Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Hearing scheduled for March 2 in new Alabama adoption dispute filed by successful Searcy plaintiffs

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

A hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction in the new case filed by Cari Searcy will take place on March 2 in the federal courthouse in Mobile.

The case was filed because although Searcy won the previous challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage ban, resulting in the ban being held unconstitutional, Mobile County’s probate judge has decided not to issue a final order in her adoption case. The state is recognizing her marriage, and according to the complaint she filed, the probate judge hasn’t held off on issuing final orders in adoption cases involving heterosexual couples.

His order said that he’s waiting until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling later this year on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. RnL2008  |  February 25, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    How many more lawsuits MUST be filed before these Probate Judges GET the message?

  • 2. DrBriCA  |  February 25, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Not even judges plural, Rose. This is the same one who already needed direct clarification from Granade to issue licenses. Apparently, he needs every detail of equality dictated to him along the way.

  • 3. RnL2008  |  February 25, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Well, then he should have STUPID tattooed across his forehead!!!

    Just saw this on facebook:

    and this:

    When will politicians learn that one CAN'T trample the Constitution?

  • 4. Elihu_Bystander  |  February 25, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    "Well, then he should have STUPID tattooed across his forehead!!! "

    Rose, you may actually see STUPID hurt here.

    If Judge Davis had even a nanogram of common sense, he would go to work tomorrow and revise the Searcy interlocutor order of adoption exactly in the way he would have done it for a straight couple before he appears before Judge Granade. Unfortunately, you and I know Judge Davis and common sense are mutually exclusive nouns.

  • 5. RnL2008  |  February 25, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    Exactly…but my guess is it's NOT just gonna hurt for getting a smackdown from the Judge……there's a likelihood to get a hurt on his pocket as well… least I hope so!!!

  • 6. RobW303  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:49 am

    But they can have the pleasure of contravening the Constitution for a few years to stir their power base, and do so with impugnity. They're also attempting to change the Constitution–can't be bothered to do it for equal rights (remember the ERA?), but special rights take top priority.

  • 7. 1grod  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:32 am

    Rose – it might be helpful to get favourable ruling from the AL Northern and Middle federal District Courts, rather than only from the Southern District. [ Aaron-Brush v Bently in the Northern District; Hard v Strange in Middle District courts] as Clay, Cleburne and Shelby counties in the Northern District jurisdiction state unwillingness to issue licenses unless directly ordered and as Chamber and Houston Counties in the Middle Distrixt state either unwillingness unless directly ordered or not issuing licenses to any couples. Meanwhile, the AL Supreme Court has to address a petition to stop all ssm from the Liberty Council. Their Reply brief asserts that it's established AL law that when the government fails to enforces state laws, public interest groups have standing to do so.

  • 8. Raga  |  February 25, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    "Does the Supreme Court Care That Americans Support Gay Marriage?"

  • 9. sfbob  |  February 25, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    Interesting points though the conclusions are arguably overstated. After all, when Loving vs Virginia was decided almost 90% of the American public opposed interracial marriage; it took some 20 years before approval reached 50% but by then the public essentially considered it a dead issue and while I'm pretty sure I've read about official resistance in certain states to complying with the decision the amount of backlash didn't even remotely approach the level of resistance to the implementation of Brown vs Board of Education.

  • 10. VIRick  |  February 25, 2015 at 9:07 pm

    Or "Rowe v. Wade."

  • 11. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  February 25, 2015 at 9:25 pm

    Roe. Lol. Yours sounds like a bad porn parody. 😛

  • 12. VIRick  |  February 25, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    OMG! What did I write???

    Plus, you "fixed" me, too, by replying. Now, I can't edit to correct the spelling error.

  • 13. sfbob  |  February 25, 2015 at 11:34 pm

    I rather purposely didn't mention Rowe v Wade. I don't know what polling was like on the issue prior to when the decision was issued but the anti-abortion movement took a good deal of time to take off as I recall. In a sense it was a trumped-up issue that many people had no strong feelings about until around the time of the 1980 election when the right wing viewed abortion as something they could rally their base around, despite the fact that those religious right women who claim to oppose abortion seem to have no compunction about obtaining an abortion when they want one. The fact is it is as much an issue of class as it is about any supposed "right to life." The court is clearly never going to out-and-out ban abortion again; they may however fix things so that anyone without the means to travel to get a legal abortion is out of luck or will need to avail themselves of a back-alley butcher job, just as was the case before 1973.

