Equality On Trial

3469992 Commentshttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityontrial.com%2F2015%2F02%2F03%2Fbreaking-eleventh-circuit-denies-alabama-officials-request-stay-sex-marriages%2FBREAKING%3A+Eleventh+Circuit+denies+Alabama+officials%27+request+to+stay+same-sex+marriages2015-02-03+16%3A14%3A23Scottie+Thomastonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityontrial.com%2F%3Fp%3D34699

• 1. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:17 am

  I guess we are close to adding Alabama as the 38th State, now we see what Justice Thomas will do!!!

• 2. yyyAllenyyy  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:29 am

  Actually it will be the 37th (plus D.C.)

• 3. MichaelGrabow  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:58 am

  A lot of people (myself included) are currently counting MO and KS.

• 4. wes228  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:05 am

  Really neither Missouri nor Kansas should be counted.

• 5. MichaelGrabow  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:55 am

  Well, that's according to you.

  The last I heard well over 70% of the counties in KS are issuing licenses. In MO it is only St Louis, but unlike KS, the state is recognizing them everywhere.

  Edit: I just saw that another MG explained this not only better, but with more updated information (80%+ in KS).

• 6. 1grod  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:59 pm

  Michael/Wes – regarding Kansas, while 59/105 counties representing 83% of the state population are issuing licenses, and 29 counties representing 9% of the population are undeclared as to whether they would grant a license to same gender couples [16 of these have populations under 5000 residents], only one department Heath and Environment with its office of Vital Statistics recognizes in and out of state marriages. What is the criteria for inclusion – Judge Crabtree has yet to rule on merits?.

• 7. guyarcher  |  February 4, 2015 at 10:30 am

  I agree with you. I live in MO (and work for government no less) and it really shouldn't be counted. I wish that I could just walk downstairs from my office and apply for a marriage license but it certainly can't happen in my county.

• 8. MichaelGrabow  |  February 4, 2015 at 11:44 am

  Having the ability to go somewhere in your state to get married and then have the state recognize that marriage is a pretty big deal. It is not ideal obviously, but it's a lot more than about 86 million people in the US can say.

• 9. guyarcher  |  February 4, 2015 at 11:55 am

  <p dir=”ltr”>Sure and folks could have driven out of state to get married and have MO recognize it. Driving 4 hours to StL isn't exactly a blessing either for some folks. I'm simply saying that MO shouldn't count because it's not in the bag statewide.

• 10. VIRick  |  February 4, 2015 at 12:42 pm

  Marriage licenses are currently being issued to same-sex couples in 4 locations in Missouri, and is valid for ceremonial use anywhere within the state:

  St. Louis County Circuit Court
  7900 Carondelet Avenue
  Clayton, MO 63105

  St. Louis City Hall
  1200 South 8th Street
  St. Louis, MO
  314-622-4185

  Jackson County Courthouse
  415 East 12th Street
  Kansas City, MO 64106
  816-881-8000

  Historic Truman Courthouse
  112 W. Lexington
  Independence, MO 64050
  816-881-3000

  One can also obtain a marriage liccense in these adjoining states: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma. All counties in Kansas directly abutting Missouri are now issuing.

  Back home in Missouri, one's marriage license, regardless of whether it was issued in Missouri or in another state, will be recognized for all other purposes, i.e., spousal benefits, health insurance, tax filings, etc.

• 11. guyarcher  |  February 4, 2015 at 12:43 pm

  Yes. I understand. I live here in Missouri and work in county government.

  I still can't walk downstairs in my own county and get a marriage license. I shouldn't have to drive across the state to do it. That's the point. It's not statewide.

• 12. VIRick  |  February 4, 2015 at 12:51 pm

  "I still can't walk downstairs in my own county and get a marriage license."

  I didn't say you could (as I don't know know which county we're discussing); but for informational purposes, I'm simply stating where you can go to obtain such a license as this present moment. And once you've obtained it, it's valid anywhere in the state, and will be recognized for all other state purposes.

• 13. yyyAllenyyy  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:23 am

  As do I. Alabama will be 37 and this includes MO and KS.

• 14. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:28 am

  You missed something in your counting..

