Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, files motion to dismiss wedding chapel’s religious discrimination case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho is asking a federal district court to dismiss the lawsuit against it filed by a for-profit wedding chapel alleging religious discrimination.

The case was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an anti-LGBT organization that has defended marriage bans in the past, and fights for religious exemptions to LGBT rights. A for-profit chapel run by an older couple, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, sued the city because it has an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting LGBT people. The chapel’s owners worried that they couldn’t refuse to marry same-sex couples under the ordinance.

Eventually it was revealed that the chapel is incorporated as a religious corporation, so they are exempt from the anti-discrimination ordinance, according to the city. The parties attempted a settlement after that and now the city is asking for the case to be dismissed. There’s no mention of a settlement agreement in the motion, so they likely couldn’t agree.

The request states that the plaintiffs “do not have standing” because the ordinance doesn’t apply to them, and that their case “is not ripe for review,” presumably because they hadn’t alleged or suggested that they’d had any occasion to turn away same-sex couples.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. DACiowan  |  February 26, 2015 at 10:44 am

    The Prop 8 asshats have a petition to SCOTUS for tomorrow's conference dealing with California's law making them disclose their donors. They've already lost at district and circuit court.

    The lower court ruling:

  • 2. RnL2008  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:10 am

    Obviously the Prop 8 idiots HAVEN'T been paying attention to the plight of NOM who have lost EVERY court case to try and hide their donors and I DON'T believe it will be ANY different for the Prop 8 folks!!!

    As far as the case listed above……the City should prevail seeing as the outpost is already exempted!!!

  • 3. Dr. Z  |  February 27, 2015 at 6:07 am

    Does anyone know if NOM has actually revealed its donors as instructed by the various courts and election commissions (e.g. Maine, Minnesota)? I had the impression they were still stalling.

  • 4. RemC_Chicago  |  February 27, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Dr., I hadn't recalled reading any such news and just did a quick online search. The answer apparently is 'no.'I'd forgotten how long some of these cases had been going on. Id like to learn more about how & why this organization has been allowed to defy the court orders for so long.

  • 5. davepCA  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:13 am

    So nice to see their losing streak continue.

  • 6. franklinsewell  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Lost at both courts and disclosed their donors already. No relief can be granted them, so I don't think the supremes will take this case.

  • 7. Rik_SD  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    I live in CA and lived through this terrible campaign. [email protected]#k every one of those people.

  • 8. davepCA  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Seconded. Horrible spiteful liars.

  • 9. sfbob  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Liars indeed. Hardly surprising that not one of them was willing to actually testify in court during the trial. They could hardly have done so without committing perjury and they knew it.

  • 10. RnL2008  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I totally agree with your comment…….my wife and I are part of the 18,000 couples who got married and it was really annoying for the first couple of years we were married that every time we mentioned it….folks would say, "Oh, you got married in the open window"……ugh:(

  • 11. weaverbear  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    And I'm in complete agreement as well. I hated having the window comment to Rose. My usual response was to say, "Window? No, we got married in the gazebo in our back yard." It sounded cheery and often made folks laugh, but inside I was still hurting and steaming. Our wedding photos (which included the close up I use for this profile.) came back after the ballot and it was months before I could take them out and look at them. Until the California Supremes ruled that Prop H8 hadn't invalidated our marriages, it was just too painful.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    It made our blood boil. People kept trying to tell us that our marriage was invalidated or nullified. We participate in the video about our family is equal, even still have that saved when they changed the music to it, we all participated in the "Please don't Divorce Us" slideshow and what really pissed me off was the fact that those who were running the No on Prop 8 campaign, DIDN'T use ANY of those photos to put a face to the folks who MIGHT have been affected……..frankly, when the CSSC stood up to Kenneth Starr and told him that the marriages performed were legal and would remain legal, valid and recognized…….it really made me feel damn proud to be married……now, I wished that our side had just fought like they did when Prop 22 was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL not the way they did handle the Prop 8 mess…….I mean if Prop 22 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because of the wording……if they had challenged Prop 8 on the same grounds, I DON'T believe CSSC would have ruled the way they did…..either way, I'm glad that issue is behind us here in California…..and that folks would have listen to Gavin Newsome when he State that this Country would go the way California had gone…..or something like that.

