuing licenses after the 10th Circuit Court's ruling, and who for the longest while, seemed totally unstoppable, a move that showed other clerks that they, too, could do the same.

  • 38. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    And let's not forget the Patron St of Marriage Equality who struck down the first State DOMA in the country…Judge Vaughn Walker.

    And the justice who wrote marriage equality into New Mexico Law, Edward L. Chavez along with a unanimous vote of the NM Supreme Court! And the man who got the whole ball rolling in NM, Dona Anna County Clerk Lynn Ellins.

    Judge Shelby, however, was the first (that I know of) that struck down a state ban, state wide, and refused to issue a stay! Many thought that "all the low hanging fruit" had been picked after NM became the 17th state with ME in Dec 2013. And then came the momentous year 2014. Judge Shelby forcefully pushed the first domino that took us from 17 states to 37 including the soon to fall Alabama.

    Judge Hinkle got 2015 off to a stupendous start. He gave what I believe is the best ME quote in his ruling:

    "Liberty, tolerance, and respect are not zero-sum concepts. Those
    who enter opposite-sex marriages are harmed not at all when others, including these plaintiffs, are given the liberty to choose their own life partners and are shown the respect that comes with formal marriage. Tolerating views with which one disagrees is a hallmark of civilized society."

    We truly live in amazing time.

    I hope I got all my judges "straight" this time. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • 39. GregInTN  |  February 1, 2015 at 10:26 am

    This post may get a bunch of down votes but it may be that come June we'll realize that Judge Sutton accelerated the date of nationwide marriage equality. If the 6th Circuit had not created a circuit split it is very unlikely that we would be looking at the possibility (or dare I say, probability) of nationwide marriage equality in June. If another circuit had created the split (if not the 5th, then likely the 8th), it would probably be 2016 before we got nationwide marriage equality. Even if all of the circuits had ruled in favor of equality, they would probably not all have completed their cases by June, 2015.

  • 40. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Greg, Sutton (and his side-kick, Cook) are still major ass-hats because they are denying marriage equality in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, states which each had early legal challenges, and thus, could have had marriage equality months ago, had the ass-hats not ruled the way they did.

    So, yes, their adverse ruling, ironically enough, may be pushing marriage equality a bit faster in several other jurisdictions, but it's really not doing anything positive for the states of the 6th Circuit.

  • 41. DrBriCA  |  February 1, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Plus, as Raga and others have noted, Sutton could have left his decision at "Baker controls… end of story," but he still went on to assess the merits of the case, which showed just how he really felt about the pro-ME arguments. Had he left it at Baker v Nelson, then perhaps we could wonder whether he just moved the process along. And I agree with Rick in that he still denied the right to marry for 4 states.

  • 42. Zack12  |  February 1, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    Indeed and it's not like he and Cook did this out of the goodness of their hearts.
    They truly are opposed to us and our rights.

  • 43. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    "They truly are opposed to us and our rights."

    Indeed, and that opposition is clearly evident in Sutton's lecturingly sanctimonious opinion in which he pompously goes on and on in his own self-absorbed way about the wonderous nature of the democratic process and how the courts are not supposed to "interfere" with such marvelous functions, complete with his re-directing us to go back and influence the legislative agenda (while ignoring the unconstitutionality of the 4 states constitutional amendments precluding us from ever doing so).

    We keep berating Sutton, given that he wrote such a ridiculous opinion, in effect, re-trying the cases on his own without regard to the previous court record, a function which is not part of the job description of a federal circuit court judge, but, truth be told, Cook is far, far worse. She's just nasty, while being totally pig-headed about her nastiness, too. She rarely, if ever, agrees with anyone else on anything, and is completely beyond reach when it comes to any sort of persuasion. So, the real wonder here is: For once, she apparently agreed with Sutton. I truly expected that she'd write a concurring opinion, much harsher, and far more nasty, than his sanctimoniously self-absorbed one, as that's really not her style.

  • 44. DrBriCA  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:32 pm

    "We keep berating Sutton, given that he wrote such a ridiculous opinion, in effect, re-trying the cases on his own without regard to the previous court record, a function which is not part of the job description of a federal circuit court judge"

    Yes, that's the part that is most frustrating. He overturned the one state since CA to have a full trial court review of topics, which the Michigan state officials spectacularly bungled. That he can overlook all that evidence is amazing. Then again, at least it means that SCOTUS has the trial record in their hands for the upcoming decision! I would've preferred DeBoer to still be the name of the BIG case, given that it has the trial and even has 300 extant marriages already, but Obergefell came first!

  • 45. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:59 am

    Oooooooops. CORRECTION:

    When the state mini DOMA's began to fall like Dominoes in Dec 2013 with Judge "Shelby's" decision, not judge Hinkle.

    I can't keep my judges str8. I can't keep ANYTHING str8….actually

    Not that anyone reads my posts 😀 !

  • 46. brandall  |  January 31, 2015 at 9:00 am

    Tony MinasTrith – I read your posts.

    "I can't keep my judges str8. I can't keep ANYTHING str8"

    When I'm in business meetings among folks who know I have a husband, I'll hear someone say, "Let's get this straight" or "we need to straighten this out."

    My instant reply to the crowd is, "That's hopeless for me to do"…..shocked, open mouths always follow….It's so fun being out at work!

  • 47. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 9:14 am

    …and what do you say when your husband says " I wanna get somethin' straight… between us". ¬_¬

    I'm glad one person reads my posts 😀

  • 48. brandall  |  January 31, 2015 at 9:43 am

    Or my other favorite while driving….never say "go straight ahead," it is always go "go gayly forward."

    I think it's time to go read a brief.

  • 49. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 11:58 am

    "I think it's time to go read a brief."

    Brandall, reading briefs is great fun,– especially when they're on hot men,– and most especially when one has to get in close to read the fine print!!

  • 50. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    "go gayly forward."

    All this time I thought my ex bf invented that. Hmmmph, u learn somethin new everyday. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • 51. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 11:54 am

    "I wanna get somethin' straight… between us". ¬_¬

    That sounds like a plan!.

    By the way, I read you,– totally. Oh, and I read your posts, too.

  • 52. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:10 pm


    You and I need to get a couple a things straight between us… ⊙_ʘ

    …but only after you put a ring on it. A GOLD RING.

  • 53. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    "….but only after you put a ring on it. A GOLD RING."


  • 54. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    I prefer platinum.

  • 55. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Dr Bri, that's brilliantly coy and quite precious. Very coy, indeed! And as for the perfect preciousness, that really goes without saying, doesn't it?.

  • 56. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Well Hell. If people are going to start reading my posts….you all should tell me. Now i'm going to have to start reading them first and editing them BEFORE I post em.


  • 57. F_Young  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Tony MinasTirith: "…and what do you say when your husband says " I wanna get somethin' straight… between us".

    Answer: "Fine with me, if you can find it. I haven't seen that double-headed monster in a while."

    I read all your posts, Tony. I only respond when I have something to add.

  • 58. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Well Hell. If people are going to start reading my posts….you all should tell me. Now i'm going to have to start reading them first and editing them BEFORE I post em.


  • 59. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    "I haven't seen that double-headed monster in a while."

    Oh wait!! Is that what happens when two bottoms team up???