  35 is the base everyone agrees on (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).

  +2 with ambigious status (Kansas and Missouri – for example I count them as half a state with ME each so both of them count as one state on my count)

  +1 possible soon (Alabama).

  So if you include MO and KS along with AL its 38.

• 15. yyyAllenyyy  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:24 am

  Oops. Thank you.

• 16. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:18 pm

  That was how I reached 38 as well…….but soon we will have all 50:-)

• 17. MGinPA  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:42 am

  I think it's better to look at how many states do not have marriage instead of how many do. If SCOTUS denies Alabama stay there will be only 12 non marriage states. Counties in Kansas that issues same sex marriage licenses comprise over 80% of the population but the marriages are not recognized by state government. While only a small portion of Missouri issues marriage licenses to same sex couples , both in state and out of state marriages are fully recognised making Missouri a de facto marriage state.

• 18. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:19 am

  Expected. Now Alabama officials have to rush to get to SCOTUS. And that's where it's going to get interesting..!

  But a positive thing nevertheless !

• 19. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:39 am

  Of course it will. I expect them to grant the stay this time around, in the "post granting cert" era and I won't really read it either way when it comes to their disposition on the merits of the cases.
  if they deny it, that's another story. As I have said, they will be adding to the already big burden of couples who married in states that acquired ME after Oct.6 that they have on their back and responsibility, yet a whole lot more in Alabama. And that's quite some burden to carry, we are talking about families and people here. That makes their responsibility to establish on firm grounds the marriages they allowed to proceed, even bigger.

• 20. brandall  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:21 am

  Couldn't happen to a more deserving state! SCOTUS will deny the stay by Thursday or Friday.

• 21. ReadLearn  |  February 3, 2015 at 11:19 am

  I hope you are correct; however, let's remember that Clarence Thomas can approve a stay on his own.

• 22. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:20 pm

  Yes, and then the plaintiffs can go Justice shopping…….that is why these stay requests have been addressed to the entire Court……we know that Justice Scalia and Thomas would grant the Stay……the other 7 so far appear to NOT agree with them……we will have to see if they follow the same path they did for Florida!!!

• 23. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:24 am

  Panel that denied the stay : Tjoflat (Ford appointee – oldest active judge on a court of appeals), Hull (Clinton appointee) and Marcus (Clinton appointee).

  They have also sua sponte consolidated the cases. They granted the requests of the governor and the Probate Justices Association to appear as amicus curiae, said to them they considered their fillings in support of the stay and then told them a big DENIED. Got to love it…!

• 24. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:51 am

  A good sign in how they might rule IF the cases get to them before SCOTUS weighs in is the fact that both Tjoflat and Hull are among the more conservatives members of the 11th circuit.
  The fact Hull has refused stays twice now and Tjoflat has joined here is a good sign for our side.

• 25. JayJonson  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:56 am

  Do we know how the individual judges voted in regards to the stay or only that at least two of them voted to deny the stay?

• 26. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:04 am

  There would be a noted dissent I think.

• 27. JayJonson  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:49 am

  Why? Judges are not required to write dissents. When SCOTUS denied the stays in the recent cases, we know only that at least 5 justices voted to deny the stay and, since two wrote dissents, at least two voted to grant the stays. We do not know how the other two justices voted.

  Why should we assume that the denial of stays from the 11th circuit are unanimous just because no one wrote a dissent?

• 28. wes228  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:50 am

  I believe you're right. Motions like granting/denying stays are entered per curiam I believe, so it could have been a 2-1 decision to deny the stay.

• 29. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:55 am

  I would expect a noted dissent from a judge that cares enough about the issue (assuming that was Tjoflat) and its legal consequences.

• 30. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 11:09 am

  I agree (also with wes) – today's order was per curiam, as it says "BY THE COURT" on top – an unsigned opinion. All we know for sure is that at least two of the three judges voted to deny the stay.

  In contrast, for example, when the Tenth Circuit denied the stay to Utah (multiple times), the orders were signed by the judges. Same with the Sixth Cirucit in Michigan's case, where there was a 2-1 order granting the stay with a signed dissent.