    As much as I love the Notorious RBG I think she is simply wrong about Roe being too far ahead of the curve.

  • 14. RobW303  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:53 am

    Mounting resistance would take too much time away from texting about the funny thing your cat did this morning.

  • 15. Rik_SD  |  February 26, 2015 at 9:52 am

    My Dad is a public high school teacher in Texas. He had a student who was a very conservative kid who frequently made anti-gay comments in class, so he asked me to come debate the kid on gay marriage over Christmas a couple years ago. During a cross-examination period, I asked the kid if interracial marriage had ever been illegal, intending to lead to the point that public opinion was way behind the Loving v Virginia opinion. To my absolute shock, the kid said no. He was surprised to hear that he was wrong, because bans on interracial marriage seem so blatantly discriminatory. I think that connection was pretty eye-opening for him

  • 16. MichaelGrabow  |  February 26, 2015 at 10:02 am


    Edit: My reaction should not have been "wow", it is extremely common for people to speak on topics of which they are ignorant. They are actually often times the loudest.

  • 17. RnL2008  |  February 25, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    A bit of good news out of Arkansas:

  • 18. Mike_Baltimore  |  February 25, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    And the town of Conway, Arkansas has basically thumbed it's nose in the direction of the state government:

    'Arkansas Town Defies State Ban, Protects LGBT Citizens'. A city ordinance protecting GLBT city employees was passed, on an emergency basis, on the same day Governor Hutchison allowed a law banning such by not signing or vetoing the bill. The city ordinance goes into immediate effect, the state law goes into effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourns.

  • 19. RnL2008  |  February 25, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    Well a little progress is better than none, right?

  • 20. drnod10  |  February 26, 2015 at 5:52 am

    Just interesting tidbit of information from Arkansas.

    My spouse and I married in May 2014 during the legal window in Arkansas (we also live just outside Eureka Springs and have a registered domestic partnership there). She needed a new passport–so she sent our marriage license (which simply says spouse–no identified genders) and got a passport with my last name. That was followed last month by going to Social Security in Fayetteville for a new Social Security card–with a new last name. Finally, Tuesday, she went to the DMV in Rogers, AR and got a new driver's license. No questions in any of the places. I do not have a gender neutral name–so clearly no one paid any attention, didn't care, or because the license simply says spouse–no way to know.

    Who recognizes our marriage is still questionable. I retired from the state of Texas last month and still can't get her on my health insurance–so we are not quite there yet–but hopeful by June that full equality will reach this country.

  • 21. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Obviously, you know much better than I do, but for those who are unfamiliar with Arkansas, Eureka Springs is about as gay and gay-accepting as Arkansas gets. It's an old-time, re-cycled southern mountain resort, sort of a mini-Asheville NC.

    For those who are unfamiliar with gay and gay-accepting southern hospitality, Asheville NC (and nearby Black Mountain) is tops. Eureka Springs is close behind it (but much smaller).

    In any case, I'm pleased to learn that passport, social security, and driver's license were non-issues there in that part of Arkansas. Your health insurance coverage problem is not actually an Arkansas issue, but rather, one which, unfortunately, has been imported from Texas.

  • 22. VIRick  |  February 25, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    Thanks Mike, I saw the article which indicated that Conway AR has passed this ordinance earlier this afternoon, but then, when I went to post it this evening, I couldn't locate it.

    All Arkansas municipalities still have a window available to them in which to express their ire with the idiots in the state legislature by following suit and doing precisely what Conway AR has done, as the state law banning such local ordinances won't go into effect for some months. In the interval, perhaps the state legislators can re-think (or, in some cases, begin thinking) about the negative harm of their legislation, and rescind it.

    Eureka Springs AR passed a similar city ordinance about a week ago, and likewise, its ordinance was to go into immediate effect.

  • 23. TomPHL  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:13 am

    Does anyone know what happened with the Arkansas appeal and the failure to pay the docketing fee? Did the 8th circuit just accept late payment or is the matter still undecided?