  • 60. F_Young  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    VIRick: "Oh wait!! Is that what happens when two bottoms team up??? "

    Gawd, you're quick! I didn't see that one coming! 😉

  • 61. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    He gave some WIGGLES earlier this week for the two Alabama rulings. Just got buried under the ~5 posts/day Scottie has been doing this week!

  • 62. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    "It's so fun being out at work."

    Brandall, you just enjoy being out. Period.

  • 63. Rick55845  |  January 30, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Thanks for posting that. It was really confusing for me to read that Lyle Denniston asserts that Judge Moore is at least partially right in his claims, as outrageous as they seemed.

    What I got from the article is that State courts are not bound by Federal judges decisions, but State officials are bound if the Federal judge finds that they are violating the US constitution. And if there is a conflict between State and Federal courts, only the Supreme Court can settle the matter.

    I really hope I misunderstood something, and that asshat Moore is not really right. Frickin' shades of TKinSC.

  • 64. JayJonson  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:15 am

    Denniston's explanation is unnecessarily complicated and obfuscatory. In fact, it is self-contradictory.

    It is, of course, true that SCOTUS will make the final decision as to whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional. However, it is also true that a ruling by a federal district judge as to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution trumps a state court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution; and when the U.S. Constitution conflicts with a state constitution, (in most instances, and the exceptions are not applicable here) the U.S. Constitution rules.

    The answer to the question posed by Denniston's blog post is adequately given in this single paragraph: "And, while decisions by the federal judge in Mobile nullifying Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage do not actually bind any state court pondering the same question, such a federal court ruling, if directed to state officials, must be obeyed by them. If a state official has been properly sued in federal court, and is found to have violated the national Constitution, a federal judge has ample authority to order such an official to stop the violation. That is exactly what the Mobile federal judge did this week."

    Everything else Denniston wrote obfuscates the issue rather than clarifying it.

    As the Florida judge explained, state officials can disobey a court ruling in which they are not explicitly named, but if they do so, they are inviting further litigation that is likely to result in punitive action from the court, including paying for court costs and legal fees for plaintiffs who are forced to sue in order to have their constitutional rights vindicated.

  • 65. jm64tx  |  January 31, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    Federal district judges do not trump state supreme courts on issues of federal constitutional interpretation.

    Ask any death row prisoner.

  • 66. Sagesse  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:41 am

    There are two other articles by Lyle Denniston at the Constitution Center that I don't believe have been posted here and that bear reading. I agree that Denniston's style of analysis can be frustrating to the point of infuriating at times, but he is an excellent source on constitutional matters.

    Constitution Check: On same-sex marriage, what is settled, what is not?

    Constitution Check: Do court decisions in favor of civil rights create real rights?

  • 67. Raga  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:54 am

    Sheesh… it could be July before we get closure in Kansas:

  • 68. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:33 am

    How ridiculous! Can Hinkle take a temporary position there and cover the case for them?

  • 69. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    DrBri, that's actually an excellent question, although I'm not totally certain whether a district court judge can be temporarily re-assigned outside of his/her own circuit.

    Example: The judge who struck down Arizona's ban was there on temporary assignment from Alaska; but then, both of those states are in the same 9th Circuit.

  • 70. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm


    EVERYONE Knows you if you want to cross into a different judicial circuit [realm], you need a magic portal. And magic ALWAYS comes with a price. As far as I know, it's never been attempted. The risk of cracking the space time continuum is too great.

  • 71. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Yup, I was thinking of that exact example from my circuit's sister states!

    Heck, let's have Judge Shelby go visit there and tell them how it's been since he ruled way back in December 2013!

  • 72. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    "Heck, let's have Judge Shelby go visit there and tell them how it's been since he ruled way back in December 2013!"

    DrBri, that's the perfect solution!

    Since both Utah and Kansas are in the 10th Circuit, the temporary re-assignment of Judge Shelby to Kansas should work just fine! Plus, he refused to issue a stay when he ruled in Utah, too. So, that should clarify matters there in Kansas in a major hurry.

  • 73. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    The way this is dragging out, I almost think some other newly married couples should try to have their marriages recognized and rejected, and then they should sue the governor and executive departments anew. It worked for South Carolina, where the celebration ruling came within weeks of the Oct 6 cert denial (when a couple had to be turned away from the judge willing to give licenses but then was held off by the state supreme court) while Judge Childs took the slower process on her already existing recognition case.

    Of course, the endgame for the SCOTUS decision is now 5 months off, so there's probably not much to gain from a brand new lawsuit, unless there is a more liberal Kansas federal judge who wants to issue a quick preliminary injunction based on Kitchen/Bishop and on Crabtree's first ruling.

  • 74. josejoram  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:45 am

    It should be possible since are part of the same country.

  • 75. DACiowan  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:21 am

    I get the sense the judge there really doesn't want to issue a firm ruling and is content to drag things out until SCOTUS does his work for him. *Eyeroll*

  • 76. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 10:23 am

    WTF… How difficult is this? We have a binding precedent in Kitchen in the 10CA, nothing more is needed. Send in the National Guard already. Each county MUST issue licenses and the State of Kansas must recognize. Plain and simple. Period.

    Dorothy and Toto must be having a fit over this.

  • 77. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    "Dorothy and Toto must be having a fit over this."

    Ryan, indeed! I mean, the Wicked Witch of the West is Dead, and everything's supposed to be gayly "over the rainbow" there.

  • 78. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    I mean shit, we have green in our damn rainbow, the Emrald City should feel welcomed! Ding, dong mofos, the Wicked Witch is indeed dead. Long live equality!

  • 79. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    " the Wicked Witch of the West is Dead"

    Did someone drop a house on Pam Blondi? How come no one told me!?

    But technically Rick, I think Blondi would be the WW of the East no?

  • 80. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    Didn't that bitch die in the beginning when the house fell on her? Although after seeing Wicked, that just turns it all upside down!

  • 81. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Indeed she did!

    And Pam Blondi was re-elected to take her seat.

    Unfortunately you can never permanently remove a Wicked Witch of the East or West, as there are always Tea Partyists waiting in the wings, ready to pop up like sharks teeth and take the place of the deceased or the liquefied.

  • 82. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    Tony, she's the Wicked Witch of the South.

  • 83. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Oy vey iz mir! ◔_◔

    Ummm,…The North and South witches are Good Witches… EVERYONE knows that. Don't you ever watch Once Upon a Time?

  • 84. DACiowan  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    I did for Anna and Elsa…

  • 85. RQO  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:15 pm

    Kansas is, apparently, just what it was when the Civil War started there in the 1850's – bleeding Kansas. Sadly, it holds the state back economically, and their one bright star, Sprint, is fading fast. Can you imagine telling your employees, "great news, we're moving to Kansas! Where people really hate each other, and you!"? Brownback rolled back personal and business taxes, and got ZERO economic bump. Once you strip out "extractive industries", i.e. coal, oil, and gas, the same can be said of much of Southern and Great Plains flyover land. The righter-nuttier they get in defensive action, the less anyone wants to actually live there.

  • 86. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Kansas has already been forced to auction off its extensive sex-toy collection (reputed to have been the most-complete state-held sex-toy holding anywhere in the USA) in a vain attempt to close the revenue shortfall due to the idiotically extreme tax-cuts implemented by Brownback. So, literally, all the state-owned dildos and other paraphernalia are now in private hands.