• 31. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:03 am

  I was thinking the same, I was terribly uncertain of Tjoflat's attitude on the matter. I am not saying that the denial of stay makes it 100 % sure he will rule pro equality if he has the chance but we are 90 % there I think. I trust you about Hull here, you heavily questioned the attitude of some of those southern democrats on the matter.

  I would say at this point that there's a good chance that the only panel in the 11th through which we could get an anti-equality opinion is one where both Chief Judge Carnes and William Pryor participate (and that based on the assumption that the chief judge is against ME solely on the fact that he is a Bush Sr appointee on a court of appeals like Kelly and Niemeyer – I think there is a consensus on Pryor being a right wing hack).

• 32. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:20 am

  Edward Carnes wrote the majority option upholding Florida's adoption ban on same sex couples, saying any changes had to be made through the legislature.
  I doubt his option will be any different when it comes to same sex marriage bans.
  As it stands, he and William Pryor (there are two Pryors and Carnes on the court) will be no votes.

• 33. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:24 am

  I am aware of the Pryors and Carnes peculiar situation in the 11th (what are the chances ?), that's why I made the clarification myself.

  I did not know that about Carnes but I did not expect anything different. Now all we have to wonder is what are the chances we get such a panel then (if it matters at all at the end).

• 34. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 7:08 pm

  I know you're aware, just didn't want anyone that only read my message to get the Pyrors and Carnes mixed up.
  As it stands, I doubt it will matter in the end because SCOTUS will likely rule before they weigh in.

• 35. Brad_1  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:36 am

  Remarkable that Tijoflat (now age 85) was confirmed by Senate for District appointment (at age 40) less than a week after being nominated; and confirmed for Appeals (at age 45) less than three weeks after being nominated.

  Per Wiki:

  President Richard M. Nixon nominated Tjoflat to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on October 7, 1970, to a new seat created by 84 Stat. 294. Confirmed by the Senate on October 13, 1970, he received commission three days later.

  President Gerald Ford nominated Tjoflat to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 3, 1975, to a seat vacated by John Milton Bryan Simpson. Confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 1975, he received his commission the next day and began serving on the court on December 12, 1975. Tjoflat was reassigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on October 1, 1981, when that court was established. He served as chief judge from 1989 to 1996.

• 36. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:44 am

  Not shocking at all.
  Nixon, Ford, St Ronnie and both Bushes made a point of nominating young conservatives who will be on the various circuits for decades to come, ensuring slowly but surely that right wing beliefs will become the law of the land.
  Only in the past year did Obama figure out the best way to preserve his legacy would be to do the same with progressive judges.
  Too little too late though.

• 37. RobW303  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:38 am

  Can you point to your source on the consolidation? Was it just the two Alabama cases that were consolidated or were they consolidated with the Florida case as well?

• 38. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:42 am

  I am talking about the Alabama cases only. My source is the order itself, it says so on the first lines.

• 39. RobW303  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:50 am

  Thanks, I found that out almost immediately, but you were too fast for me to edit my message to say so.

• 40. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:33 am

  Now the ball is in Thomas's court.
  Let's see if he grants the stay or refers it to the whole court.

• 41. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:35 am

  I doubt he will act on his own, same as Florida on that aspect. He is smart enough to know and prevent judge fishing. The outcome from the full court though is another, delicate matter.

• 42. Tony MinasTirith  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:48 am

  You're right. There also seems to be some sort of agreement among the justices that a matter of this importance (or this matter in particular) should come to a vote of the full court. This would avoid a scenario where the plaintiffs just go to the full court anyway and overrule the single justice. I'd venture to guess that if (when?) the 5th overturns Louisiana and upholds Tex & Miss, and does not stay that decision, that Scalia would also refer a stay request to the full court.

• 43. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 8:54 am

  Scalia apart from a virulent homophobe acts like an immature child on any matter he disagrees with and the decision does not go his way so I wouldn't put it beyond him to grant a stay on his own just to piss off plaintiffs.
  Thomas on the other hand has not written a single anti equality opinion himself, just joins Scalia's most of the times (his brief dissent in Lawrence even characterizes the sodomy law as "irrationally silly").. He is also terribly homophobic and probably more of a right wing hack than Scalia of course but he has some more sense when it comes to such procedural matters. Also he is a much less bold writer than Scalia on any matter, who is fuming in many of his dissents (irrelevant here but since I've gone into comparisons between the two..).