    The anti-gay folks will NEVER truly give up, but I do believe that the more they fight against our rights, the more we will be able to prove that these acts and bills are nothing more than a way for these idiots to display their bigotry and hate!!!

  • 13. scream4ever  |  February 26, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    It was hard. Take it from someone who lived halfway across the country (Minnesota). I worked on our campaign here and our victories that night I felt like more than made up for Prop 8 passing four years before. If it's any consolation RnL2008, you can say that you were a part of history!!!

  • 14. RnL2008  |  February 26, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    We are and for our small part, I'm very proud of everyone who has in some way helped our cause get to where it is today.

    Living in Northern California, I had Professors march in a Prop 8 march…..we have a copy of the picture of us hugging the Minister who married us and we all had tank tops on that stated we are a family and deserve the same rights as any other married couple and family.

    Hell, last March 2014, we finally got resolution for our 2011 federal tax return and just recently I was able to add my wife to my VA Disability Award status………though I'm still waiting for the back pay to come in!!!

    Thank you for helping out in getting Minnesota on the train…….I think in some way, we all help out……one person at a time!

  • 15. Dr. Z  |  February 27, 2015 at 6:15 am

    We are STILL waiting for our Windsor IRS refund. Nationally, there were a few hundred same-sex married couples who anticipated Windsor back in the spring of 2013 and filed for a prospective refund on their 2009 taxes which otherwise would have been past the three year 2010-2012 window (thanks EoT!) The agent assigned to review our refund claim approved them back in August; and yet we are still waiting because the IRS is having a hard time wrapping its brain around an open and shut set of case facts, and won't issue the final approval.

    I got the Taxpayers Advocacy Office involved back in November 2014, they are the congressional office set up to help people having trouble with the IRS bureaucracy. They are the ones who told me this was affecting hundreds of couples, not just us. Per the Advocacy Office, the IRS is in the wrong, but month after month nothing happens.

  • 16. Eric  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:23 am

    It took 305 days for the IRS to process our 2009 amended return.

  • 17. DeadHead  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:52 am

    In less than six weeks the IRS processed our amended return quickly letting us know we owed them money. I'm willing to bet we would have waited much much longer had they owed us money.

  • 18. Eric  |  February 27, 2015 at 11:47 am

    The IRS did pay us $800 in interest on the refund, yet one more cost of DOMA.

  • 19. RnL2008  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:26 am

    If anyone lives here in California, specifically Northern California, I recommend contacting the Tax Advocate folks in Senator Diane Feinstein's office. That's what we did in order to get back our 2011 tax return and though it took 3 years…..we FINALLY got resolution……if anyone wants the number, just let me know!!!

  • 20. David_Midvale_UT  |  February 27, 2015 at 7:40 am

    The "No On 8" campaign was adequately funded but poorly organized. Regardless of how well organized it might have been with visionary leadership, the pro-equality campaign had the almost impossible task of competing with the Mormon leadership in Utah pulling the puppet strings of a long-established "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done" well-organized bureaucracy in almost every voting precinct in the state, sign-up sheets distributed in weekly club meetings, quotas for volunteer time and financial donations, and club-membership sanctions for those who preferred to support a LGBTQ family member instead of blind obedience to the pronouncements of the general and local leadership.

  • 21. Zack12  |  February 27, 2015 at 7:59 am

    Indeed it was always going to be tough fighting against that but many of the No On 8 folks dropped the ball.
    Due to the fact California is a blue state, the thought of losing it never entered the mind of some of them even though it had happened before with prop 22.
    Same thing in NY. Some of the "best" minds in our side assumed that since Democrats controlled all three chambers of the state legislature, marriage equality was a done deal and we wouldn't have to worry.
    Dec 2,2009 proved them wrong.