  • 87. 1grod  |  January 31, 2015 at 11:14 am

    Raga – thanks. Equality Kanas' AGM is being held today. – News: two more judicial districts are offering licenses to same gender couples, bringing the number of counties to 59. Relative to Kansas's total population, these counties represent 83% of the population, an increase of 3% since December 23. .
    On January 27th, Judge Crabtree had a conference call with the state's AG’s office and ACLU attorneys representing Equality Kansas members. EK understanding was that the call was to set the schedule for proceeding to trial in the Kansas case

  • 88. 1grod  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    To further clarify 20/31 judicial districts – comprising 59 counties, and 83% of the state population are issuing certificates. 6 judicial districts – comprising 29 counties and 9% of the state population are undeclared. The remaining 5 judicial districts – comprising 17 counties and 8% of the state population have said no. 24/29 undeclared have populations under 10,000, of which 16 have under 5,000 residents. EK points out that while you need to return to the county of application at least three days later to get a license, couples can be married anywhere in the state. Brownback has failed with respect to celebration. Crabtree will ensure the governor fails on recognition when he rules on the merits finding animus.

  • 89. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Thank you, that's an excellent summary up-date of the current on-the-ground situation in Kansas.

  • 90. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:16 am

    One week left for the 11th to make a decision on the stay.

    150 Days till nationwide Marriage Equality Decision, presuming a 6/30 release date.
    21 weeks and 3 days

    This is gonna be the best day of my life My life Wo-o-o-o-o-oh [2x]

  • 91. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 10:20 am

    One has to wonder if the 11CA is going to rule earlier in the week in order to give the AL officials time to petition the SCOTUS as well before the 2/9/15 expiration of the temporary stay. Because you know once the 11CA denies this request (no difference here between FL and AL other than the duration of the temp gay stay), off to Justice Thomas they go!

  • 92. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 10:27 am

    I posited that theory (or maybe hoped for that to be the case) in an earlier thread. It would make sense.

  • 93. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    Yeah, I doubt they'd sit on it over a week and let marriages start, only to then agree to the stay. At this point, same goes for SCOTUS. They may delay a day or so to ask for more info (although Thomas didn't request more replies for Florida), but otherwise I don't see them issuing a stay once marriages actually begin. We're long past the circumstances of the Kitchen stay when Utah was briefly state 18!

  • 94. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    One other thing the 8th could do is wait till next Sunday at 4PM ET to post their announcement, denying the stay and no temporary stay allowing for an appeal up the ladder to SCOTUS. That will send a message to the state what they think of Alabama's attempts to sabotage ME. That'll leave Alabama scrambling to get an appeal to SCOTUS while some judges start issuing licences first thing Monday Morning. SCOTUS won't get around to doing anything till next wed evening.

  • 95. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    "… the 8th …."

    Tony, the 11th Circuit Court could wait until next Sunday, 8 February, to do whatever.

    It truly appears, more and more, that you really do need to get something str8, don't you?

  • 96. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Yeah, the 8th Circuit has shown that it's more than happy to continue stays, even when neither party is asking for the stay to continue! The 11th, however, has done good by Florida and should be good to Alabama as well!

  • 97. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    I Truly Truly do Rick. I'm overwhelmed by all these cases, circuits, stays, no stays, judges, some of them named baker. I feel like I'm @ Dorothy Gale in a Kansas Twister with cases flying everywhere. I'm getting dizzy.

    Don't ever play spades with me. But on my behalf, I haven't eaten in 24 hours. I find it hard…to keep everything straight… when I'm ravenous. And yeah. That's why I rely on you as Memory Alpha… or Excel.

    My BAD! "The 11th could wait til next Sunday to announce their stay decision…" This is EXACTLY what I get for trying to memorize things I could look up.

  • 98. scream4ever  |  February 1, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    A friend of mine who follows this issue just as much as me keeps an up to date EXCEL spread shit that is just excellent! I'll post it the next time he updates it!!!

  • 99. VIRick  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:00 am

    "…. spread shit …."

    OMG!! I'm going to scream forever on that one!! LOL

  • 100. scream4ever  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:13 am


    I'm not going to delete that as it's priceless LOL!!!

    Seriously though I will post the SPREADSHEET as soon as he updates it next 🙂

  • 101. brandall  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:41 am

    The ONLY Pamela Bondi action I've ever agreed with.

    "Friday evening, Bondi’s office said the attorney general would not be filing an amicus brief as the nation’s highest court in April hears a group of cases from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal"

    “That’s why we want the Supreme Court to take it,” Bondi said earlier. “They have taken it. And we will have a decision by the end of the summer."

    Attention Floridian EoT'ers….your summer is ending in June this year!

  • 102. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 10:18 am

    Now she doesn't even understand the calendar and the start of summer. Ugh.

  • 103. hopalongcassidy  |  January 31, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Well, not to defend Bondi, but "…by the end of [some time period]" is generally meant and understood to be "not later than" so the comment is technically correct.

  • 104. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    You're being too kind! We all know the decison will be by no later than the first week of July, which is basically two weeks into Summer. So best I'd take is no later than the beginning of summer. As end of Summer is September, I won't accept her statement. 🙂

  • 105. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 12:33 pm


    Technically, wouldn't the court's ruling not go into effect until 25 days after the decision is published…which would make it about mid summer? If that's true, that could be on my birthday! That would be my BEST b/d present EVER. E-V-E-R!

  • 106. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    Now you're making me think, as it didn't take that long at all for CA to activate equality when SCTOUS ruled no standing in Perry and for the 9CA to do what they had to do. Is that a fundamentally different process in that ruling of no standing versus a ruling on the merits? Seems like 25 is the max, but it can get accelerated.

  • 107. ebohlman  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    I believe that's how long the losing party has to ask for a rehearing. Hollingsworth would have been tricky in that the ruling was that the losing party never had standing to appeal in the first place, meaning that they didn't have standing to ask for a rehearing.

  • 108. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    SCOTUS didn't rule on the Merits on Prop 8. After AFER won in the district court, no one with standing appealed Prop 8. No standing = no case/no controversy = no jurisdiction by Superior courts. So the Circuit court (9th) was able to lift it's own stay, (and they did so with alacrity I noticed) especially in light of the fact that it's decision was invalid and vacated. Kennedy also denied the request for an emergency stay requested by the Protect8 coalition. So the Prop8 case is a horse of a different color….so to speak.

    As far as accelerating the decision, as many have noted here, SCOTUS pretty much has the latitude to do whatever they want….within constitutional limits.

  • 109. brandall  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    "a horse of a different color"

    Y'all watch the Wizard of Oz last night and not tell me? There are WoZ references up and down the comments today.

  • 110. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    If you're a relative of Dorothy…it's in your DNA.

    I did watch Dr. Oz yesterday though.

  • 111. RQO  |  January 31, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    When I was a child "OZ" came on TV every Thanksgiving weekend on the "peacock" color network,. We would go to my grandparent's house to see it on their color (!!) set ("A TV set"- guess my midwestern age). My mother would not watch – she was absolutely traumatized by the flying monkeys (anti-ME Evangelicals made real on screen) when she saw it at age 5 in 1939. Much later in life – post coming out – I bought the DVD (already antiquated). Every year my husband and I get it out, watch it, and realize how gay fabulous, and politically relevant, it is.
    Surely there is someone's thesis in this. The book (and my family has a distant connection to Baum, we had all the OZ books)) is not nearly as "forward" as the film.