• 44. flyerguy77  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:40 am

  have a shock face!!!!! Surprise Surprise

• 45. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:48 am

  Alabama has gone to the Supreme Court:
  http://www.alabamas13.com/news/alabama-stay-on-sa…

• 46. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:49 am

  That was fast..Like really fast..! I suppose they had the application ready since the outcome from the 11th was quite predictable..

• 47. RobW303  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:33 am

  Apparently he's in a hurry for the marriages to start—possibly the day after the Supreme Court decides on his request. I doubt they'll lift the stay themselves, though Judge Granade may stick to the stated expiration date anyway, so Alabama officials can ..um.. finish their preparations.

• 48. 1grod  |  February 3, 2015 at 5:34 pm

  Judge Granada creates the impression of judicial reasonable. IMO she ensure fellow judges perceive her as deliberate but considerate.

• 49. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:51 am

  As expected, the Eighth Circuit has agreed to expedite the South Dakota case and wants to hold oral arguments in May. I personally think a much wiser course would have been to lift the stays and put the appeals on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision in June. What is the point in having oral argument in May, when you know a precedent-setting decision is almost assured in June?

  CLERK ORDER: [4240177-2] [4240177-3] [4240658] [15-1186] The parties' joint motion to expedite this appeal is granted. The parties shall observe the briefing schedule set forth at paragraph 11 of the motion: Appellant's brief, addendum, and appendix due February 27, 2015; Appellees' brief and addendum due March 19, 2015; Appellant's reply brief due April 2, 2015. It is the court's intention to set the three same-sex marriage cases (No. 14-3779 Lawson v. State of Missouri; No. 15-1022 Jernigan v. McDaniel; and No. 15-1186 Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard) for oral argument during the week of May 11-15, 2015 in Omaha, NE. The parties will be advised of the date and time of the arguments when the May calendar is established.

• 50. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 9:54 am

  To issue a really nasty bigoted ruling to try and turn the tide.

• 51. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:00 am

  Let them try, but even if they issue a decision in a matter of weeks, it seems almost childish to think that a decision issued in June would influence the Justices in any way – they would already have started writing major chunks of their opinions. Except perhaps provide some additional fodder for Scalia.

• 52. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:10 am

  Depending on who hears the cases, they'll issue a negative ruling for two reasons.
  1) They hate us and want to let us know that fact.
  2) A couple of the judges on there (Steven Colloton and Raymond Gruender) are possible SCOTUS nominees if a Republican wins next year so they want a chance to further highlight the fact that they are rightwing hacks posing as judges.

  As you said, SCOTUS's mind isn't going to be changed by this but just the same, I'd rather not see a negative ruling again, the 6th was enough.

• 53. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:00 am

  Intresting that they give the intention of the court to hear them in that week of May. I wonder if a decision in the Nebraska case changes anything on that program or if it will just join these three cases with briefing on a super expedited schedule.

  Also I do believe the timing is good. They will hold oral arguments in middle May so the cases will be ready for a decision to be handed down immediately. SCOTUS will rule a month and a half later and the decision will be ready for implementation from the 8th.
  On the other hand one could argue that,depending on the panel, they may be in haste to hold oral arguments and issue an anti equality opinion before SCOTUS rules. But as I said that depends on a panel. Even one pro equality judge can delay the process.

• 54. yyyAllenyyy  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:29 am

  Isn't there also the (small) chance that SCOTUS won't rule but will hand it back to the 6th to reconsider based on different criteria? If that happens, the ruling by the 8th will have meaning.

• 55. Rick55845  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:46 am

  No realistic chance of that. SCOTUS is not going to just kick the can down the road, and that is all they would be doing if they vacated and remanded. The 6th would still rule against us, and SCOTUS would have to resolve it anyway.

• 56. tigris26  |  February 3, 2015 at 12:30 pm

  I agree. This is one of just a few reasons why I remain optimistic about June. I'm sure the Court knows what kind of MESS they'd make if they sent it back to the 6th CA. The issue would just have to come back to them later, and I don't think they want that.