  • 22. Zack12  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Indeed, that Prop 8 thing was one of the most vicious hateful campaigns I've ever seen.

  • 23. RnL2008  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    Full of so many lies, I just COULDN'T believe that California's would fall for them……I mean Frank Schubert accidentally discovered that by using children to validate the lies used in the Yes for Prop 8 campaign that was one way they were able to win and Frank Schubert was hired to run the hate campaign in Maine for the same reason…….by the time 2012 came around, folks were tired of the lies that were used by the anti-gay groups and all of their lies regarding "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" finally backfired in their face!!!

  • 24. weshlovrcm  |  February 27, 2015 at 2:55 am

    I was in California, too. It was horrible seeing those awful commercials, especially that one of the little girl saying, "Guess what I learned in school today? A Princess can marry a Princess! When I grow up, I wanna marry a Princess, too!" Those commercials were on like every 15 minutes–it was maddening and the anti-Prop. 8 commercials hardly ever played. On the night before the election, I was at a protest against Prop. 8. A crowd of Yes protesters invaded our space and tried to crowd us out. We wouldn't leave. There was a "pastor" with a megaphone screaming anti-gay crap such as, "All homosexuals are miserable people!" At one point, at a Shell station on the other corner, a fuel truck pulled in to deliver gas. The driver of the truck jumped out and yelled at us, calling as "faggots." (I reported him later to Shell.) Many of the protesters on our side at those protests then, and that night, were heterosexuals. As the evening wore on, these Yes on 8 protestors, who were from one church, dwindled in number, but became more aggressive. They got on the corner facing us and taunted us, even daring us to come out in the intersection and fight them! I stayed till Midnight, but had to leave and they were still there yelling and screaming and pretending to be Christians. That was a horrible time period and we had to wait nearly 5 years to get rid of that evil Prop. 8 law. I'm sure all of us who lived through it are scarred forever in some way.

  • 25. David_Midvale_UT  |  February 27, 2015 at 7:09 am

    I cannot emphasize enough that your ire regarding government-sanctioned bigotry needs to include the hypocrites in Salt Lake City who initiated this garbage with front groups like Hawaii's Future Today (the statement, "Mormon leaders were approached by Catholic leaders" is a deliberate LIE, see specifically the Loren C. Dunn memos), California Prop. 22 (where something like 90% of the funding and volunteer time to get it on the ballot came from the Mormon club), and elsewhere (as documented by memos published by Mother Jones).

    The clowns in the Utah State Churchislature are still pushing for a government-approved-bigotry law. Instead of saying "White Only," business will be able to display a sign that says "White and Delightsome Only" (search something like Google if you need background information concerning that phrase).

    Just so that we all are perfectly clear, I despise Utah. (My boyfriend and I will be moving to New Mexico in May!)

  • 26. DeadHead  |  February 27, 2015 at 7:24 am

    White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome? – A Look at 2 Nephi 30:6

  • 27. David_Midvale_UT  |  February 27, 2015 at 11:30 am

    The word 'white' was used in the original printing; 'white' was changed to 'pure' in the 1840 (U.S.) edition (there is no firm evidence that the change was authorized), changed back to 'white' in the 1879 edition (which was based on a European 1837 edition), and finally changed back to 'pure' in 1981. Regardless of which word was or currently is used, the club has a nasty reputation for bigotry.

  • 28. RemC_Chicago  |  February 27, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    I'm glad you're in a position to move! Good for you and good luck!

  • 29. davepCA  |  February 27, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Dave M, please feel free to flip HATU the bird in your rear view mirror on behalf of myself and others here at EoT as you cross the state line in May : )

  • 30. SWB1987  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:10 am

    This is totally unrelated but that bill that allows discrimination in Arkansas, how is it allowed when the SC struck down something like that in Romer V Evans???? I hope "we" file a lawsuit soon

  • 31. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:32 am

    The Arkansas law in question hasn't yet gone into effect, and won't take effect until 90 days after the end of the current Arkansas legislative session.