  • 112. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    "mother would not watch – she was absolutely traumatized by the flying monkeys

    I'd take the flying monkeys ANY DAY, over the Oompaloompas ANY DAY! To this day I won't watch Willy Wonka. Those Oompalompas freak me out!

  • 113. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    *Note to self*

    Tony's birthday is 25 July.

  • 114. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Update note to self:

    Never memorize anything you can look up. Put it in your iphone! ʘ‿ʘ

  • 115. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    Next question: Ring size???

  • 116. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bite them!
    One Ring of Gold for Bait.
    One Ring to Seal the Date.
    One Ring in the measure of 8

  • 117. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    9.5 standard fit

  • 118. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    "9.5 standard fit"

    DrBri, are we still discussing ring-size,– or something else????

  • 119. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 31, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    If it's not the ring size, then that is not a standard fit (not that there is anything wrong with 9.5).

  • 120. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    I'm reminded of an old comment supposedly made by Albert Einstein when he was a professor at Princeton.

    Someone asked Einstein for his telephone number. Einstein responded with 'Look it up'.

    In those days (late 1930s), it was very difficult to get a private telephone number, and if you didn't have a private number, your phone number was published in the telephone book. Einstein didn't try very hard to get a private telephone number.

  • 121. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Calendar summer begins June 21, and meteorological summer begins that same date. However, 'weather' summer is June 1 through August 31.

    So EoTers, SOCTUS will decide this summer (during June/early July), and possibly earlier than Calendar or meteorological summer. Even so, the end of June/early July means the decision will occur prior to the midpoint of Northern Hemisphere summer, no matter when one defines summer's beginning.

    Maybe some of the bleach Bondi uses to dye her hair blond has seeped into her brain, and she doesn't understand common concepts?

  • 122. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    "The Court'" will publish/release it's decision probably in late June.

    It is my theory (my firmly held belief truth be told) however that everyone of the Justices already has made their individual decisions…and they did so long ago. Oral arguments…they are just to let the parties have their day in court. It's all theater with Kennedy as the star, The Savior…and Scalia as the antagonist/Villain. And EVERYONE knows…villains NEVER get a HAPPY ENDING!

    Maybe someone, like our resident Memory Alpha (That's you VIRick) knows if "The Court" has ever announced a merits decision from the bench. Couldn't the majority pretty much announce their decision after oral arguments and then write up and publish the official opinion at a later date? I mean, what's the point in creating drama for 2 months, when they've already decided? The case is pretty much cut and dried no?

    Someone's been binge watching too much OUAT.

  • 123. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    "…. if 'The Court' has ever announced a merits decision from the bench."

    Tony, you know the Court likes/loves to go through the whole extended Drama Queen thing, and then finally issue their big decisions for that term on the last possible date, at the very end of the term. Scalia, the biggest Drama Queen of them all, simply wouldn't have it any other way. What other opportunity would he have for angrily expressing his legal argle-bargle? Ruling from the bench is virtually unheard of.

  • 124. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    Yes I know that's their MO. But I want an unequivocal emphatic ruling from the Bench after Orals this April. To me, it will make up for the crushing defeat I felt that horrible terrible no good very bad day that Tom Brokaw announced the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. It was the first time I felt like a second class citizen. I've waited almost 29 years for vindication, for justice, I can't wait an extra 2 months for the court's cliff hanger.

  • 125. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:21 pm

    Since I don't 'binge watch' anything, I have to presume the 'binge watching' comment was not directed at me.

    And even if I knew what OUAT means, since I don't 'binge watch' anything, I certainly don't 'binge watch' OUAT.

  • 126. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Just because I like being helpful…..

    OUAT = "Once Upon A Time," a show on ABC that involves characters from all sorts of fairy tales and fiction. Probably fresh on his mind from the discussion about Bondi being the Wicked Witch of East and due to the show coming back soon from its winter hiatus.

  • 127. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    Excellent! You answered my TV-related question, as well.

    Except for Sheldon and the "Big Bang Theory," about which I know EVERYTHING, I'm not too into TV programming. That's the only one I've ever binge-watched, and still can't get enough of it.

  • 128. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:23 pm

    You're always very helpful DrBri.

    But OUAT is ALWAYs on my mind because Josh Dallas, aka Prince Charming aka David is Always on my mind.

  • 129. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Chill, no one said u did.

    OUAT is Once Upon A Time, heavily referenced in my previous post. I wouldn't recommend u binge watch it. It's more addictive than crack. With all the handsome princes and all.

    The "someone" watching too much OUAT btw is me ;P Feel pretty dumb now huh…

  • 130. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    "'weather' summer is June 1 through August 31. "

    Mike, "weather" summer here begins from about 15 July and runs through 15 October (and more matches with hurricane season). Florida's "weather" summer is similar, starting from early July, and running through to early October,– which, of course, only makes her "end of summer" comment even further off the mark.

  • 131. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    When I say 'weather' summer, I'm discussing what the weather people throughout the world classify the various 'seasons'. They consider Autumn to be September 1 to November 30. Winter is considered to be December 1 to February 28 (29 in leap years), and Spring is considered March 1 to May 31.

    Various locations get various amounts of rain, for example. In Baltimore, about 4.6 inches of rain occur on average during July (to as low as 2.93 inches in January), but in the L.A. area, the average rainfall is less than .2 inches in July (and about .1 inch or less in most of the county). The average rainfall in San Francisco is 0 inches in July, but 5 inches in January.

    And a person doesn't have to go across country to get variations. For instance, New York City (NYC) is about 200 miles from Baltimore. In NYC, on average, the hottest month is July, the coldest month is January (the same as Baltimore); the 'wettest' month is April, 'driest' month is October (compared with Baltimore's July and January).

    This is why weather people do NOT go by the hottest or coldest or most rainy or least rainy of any specific location, but by a general definition. Since MOST locations experience summer weather from June 1 to August 31, weather people consider those months to be 'summer'.

  • 132. hopalongcassidy  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:55 pm


  • 133. Mike_Baltimore  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    And I'm sure you've never committed a typo?

  • 134. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    Especially these days when smartphones always seem to want to autocorrect to "SCOUTS!"

  • 135. brandall  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    Mine takes "en banc" and auto-corrects to "in bank"….

  • 136. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Or if you want the make an adjective form and discuss a recent SCROTAL decision?

  • 137. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Who will be the third ME state for 2015? Nebraska…in February? Number 38?

  • 138. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    Yes. Count on it. At least we'll have a district court decision there in February, with no stay and/or with stays being denied, even if there's an appeal.

  • 139. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    As I mentioned before, I'd love for the Missouri plaintiffs to ask SCOTUS to lift their stay (uncontested by the state officials) once the Alabama situation is resolved. If SCOTUS lifts the stay, then there's hope for Arkansas & SD to challenge their own stays!

    But I agree that Nebraska is the most likely, given that he's already invalidated the bans a decade ago!

    And then there's the ticketing clock on the Fifth Circuit……

  • 140. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 10:59 am

    I still don't count Mizzou as a marriage equality STATE per se, especially given there is no legal standing to require it (state level only applies to St. Louis; federal ruling stayed pending appeal). I do recognize Kansas given there is a binding ruling based on precedent with no stay in place (even if it's illegally not being followed).