• 57. davepCA  |  February 3, 2015 at 12:40 pm

  yyyAllenyyy, I had been concerned about SCOTUS remanding back to the 6th as well, largely due to the way the 6th Circuit ruling including a lot of rationalizing about why the question should be decided by the voters (which was not the question the court was being asked to consider).

  But the chance of SCOTUS remanding back to the 6th pretty much evaporated when SCOTUS decided to grant cert and hear the case. If SCOTUS had any intention of remanding, they would have done that INSTEAD of deciding to grant cert.

• 58. Zack12  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:37 am

  It will be hard to get a pro-equality judge on there.
  By the time our case is heard, there will be only two Democrats among the ten active judges on that bench.
  And like the 6th circuit, the judges are of the far right federalist society mode.
  We aren't hitting the lottery a third time like the 7th and 5th circuits, there simply aren't enough Democrats/moderate Republicans to do so.

• 59. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 10:45 am

  Which of the three democrats is going to assume senior status ? Still senior justices do hear cases as we have seen so it's no big deal imo.2 out of 10 sounds like a better chance than we had in the federal district court in Mississipi for example.

• 60. OctaA  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:25 pm

  That would be Kermit Edward Bye who was appointed by Clinton in 2000. He is currently 78 years old and will be taking senior status on April 22nd 2015.

  This will leave the 8th circuit with two active democrats, one appointed by Clinton and one by Obama. Diana Murphy, the Clinton appointee is currently 81 and Jane Kelly, the Obama appointee is 51.

  I also happened to learn that the oldest senior judge in the federal judiciary happens to sit on the 8th circuit. He was appointed by Lyndon B Johnson, and is almost 96 years old!

• 61. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:40 pm

  Yeap 96 and still hearing cases according to wikipedia.
  So the one democratic appointee is assuming senior status, the other one is 81 and soon to follow and that leaves Kelly, who thankfully is the youngest member of this court at least. Things look grim in the 8th, especially if a republican wins the presidential elections…

• 62. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 11:24 am

  If the Supreme Court denies a stay again, I would like to see the Plaintiffs from South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri file a joint renewed motion to lift their respective stays. The Eighth ignored the Florida decision (and an argument could be made that it was pre-cert-grant, after all), but they will be hard pressed (from purely a legal perspective) to ignore Alabama. And if they do, the Plaintiffs should go to SCOTUS. (I'm still peeved by the Plaintiffs' reluctance in appealing the grant of a stay or refusal to lift a stay to SCOTUS, in the past year. NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE SO FAR.)

• 63. scream4ever  |  February 3, 2015 at 12:33 pm

  Agreed, although I think Missouri should attempt it first since the stay is uncontested by the defendants and state officials. The process has consistently built upon itself quite well I must say.

• 64. DrBriCA  |  February 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm

  I agree as well. It'll be easiest for SCOTUS to lift the uncontested Missouri stay (especially since the state already IS licensing and recognizing marriages), which then paves the way for Arkansas and South Dakota plaintiffs to ask for their stays to be lifted despite the state officials being more opposed to the notion.

  If Alabama goes, so goes Missouri ideally!

• 65. guytanoparks  |  February 3, 2015 at 11:46 am

  …*EQUALITY* for *ALL* will soon be a *REALITY!*…

• 66. Tony MinasTirith  |  February 3, 2015 at 11:56 am

  Wouldn't it be great if SCOTUS via the "Full Court" denies Alabama's request by the end of the day?!

• 67. tigris26  |  February 3, 2015 at 12:18 pm

  Boy, that'd be amazing!

  I don't think any request has moved from one denial of a stay to another that FAST! But, who knows, the Supreme Court could surprise us with a response in just a few hours…if they have their minds already made up on the matter.

• 68. Tony MinasTirith  |  February 3, 2015 at 12:23 pm

  It would send QUITE a message wouldn't it. Though several people would say no, there is no message in either the denial or the speed of the response.