  • 24. DrBriCA  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:28 am

    They accepted it and Arkansas's appeal will be heard the same day as Missouri and South Dakota.

  • 25. TomPHL  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:50 am


  • 26. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:27 am

    Keeping track. A current list of 'religious freedom bills in state legislatures.

    Everything you need to know about the gay discrimination wars in 2015 [Washington Post]

  • 27. debater7474  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:25 am

    Unless I'm mistaken, aren't the plaintiffs' briefs in all the Supreme Court cases due tomorrow??

  • 28. Raga  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:45 am

    Yes. Opening briefs due tomorrow. The Justices are also scheduled to take their first look at the Idaho cert petitions during their conference tomorrow.

  • 29. Rik_SD  |  February 26, 2015 at 9:54 am

    If they deny Idaho when they are already taking the 6th, that is major hand-tipping, right?

  • 30. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:21 am

    Yes, indeed! Plus Idaho sooooo deserves to be shot down,– cold. It's dual appeal is frivilous. Remember, there are two, a hyper-shrill one from the "illustrious" anti-gay governor, Butch Otter, and a separate pro forma one from Idaho's AG Wadsden.

  • 31. Zack12  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:29 am

    I will note in WV the Democrats really don't have a moral high ground there.
    It was noted that a couple of Democrats had been trying to get legislation protecting LGBT people in WV passed for years there but each time, the bill would be rejected.
    The bottom line is that yes, Republicans are the ones pushing these bigoted laws in many states but they wouldn't be able to do so if the Democrats had done the right thing, which they had a chance to do in many of these states and chose not to do.
    They deserve a large amount of the blame for this crap as well.

  • 32. David_Midvale_UT  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:10 am

    Here in HATU—The Bass Ackwards State, the Utah State Democratic Party selected a candidate for governor who was opposed to marriage equality because of his membership in the Locally Dominant Sect. (The campaign managers did not prepare the candidate properly, so when asked his opinion on the issue, he spewed the crap dictated by his religious membership and not a reply consistent with the principle of separation of religious belief and secular law.)

    Long before Kitchen v. Herbert was filed, I was working with my state senator (a Republican) on a bill to establish a “uniquely Utahn solution” to marriage inequality (i.e., Utah Constitutional Amendment 3). I received ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT from Democrats or even from LGBTQ community leaders.

    The Utah State Democratic Party leaders are interested only in pandering to the members of the Locally Dominant Sect to the complete exclusion of real support for progressive issues that might offend the “no Democrat can get into heaven” (the late Mormon “prophet” ETB actually said something similar) attitude of the Utah majority.

  • 33. Randolph_Finder  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:23 am

    I'm sure there is a "SLC vs. rest of the state" characteristic to the relationship between the Democratic Party and the Locally Dominant Sect (lol). You can probably get elected as a Democrat in SLC while holding the public opinion that the Prophet might not know everything (such as exact plans to build an Airport), but not outside the city….

  • 34. David_Midvale_UT  |  February 27, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    The clowns in the locally dominant political party did everything they could during the 2000 redistricting process to make sure that no Democrat would have a clear advantage in any legislative district. In spite of the Gerrymandering, there are a few districts where Democrats have won, and almost all of them are in and around Salt Lake City. (Regardless of the party, being openly critical of the Profit. . . umm, I mean, Prophet is political suicide.)

  • 35. Randolph_Finder  |  February 27, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    I knew they "cracked" SLC in the US House, I didn't realize that they did so for SLC. In a democrat-advantageous Gerrymandering could you create a Dem Majority district that didn't include any of SLC? Would there be any chance of getting a Majority in either house?

    Maryland is the opposite. The Republicans are doing as well as they've done in half a century and now have both a Republican Governor and enough members in one of the houses to stop a Veto override.

  • 36. DeadHead  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Kansas Christian Taliban’s newest legislation, Senate Bill 56, moves forward, “If the bill becomes law, an existing legal exemption that protects teachers from being prosecuted for presenting material deemed harmful to minors would be removed. Teachers could be charged with a class B misdemeanor and face up to six months behind bars and a $1,000 fine.” MSNBC reports the story at

  • 37. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  February 26, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Oh, great

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