    So I'm personally at 36 states with marriage equality in my head (even though it can/can not be achieved within KS & MO totally… Almost 0.5 each). So I see that Alabama will make it 37 a week from Monday. Then we wait on either Arkansas or Nebraska in my opinion, likely NE is my vote – although stayed by the 8CA and appealed to SCOTUS and reversed. The 5CA I see taking its sweet time given that dissent being written. Georgia is out until SCOTUS now, as is obviously the four states in the 6CA.

  • 141. scream4ever  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Georgia can be dragged into it by a ruling from the 11 Circuit. North Dakota is definitely out though since the judge completely stayed proceedings.

    As far as Kansas and Missouri, it can be resolved if judge Smith issues a clarification ruling for Kansas and if the SCOTUS lifts the stay in Missouri.

  • 142. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    "…. if judge Smith issues a clarification ruling for Kansas …."

    scream4ever, Judge Daniel Crabtree is the federal judge in Kansas handling "Marie v. Moser." Judge Ortrie Smith is the federal judge in Missouri handling "Lawson v. Kelly."

    Crabtree needs to issue the clarification order for Kansas.

  • 143. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Still a little surprised we had two Judge Crabtrees rule in our favor in two different states. What are the odds?

    I do wish this Crabtree in Kansas would grow his balls a little bigger and enforce the 10CA precedent he himself ruled on and ensure each county provided licenses and the damn state recognized them. What a crock of shit.

  • 144. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    Ryan, after rummaging around a bit through the kink drawer, I found a spare ball-extender which you're welcome to present to him.

  • 145. hopalongcassidy  |  February 1, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    I made my own, out of a couple battery clamps, a bungee cord and an old photo enlarger stand…

  • 146. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    You should get a patent for that bad boy.

  • 147. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    Ryan, I'm glad you responded to Hop, as I was biting my tongue the entire time. I was curious to find out if Hop's invention was a preciously unique item, never to be duplicated, or if he were test-driving it as a proto-type for mass production.

  • 148. Tony MinasTirith  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:58 am

    After you sell a few. Take it on Shark Tank!

  • 149. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    I have enough extras in my drawer to spare one.

  • 150. scream4ever  |  February 1, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    You're right. Its hard to keep track of it all sometimes!!!

  • 151. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    OK, so to be fair, and to give you a bit of a break, Judge Crabtree is a federal judge sitting in Kansas City KS (and subject to the 10th Circuit), while Judge Smith is a federal judge sitting in Kansas City MO (and subject to the 8th Circuit). Their jurisdictions may cover different territory, and be in different circuits, but their courtrooms are only a few miles distant from each other.

  • 152. scream4ever  |  February 1, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    Thanks Rick 😉

  • 153. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Awwww, you're so sweet!

    By the way, I absolutely adore your highly-suggestive Username, and would be quite excited to learn that it's aptly descriptive.

    I mean, screamers are great, let alone forever!

  • 154. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:33 pm


  • 155. scream4ever  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:04 am

    I get it a lot with this username lol. It was actually in anticipation for the movie Scream 4, but it since has taken on a new meaning…

  • 156. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    It is a shame that the Arkansas Supreme Court couldn't rule on their case before the end of the year. They could've easily been 36, 37, or 38!

    Then again… I guess you have the Texas Supreme Court, which has been sitting on a same-sex divorce case for fourteen months after argument!

  • 157. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    DrBri, if we stay quite focussed on that mythic name of our EoT rock group, "North Dakota and the 6th Circuit," everything else is possible/doable before the Supreme Court issues its decision on the last day of June.

  • 158. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    "North Dakota & the 6th Circuit"

    Whenever people wonder or joke about which state will be last, I've been naming North Dakota for a while now. Others always go back to the deep South like Mississippi and Texas (and I don't put it pass them to still have some Kansas-level tactics up their sleeves come this summer after the SCOTUS decision), but ND seems to be the official last place for any sort of ME ruling, now that the judge stayed both pending cases.

    MS & TX have pro-ME lower court rulings; Louisiana has a state lower court ruling. (And fingers crossed soon for the 5th circuit appeal!) Nebraska is gearing up for next month (and still technically was one of the earliest states to have any pro-ME ruling). All states in the 6th have at least the pro-ME district court rulings. And now even Georgia has the judge doing anything in his power to move the case out of his hands and up into 11th, thanks to his denial to dismiss.

    North Dakota is officially the last state without any pro-ME ruling!

  • 159. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    I think you're right about ND being the last state w/o any pro ME ruling.

    However, why do I think that Texas will put up the most massive resistance? I get this feeling that Texas will make what's going on in Alabama look like a mild tantrum. Maybe I'm over reading into Texas. Maybe by the time we get a ruling from the 5th (i think i got the right circuit this time), the new Texas Gov and AG will be ready to accept the inevitable.

  • 160. DrBriCA  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:14 am

    Probably doesn't help when you see how they fight even local city recognition of same-sex unions (see: Houston) with numerous lawsuits.

  • 161. scream4ever  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Remember Arkansas could still be in our hands soon due to the technicality depending on if the 8th doesn't allow it to slip.

    I expect any positive ruling from Nebraska to be stayed by the 8th Circuit, but probably/hopefully Judge Battallion won't issue a stay and allow for marriages to commence at least temporarily.

    We could also get Louisiana and Missouri from their state supreme courts too.

    It's impossible to predict really, and that's why it's so exciting!!!

  • 162. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    "Remember Arkansas could still be in our hands soon due to the technicality depending on if the 8th doesn't allow it to slip."

    Yes, indeed! There's grounds there for dismissal due to the state's slip-up, so if the stodgy 8th Circuit prefers to nit-pick procedure (which they may well be inclined to do) and dodge the issue of having to review the merits, they've got themselves the perfect escape route, a route that they themselves noted, and upon which they've served due notice.

  • 163. DACiowan  |  January 31, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Looks like Arkansas paid the late docketing fee:

    So now it's up to whether the 8th will let that slide or hold the state to an explanation.

  • 164. StraightDave  |  January 31, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    The 8th needs more than just an explanation, which would only be something along the lines of "Oh, gee, we really don't have our shit together and can't keep track of more than one case at a time. And anyway, we consider our state courts to be more important than federal courts, so we gave that one priority. And anyway, we didn't really expect you to be all that strict about your rules".

    I think the 8th needs a credible justification, like a hurricane wiped out the state's electric grid for 2 months or the entire AG's office died of food poisoning on a cruise. Other than that, they're SOL.

  • 165. Zack12  |  January 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    I'd like to think that but given how anti-gay many of the 8th circuit judges are, I could see them making an exception here.

  • 166. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    "Looks like Arkansas paid the late docketing fee: "

    The notice did not request, nor did it even offer to discuss, a late payment.

    Instead, the 8th Circuit Court requested a validly-certified reason (or reasons) as to why the case should not now be dismissed for failure to prosecute (as evidenced by the failure of the state to pay the docketing fee in a timely manner). The 8th Circuit Court has every reason to believe that the state of Arkansas abandoned its appeal when it missed the payment deadline.