  Time until Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 10:00:00 AM (Washington DC time)
  146 DAYS 17 HOURS 30 MINUTES
  from MT

• 69. VIRick  |  February 3, 2015 at 12:45 pm

  In the Wyoming marriage case, "Guzzo v. Mead," Judge Skavdahl, having originally issued a temporary injunction on 17 October 2014, finally issued his permanent injunction in the matter, permanently enjoining the state from enforcing its ban, on 29 January 2015. Case closed. http://www.scribd.com/doc/254438273/2-14-cv-00200…

• 70. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:05 pm

  Glad we avoided any sneaky grudging rant from Skavdahl about states' rights this time around. So a permanent injunction is necessary after all, the preliminary injunction is not the end of it in district court (if its not appealed at least).

• 71. VIRick  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:21 pm

  Yes, the issuance of the permanent injunction finalizes this case, and ends the matter, once and for all. His order went into effect back in October, when it was first issued as a preliminary injunction which meant it was subject to possible modification, additional clarification, potential appeal, whatever. But now, it's done.

  Still, it surprised me that it took Judge Skavdahl well over 3 months to finalize this case and put it to rest, given that there was no need for any modification or clarification, and the state did not appeal.

• 72. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:41 pm

  Skavdahl did not want to rule in favour of ME. At all. And he made it clear when he issued the preliminary injunction. But, as I read to the profile some lawyers were making of him before the hearing last year, he will do what's right, not impose (much) his personal opinion.

• 73. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:31 pm

  Does that mean we have Wyoming as well?

• 74. weaverbear  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:54 pm

  I believe so.

• 75. Rick55845  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:56 pm

  We already had Wyoming because of the preliminary injunction that Judge Skavdahl issued on 17 October, stayed until 23 October, then lifted by the Judge on 21 October after the State filed notice that it did not intend to appeal.

  Marriages started on 21 October.

  Wyoming is in the 10th Circuit. They smartly decided not to pursue a pointless appeal.

• 76. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:46 pm

  Thanks Rick and weaverbear for your responses……..it helps me keep track of the daily changes it seems are taking place.

  Now to this brief for a stay from the AG in Alabama………he really needed 48 pages of repeated BS that he knows he's NOT going to win and probably won't get the Stay either…….why do these folks feel it's necessary to fight a losing battle, knowing that at this point, you are ONLY buying yourself approximately 4 months……because they have to know that they are NOT going to win on the merits or any other reason……they are going to lose!!

  Just give the AG a smack-down and move on!!!

• 77. montezuma58  |  February 3, 2015 at 1:09 pm

  1. Click here: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/gay_m…

  2. Laugh.

• 78. KnottiBuoy  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm

  I'm wondering if the Alabama Governor will thumb his nose at the Supreme Court and proclaim:

  "Traditional Marriage, today, Traditional Marriage tomorrow, Traditional Marriage Forever!"

• 79. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:49 pm

  Stomping their little feet with their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALLALALALALLAL" ISN'T going to change the outcome of them losing, whether it be now or in June, the end result will be the same!!!

• 80. montezuma58  |  February 3, 2015 at 3:16 pm

  The AL Public Service Commission has wieghed in http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/alabama_…

  The PSC deals exclusively with regulating utility companies. I guess they plan on cutting off natural gas service to same sex couples. This state makes my head hurt.

• 81. Brad_1  |  February 3, 2015 at 3:30 pm

  Past members of the three-member AL PSC include George C. Wallace Jr. (November 1986 – November 1998), son of the esteemed governor.

  Wallace Jr., per Wiki, has given various speeches over the years to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), "a conservative group that some critics describe as 'white supremacist.' "

  So maybe the PSC wants to regulate (or deregulate) bigotry.

• 82. F_Young  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:00 pm

  montezuma58: "The AL Public Service Commission has wieghed in…"

  Article: "We've got a rogue judge who is trying to change the law from the bench," Cavanaugh said."

  That's rich!

  Cavanaugh is talking of U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade, who properly struck down Alabama's unconstitutional marriage ban.

  Instead of talking about Alabama's notorious Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has already been removed from office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to remove a monument to the 10 commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building. And is currently the subject of an ethics complaint for publicly commenting on pending same-sex marriage cases and encouraging state officials and judges to "oppose the federal judiciary".