    A technical violation of procedure has occurred which can not be erased from the record. If the 8th Circuit Court seriously wants to dodge the matter of having to review this case, and thereby lighten its own over-all case-load, Arkansas provided them with the golden opportunity, no matter what excuse/explanation they might conjure in their defense. The 8th Circuit Court is simply not required to accept any excuse/explanation/reason whatsoever

    If the 8th Circuit Court had wanted to give the state of Arkansas a pass on this breach of procedure, they wouldn't have served notice on the matter.

  • 167. DrBriCA  |  January 31, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    If the Georgia judge were serving on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, he'd jump at the chance to dismiss on a technicality!

    It would be interesting if the 8th let Arkansas go because of this, and then they have Missouri with its appeal and the tepid defense from the Gov/AG, who both favor ME. I don't believe South Dakota has even filed its appeal yet, so the 8th could avoid a lot of the heavy lifting before SCOTUS rules!

  • 168. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    I see the 8th Circuit Court doing whatever it can to ditch these appeals so they don't have to issue a ruling. Their inclination, of course, if pressed or if left to their own devices, would be to rule against us, but like the Georgia judge, I also see the potential of their recognizing the "inevitable," while doing their best to shake off these appeals. However, unlike the Georgia judge, they can't fob off the appeals onto a higher court.

  • 169. VIRick  |  January 31, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    This KATV article is confused.

    The 8th Circuit Court notified the state on 7 January 2015 that the docketing fee was due on or before 21 January 2015.

    Notice from the 8th Circuit Court was sent to the state on 26 January 2015:

    "The appellant has failed to pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court the requisite docketing fees. Accordingly, appellant is directed to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Eighth Circuit Rule 3C. January 26, 2015 Order Entered Under Rule 27A(a): Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. ________________ /s/ Michael E. Gans"

  • 170. DrBriCA  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:22 am

    First part of FRAP Rule 3C:

    "If an appellant fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or these rules, the clerk will notify the appellant and appellant's counsel that the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution unless appellant remedies the default within 14 days after the clerk issues the notice. If the appellant fails to comply within the 14-day period, the clerk will enter an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and issue a certified copy of the order as the mandate to the clerk of the district court."

    So Arkansas remedied the default by paying the fee late. The question now is whether the Clerk really does want the explanation as to why they were delinquent, or if the remedy is the payment itself.

  • 171. 1grod  |  February 1, 2015 at 7:53 am

    Rick – could I have read that in the 8th Circuit there is no provision for late payment of the $450 docketing fee. I did not come across such a rule in their internal rules of procedure:

  • 172. sglaser2  |  February 1, 2015 at 9:50 am

    A friend at the 9th Circuit told me this is not uncommon. They just pay the fee and the appeal moves forward.

    In state court, the state doesn't pay fees to itself. Their AGs are out of practice.

  • 173. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    1grod, I understand that the fee amount which had not been paid was $505.00.

  • 174. Zack12  |  January 31, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    An article about why the courts lean more conservative then not.
    This article simply confirms what I've said numerous times.
    When it comes to stacking the courts with people that share their viewpoints, Republicans have done a far better job then Democrats have at putting young conservative legal minds on the bench.
    The fact there are still judges on all the circuits from the St. Ronnie era is proof of that.
    Obama dragged his feet on nominating judges for far too long and Patrick Leahy gave way too much deference to the Blue Slip, something Republicans never did.
    As a result, Obama's impacts on the courts, while still good,is no where near what St. Ronnie and Bush Sr and Jr were able to accomplish.

  • 175. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Well, if Dems want to REALLY Stick it to the Republicons and Conservicons, they need to get out and vote for Hillary and restore Pelosi and the DEMS to the helm of the Senate in 2016.

    Then when the Notorious RGB, or better yet Scaly Scalia retires or kicks the bucket, Hillary can nominate and appoint former POTUS Barack Obama to The Supreme Court….for life!

    Once Obama is sworn in as the next Supreme Court justice, the conservative talking heads will start exploding like Mars Attacks.


  • 176. F_Young  |  January 31, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Zack12: "An article about why the courts lean more conservative then not."

    Thanks for posting that link. It's a very interesting and informative article.

  • 177. Zack12  |  January 31, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    Indeed, and it also explains why many legal experts for marriage equality were telling groups NOT to file suits in certain circuits like the 8th and the 6th until later along in the process.
    The fact is that due to them controlling the senate six out of the years Clinton was in office, Republicans were able to block Clinton from filling many of the empty seats on the various circuits until Republicans took control with help from SCOTUS.
    Thus George W had plenty of empty seats on the various circuits to fill with far right conservatives and he did while Democrats simply refused to show a spine and block some of them.
    Sutton was only confirmed by 52 votes. If Democrats had held firm, he could have been kept off the bench but as usual, they caved and let him get an up or down vote.
    Contrast that with Obama where people like Goodwin Liu were blocked and Democrats waited way too long to do the nuclear option and refuse to do away with the blue slip, allowing Republicans to force Obama to nominate less moderate or conservative judges in some states in order to get judges he wanted.
    Finally, many of the Circuit judges Obama nominated were in their 50's or 60's, something George W almost never did.
    Bottom line, we will be dealing with the George W Bush judges for far longer then the Obama ones, and that isn't just on Republicans, it's on Democrats who took 30 years to figure out that the courts matter.

  • 178. RQO  |  January 31, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Public thinking – even the best legal thinking – is "squishy", and constantly evolving. The "cake" wars are instructive, where things are not black and white, even to me. New lines are yet to be set. Zack – you have "got" politics. Having grown up in Chicago, I have my own sense of that.
    We are "winning",but the push back will be with us for years (NO thanks in part to the GOP judges), and my advice to young people who don't even know somebody who has been bashed is: get ready. Human nature can eventually be tamed by law and order, but it does not change readily.

  • 179. Zack12  |  January 31, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    Indeed, in a couple of years, we will be dealing with "religious freedom" laws, which is why it is important we win the next election.
    Because as with other things, SCOTUS is going to have to resolve those laws.

  • 180. josejoram  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:18 am

    Do they really think same sex weddings, should they were about to be nullyfied, are harmful to the state? Really?

  • 181. brandall  |  February 1, 2015 at 10:15 am

    Yes, just as Huckabee is telling America this morning being LGBTQ "is a “lifestyle” like swearing a lot or drinking alcohol." This is not STUPID is as STUPID does, it is being in a position of power and knowingly and intentionally lying to the world so you can incite your minority base.

  • 182. RQO  |  February 2, 2015 at 5:54 am

    Politico has new article on Huckabee graciously welcoming LGBT's, saying "there is room in the tent". Not that he or the party should stray from Southern Baptist orthodoxy, mind you, but the tent is "really big" and apprarently extends out behind the outhouse all the way to the state prison. Once again the joke comes to mind about "every Thanksgiving we invite them into the dining room and show them a picture of a turkey".

  • 183. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 10:44 am

    I was reading a little history on amendments to the US Constitutuion, and ran across this lovely article from 2006 when the (GOP-controlled) U.S. Senate attempted a cloture vote on an amendment to ban marriage equality nationwide: "Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples." The cloture vote failed without even getting a majority, let alone 60 (or the 67 needed for an amendment).

    Interesting that GWB's concern was state courts (given Massachusetts). Now we are on the verge of nationwide marriage equality from federal courts.

  • 184. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 11:44 am

    "Interesting that GWB's concern was state courts (given Massachusetts)."

    Ryan, because it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court which was the first court to legalize same-sex marriage on a state-wide basis, the early focus of the haters was to do whatever they thought necessary to block other states from following suit, including pushing for state constitutional amendments which "re-defined" marriage to suit themselves, as well as pushing for DOMA, in effect, federalizing marriage in order to take away that power from the states. Of course, that still didn't stop Connecticut, Vermont, and others, from following Massachusetts' lead.

  • 185. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    Indeed. GWB has to be wishing he just got one more Justice off the bench in his second term from that "socially-liberal faction / Democratic wing" of the court, then the SCOTUS would be upholding the 6CA.

    Now that I think about it, in each of the last three two-term presidents with Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, each were able to nominate two Justices in their first term, but none their second, right? Notorious RBG and Breyer for Clinton; Roberts and Alito for Bush; Sotomayor and Kagan for Obama. Even Souter and Thomas were first-term appointees under Bush 41. So the last second-term appointment was Kennedy, and Scalia before him, with Reagan's second term of 85-89.

  • 186. Zack12  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Roberts and Alito were both in Bush Jr's second term.
    As it is, his impact was bad enough with him being able to put Alito on there.
    Not to mention what he did with various circuits such as the 6th,5th and 8th.
    They were liberal courts to begin with but with the addition of the George W judges, they have become right wing hellholes in many cases.

  • 187. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    I want to delete my inept comment given my total brain freeze when I wrote it. One of my biggest issues with the DEMs in 2004 was putting up a candidate that they shouldn't have to beat Bush, as the impact of losing that election on the Suprme Court was tremendous.

    Agree, Bush's impact on the federal judiciary was immense. We have to, have to keep the presidency to keep the trend going in the right direction, regardless of the majority party in the US Senate.

  • 188. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    "I want to delete my inept comment given my total brain freeze …."

    Ryan, don't worry about it, as it's not possible to delete, or even edit, a post which already has replies.

    Besides, you actually impressed me with your flowing font of knowledge, even if a portion of it was inaccurate. I hadn't spotted the errors.

  • 189. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    The delete button is still there! I thought about doing it, I may still do it! I guess i will just let it all hang out there for all to see.

    The Supreme Court fascinates me as an institution. I had little to no knowledge of it in 1986 when I was 10 and Bowers was decided, and of course no knowledge the impact to my personal life. And for Lawrence to come along in 2003 and change that, especially at a point in my life when my sexuality was coming into the sharpest focus, gave me a major boost knowing the Court affirmed my privacy.

  • 190. DrBriCA  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:25 pm

    Agreed. I remember the 2004 election and seeing Kerry as the "anybody but Bush" vote. He was not very impressive then. Even now, he's much less newsworthy than when Hillary was a powerhouse as the Secretary of State!

  • 191. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    The fatal nomination no doubt. It's like Dukakis and Kerry – Massachusetts men who faired poorly with the nation. And we have Justice Thomas and Alito for it.

  • 192. Zack12  |  February 1, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    There was also the fact that the vile Ken Blackwell used his position as the SOS of Ohio to fiddle with voting machines and made sure to meddle in areas where voters were likely to vote for Kerry.
    There was even a book written about it (the title escapes me) but like in 2000, Bush won because of tampering.
    Then again, if Ralph Nader hadn't taken votes away from Al Gore in 2000 and there had been a better candidate in 2004, Bush wouldn't have been able to use SCOTUS or Ken Blackwell.
    As for Justice Thomas, that SOB never should have been allowed to get to the floor.
    He should have been blocked, period.

  • 193. Zack12  |  February 1, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    I made a typo in my above post so don't feel bad.
    As for Bush's impact on the courts, it was bad, truly bad and even though Obama has put almost as many judges on the court as Bush, their impacted will be limited by their ages and the fact that some of them were deals for other judges.
    He and the Democrats dropped the ball on the courts for far too long, they truly did.

  • 194. RnL2008  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Okay, here is Oklahoma trying to say ONLY Christians and Jews will be allowed to marry:

    Somehow, I think this bill is just as discriminatory as the NOT allowing us to marry because of some restriction on gender!!

  • 195. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    Rose, did the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, and the Baha'i do something to piss off the state of Oklahoma?

  • 196. RnL2008  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    For that matter how about the Catholics, Muslim, Pagans, Wiccans, and other faiths as well…….this is their answer to yet again trying to deny us our fundamental right to marry and the lawsuits would fly faster than the ink could dry!!!

  • 197. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    Rose, I skipped the ones you named because I figured they might have a "thing" against all of those.

    On the other hand, I figured they might never have heard of the ones in my list. Like, "Oh? There are Buddhists and Hindus, too? And Zoro-what?"

    Still, given that the largest extant denomination is "Non-affiliated," their mixing anyone's religion of any description into civil marriage shows how inside-out their non-thinking really is.

  • 198. RnL2008  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    What these idiots DON'T comprehend is that though the 1st Amendment guarantees one's Freedom to their religious beliefs, it also guarantees that others are Free NOT to believe as others do but how they want to or NOT is also protected……and to try this end-around crap is just that…..CRAP!!

    These folks NEED to do their job and remember that they REPRESENT all of the people in the State, NOT just their particular religious base and on another note, this bill clearly shows just how much ANIMUS these idiots have against Gay and Lesbian American Citizens…… would be EXTREMELY difficult for Judges NOT to see what this bill is truly all about and it continue's to show me that folks think they can do whatever the hell they want to and they CAN'T!!

    Bills like this one and others will be a key factor to why the Republicans CAN'T gain the White House…..IMPO!!

  • 199. RnL2008  |  February 1, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    I'm NOT sure why only Evangelistic Fundamentalist and Jews are all that can be married……because you know that there is a huge difference between Christians and Evangelistic Fundamentalist and to EXCLUDE any one's religious preference again is not only discriminatory, but just plain azz ignorant!!!

    This is why I truly believe that this Country will NOT see true change until people STOP electing these idiots!!!

  • 200. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  February 1, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    Establishment Clause, anyone? Geez.

  • 201. JayJonson  |  February 1, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Actually, as outrageous and stupid as the bill is, it would NOT limit marriage to only Christians and Jews. Under this bill, to be legal, marriage would require "a priest, minister, rabbi or an ecclesiastical dignitary presiding." An "ecclesiastical dignitary" could be an imam, a Buddhist monk, maybe even a Wiccan witch.

    It may be that the author of the bill is not aware that his bill has a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, but that doesn't change the fact. Nor does it make the bill constitutional since it still imposes a religious test for marriage, which is not permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

  • 202. sfbob  |  February 1, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    The real issue is that it provides for state-recognized marriage while imposing an unacceptable limitation on how such a marriage can be obtained, by requiring that a civil marriage license be obtained from a member of the clergy no matter how expansively defined.

    There is no constitutional requirement that states offer civil marriages but if they are going to do so, they can't be limited to those solemnized by a religion, no matter how many religions are included. It's already been noted that the status of common-law marriage in Oklahoma is murky at best. At last count only nine states appear to recognize common-law marriages and it's even more questionable how many states will recognize out-of-state common-law marriages.

    One thing that isn't clear is how, under the provisions of the bill, Oklahoma would treat civil marriages solemnized in other states. That should raise even more red flags.