• 83. VIRick  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:28 pm

  "PSC President Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh …."

  I'm sorry, but I can't take anything seriously from someone named Twinkle.

• 84. montezuma58  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:47 pm

  Her name is not the only reason to not take her seriously. She has a history of using the opening of the commission's meetings as a pulpit for political/religious issues that have zilch to do with the commission's business.

• 85. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:30 pm

  Once again, very conveniently, there is no mention at all in the stay application about the Supreme Court's most recent stay denial in the Florida case. Perhaps they are saving addressing it for their reply after the Plaintiffs respond.

• 86. hopalongcassidy  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:43 pm

  Why would they mention it? Surely they are not stupid enough to imagine that mentioning it would be helpful to their side…???….??

• 87. Raga  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:53 pm

  They mentioned it and attempted to distinguish it at the 11th (after failing to do so at the district court). So I was surprised they didn't do so here.

• 88. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 2:48 pm

  My guess is they are hoping that if they ignore it long enough, it will go away and SCOTUS will side with them…..and though it's possible for a stay to be granted…….it ISN'T very likely that SCOTUS will grant a stay!!!

• 89. guitaristbl  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:37 pm

  One has to love the stay request Alabama has made. They think that in 12 pages they have distilled the "wisdom" of every stay application thus far (not).

  Argument : The state is likely to prevail on the merits.
  Argumentation : "The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage and how states may define it. The District Court nonetheless agreed with several other courts and held that the Constitution requires Alabama to adopt a new definition of marriage that does not require sexual complementarity. The District Court’s judgment is due to be reversed."

  So we are right, but a billion other courts say we are not. But we are right because we spend two paragraphs quoting Sutton's opinion. Also there is not just a likelihood or the chance of this so irrational opinion to be reversed, IT'S DUE to be reversed, it's that certain according to Strange.

  Argument : The plaintiffs won't suffer harm if the stay is not issued.
  Argumentation : They provide the scenario the plaintiffs have put about adoption, that if one partner dies in the meantime the other then the other won't be able to adopt their child, won't have any parental rights. And then they say :
  "if plaintiff McKeand is concerned about who would care for her child if she were to die unexpectedly within the next five months, then she can—right now—write a will that places guardianship of the child with plaintiff Searcy.WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT SUCH LEGAL DOCUMENTS GIVE PLAINTIFFS THE SAME BENEFITS AS MARRIAGE. But they do provide a much surer remedy over the next five months than the district court’s injunction against the Attorney General, which is subject to reversal on appeal."

  So we basically admit that the "alternative" to the one problem we provided because it suits us, is not even good enough and we admit its lesser than marriage thus going straight into the claws of the equal protection claim. So we file OUR brief in which we provide OUR example that supposedly suits us and STILL manage to shoot ourselves on the foot.

  Great job AG Strange, your salary is well worth it (not).

• 90. montezuma58  |  February 3, 2015 at 4:55 pm

  The argument about wills is laughable. A private attorney working for a paying client would not dare advise a client that directives in a will regarding child custody carry the same weight as the legal protections offered via marriage. That would be malpractice. Never mind that in another case the state is fighting against couples using wills and powers of attorney to try to achieve the same legal protections offered through marriage.

• 91. VIRick  |  February 3, 2015 at 5:31 pm

  "Never mind that in another case the state is fighting against couples using wills and powers of attorney to try to achieve the same legal protections offered through marriage."

  And indeed, they are, in "Hard v. Bentley."

• 92. RnL2008  |  February 3, 2015 at 5:05 pm

  The really pathetic thing in the first few pages is the fact that the AG totally ignores is that SCOTUS DIDN'T grant a stay in Florida and though the AG is truly rely heavily on prior stays issued, like in Kitchen, he fails to truly explain why the State feels this stay will benefit them and it WON'T……all a stay will do is delay the INEVITABLE and if the AG CAN'T see that writing on the wall……then he's a lot dumber than a box of rocks…..my issue is that idiots like this keep stating how much confusion will take place if the Stay ISN'T granted and again, the ONLY real confusion is that by the idiots like the AG!!!