  • 203. RnL2008  |  February 1, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Bob, if the State CAN'T place a gender restriction on who can marry, why do they feel they can place a religious restriction on one's fundamental right to marry? The entire bill smells like ANIMUS and would NOT pass Constitutional muster, and like I said, the lawsuits would fly quicker than the ink could dry!!!

  • 204. RQO  |  February 2, 2015 at 6:14 am

    There is little to no lipstick on the pig here. I'm sure everyone in Oklahoma understands that animus, and animus alone, is the beginning, middle, and end "reasoning" of this peice of legislation. Alas, it will be wildly popular, and thus a "success" politically.

  • 205. RnL2008  |  February 1, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I totally agree with you. I seriously doubt that the idiot who proposed this bill really knows what the hell they are doing, but to me the biggest problem with this bill is what you stated, the religious test and who sets the guideline for passing this supposed requirement!

  • 206. Sagesse  |  February 1, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Freedom to Marry is running this ME ad in Alabama…

  • 207. VIRick  |  February 1, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    Baja California Same-Sex Marriage Up-Date:

    In the wake of the recent fracas in Mexicali, just days later, on 22 January 2015, a lesbian couple applied to marry without a court injunction at the Civil Registry in Tijuana and were denied. The couple have vowed to fight the denial, and insist that as federal law trumps local law, an injunction (amparo) allowing them to be married on the previous case-by-case basis is now unnecessary since Mexico's Supreme Court has already declared Baja California's current marriage code unconstitutional.

    From my understanding of Mexican law, this Tijuana couple holds the correct interpretation, as marriage between same-sex couples should now be legal in Baja California (as well as in Oaxaca, Campeche, and Sinaloa), based on Mexico's Supreme Court rulings (and in Nuevo Leon based on the ruling of the Nuevo Leon state Supreme Court).

    In the Mexicali case, although the couple was finally married on 17 January 2015, their lawyers have filed contempt of court proceedings against the mayor and registrar of Mexicali for failure to carry out the instructions of Mexico's Supreme Court. A hearing will be held before the Appellate Court and could result in these officials losing their positions and/or being disqualified from public office.

  • 208. Tony MinasTirith  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:31 am

    It sounds like it's going to take A LOT more than court orders, even Supreme Court Orders before two people of the same sex can just walk up to a clerk and request a marriage licence. And many years. Well at least it seems like those who fight in court, finally, eventually get their license. Better than never, no way jose i guess.

    Keep me posted on the progress in Mexico.

  • 209. F_Young  |  February 2, 2015 at 2:47 am

    VIRick: "Baja California Same-Sex Marriage Up-Date: "

    Rick, thank you for posting this. It's always interesting to find out what is happening in Mexico.

  • 210. RQO  |  February 2, 2015 at 6:31 am

    RE: Baja California. Whenever we are depressed by the vagaries of the U.S. legal system, all we have to do to feel better is to reflect on NON-ENGLISH COMMON LAW countries and their creaky, arbitrary, opaque, and usually corrupt legal systems. Northern Europe gets by, barely, France somehow manages to preserve the spirit of the Napoleonic Code, but everybody else, from Italy on down to Mexico, suffers. Literally whole countries are stunted in every way imaginable.

  • 211. FredDorner  |  February 2, 2015 at 8:11 am

    Unlike the other 49 states, Louisiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic model and they're one of the most backwards and bigoted states in the country.

    Mexico has it's own unique model of federalization and unique relationship of the supreme court to the states. After the supreme court ruled for marriage equality in one case, every time a state denies those rights it moves the entire country another inch closer to full marriage equality in all the Mexican states.

  • 212. Randolph_Finder  |  February 2, 2015 at 11:31 am

    And yet even with the Napoleonic code characteristics, it is still easily beaten by Oklahoma, Mississippi and Utah.

    And as for Mexico, as I understand it, the Supreme Court is *very* limited in generating "sweeping" decisions. As I understand it, in order to have Court imposed Marriage Equality in a state in Mexico, there must be five individual decisions involving the state. So 5 decisions * 29 states not currently recognizing Marriage Equality = 145 cases. Now some of the states are already close.


  • 213. FredDorner  |  February 2, 2015 at 11:41 am

    Actually it becomes binding nationwide when the supreme court has ruled the same way on the same issue in 5 separate cases (I think there are 3 such rulings already, with many more in the pipeline). And the court has already set precedent that marriages granted by other states must be recognized by all the states.

  • 214. VIRick  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    "I think there are 3 such rulings already, with many more in the pipeline"

    There have been 4 federal rulings by Mexico's Supreme Court, namely rulings against Oaxaca, Baja California, Campeche, and Sinaloa (plus the state ruling by Nuevo Leon's Supreme Court against the ban in Nuevo Leon), with pending cases before it from Colima, Chihuahua, and Jalisco.

    Plus, within quite a few states now, they've already hit or surpassed the "Rule of 5" in terms of the number of court injunctions issued. Once 5 have been issued in the same state on the same issue, the offending portion of the state marriage code is enjoined from being enforced. The couple in Tijuana are claiming that both events, the Supreme Court ruling plus the "Rule of 5," have already occurred in Baja California.

    In addition, Yucatan has had 10 court injunctions allowing same-sex couples to marry, Chihuahua has had at least 7, and Nayarit just hit 5. And the ban is all but dead in Tamaulipas, where judges have taken to granting multi-party injunctions, allowing hundreds of couples to marry in a single injunction. In fact, the tactic of filing a multi-party injunction is now rapidly spreading throughout most of northern Mexico.

  • 215. Randolph_Finder  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    But it still sounds like things are much more disconnected in Mexico. If *every* other state has had 5 court injunctions and therefore Marriage Equality exists in every other state, but no cases had been filed in Tabasco, would a same-sex couple still have to file a case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get married?

  • 216. VIRick  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    No, they could simply travel to the next state, or to Mexico City, and get married there. Back home, their marriage would have to be recognized, as Mexico already has nationwide marriage recognition.

    In most instances, whenever a same-sex couple files an injunction to be married, the lower-level courts have been granting it. And in most instances, too, the state does not appeal. The exceptions are what make the headlines.

  • 217. Randolph_Finder  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Still not happy with Same Sex couples having to leave the state to marry, but with the nationwide recognition, at least there isn't an equivalent to Kansas. Do cases where the Same Sex couple wins without going to the Supreme court count toward the Rule of 5?

    It *really* sounds like SSM being legal (as in being able to get married) *everywhere* in Mexico ( *last* state getting to 5 or actually passing it as a law) is going to be almost a footnote in the Marriage Equality annals…

  • 218. VIRick  |  February 2, 2015 at 11:31 am

    "Unlike the other 49 states, Louisiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic model …."

    So is that of both Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, as well as just about all the rest of Latin America. Puerto Rico only has a nebulus commonwealth constitution, a fob to its pseudo-self-governance, but we have no constitution here in the VI at all,– just the VI Code.

  • 219. Randolph_Finder  |  February 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

    BTW, how are the lawsuits going in the VI, are they at the 3CA or not?

  • 220. VIRick  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    We don't have a lawsuit here. Instead, there's pending legislation.

  • 221. Randolph_Finder  |  February 2, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Any chance of the legislation passing? Are we looking at (the equivalent of) Rhode Island or Oklahoma?

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