    Thus, a lawsuit at this stage would be pre-mature.

  • 32. Raga  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:34 am

    I believe the Arkansas law doesn't mention LGBT, so it differs from Romer in that aspect. It bans all local nondiscrimination measures. It doesn't prohibit such measures from becoming Arkansas law though (through the legislature or statewide referendum). Our opponents are getting smarter, but it's still dumb – hopefully the law gets challenged and struck down.

  • 33. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:42 am

    This new law (but still not yet in effect) also violates the Arkansas state constitution. which prohibits such restrictions.

  • 34. davepCA  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:43 am

    oooops. He he.

  • 35. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:43 am

    LGBT rights aside, I believe laws like this are unconstitutional because, in terms of antidiscrimination laws, they deny access to the political process on the local level in its entirety. That's a due process issue in and of itself.

  • 36. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:49 am

    The governor of Arkansas hinted at that point when he refused to actually sign it into law, and instead, passively let it become law without his signature, knowing there were enough idiots present in the Arkansas legislature who could over-ride his veto.

    Still, he should have vetoed it anyway, and make them thrash it out a second time.

  • 37. guitaristbl  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:52 am

    It's not like Hutchinson is a person who would bother to take a stand on an issue in favour of LGBT rights, even if he knew it would futile…

  • 38. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 11:56 am

    Exactly. He's a wuss.

  • 39. Zack12  |  February 26, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    Indeed but sad to say, Mike Ross, the Democrat running for governor last fall was even worse then he was.
    And his record in Congress shows that.

  • 40. Raga  |  February 26, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    And I'm sure the sheer breadth of such a law (just like in Romer) should trigger the animus-based rational basis plus test. Their "defense" for the law is weak – uniformity. It won't stand.

  • 41. scream4ever  |  February 26, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Also given the fact that no businesses requested for the legislation to be brought forward/passed is another point against them.

  • 42. Zack12  |  February 26, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    Indeed, this bill is a backlash against us gaining marriage equality and nothing more.

  • 43. scream4ever  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    Indeed. The timing of it (right after the Fayettville debacle) is suspect too.

  • 44. Zack12  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:21 pm

    Yup, that and the fact the bigots who created this bill couldn't keep their mouths shut about what group it was targeting.

  • 45. JayJonson  |  February 27, 2015 at 6:23 am

    Raga, I don't think the law bans ALL local nondiscrimination measures; it prohibits local discrimination measures that cover grounds other than those that are also covered by state bans. That is, it does not, for example, forbid local bans on housing discrimination on the basis of race or veteran status even though there are also state-wide bans on such discrimination. In practice, this may be a distinction without much difference, but local laws prohibiting discrimination on bases that are already banned under state law may offer additional options for seeking redress to those who have been discriminated against and may allow local jurisdictions to take at least symbolic action against discrimination (except, of course, discrimination that is not already prohibited by the state).

    Anyway, I also hope the law is challenged and struck down. The attempt to challenge the Tennesse law failed, but I don't remember exactly on what grounds and at what level. Can someone explain that? Did a federal district court uphold the Tennessee law or an Appeals Court? Was the ruling based on a lack of standing? Please refresh our memories.

  • 46. scream4ever  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:56 am

    The state district and appeals court dismissed it due to a lack of standing since the law didn't single out gays specifically like Colorado Amendment 2 did.

  • 47. Rick55845  |  February 27, 2015 at 9:47 am

    So who would have standing to challenge the law? I guess it would have to be a lower-level government that wished to pass a nondiscrimination law that includes categories not recognized by the State? That makes it a bit more difficult to wage a fight.

  • 48. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    The clerk in Lancaster County NE (Lincoln) must have a fair sense of how Judge Batallion intends to soon rule in the Nebraska case, as their marriage license applications already ask for it to be filled out by Applicant #1 and Applicant #2:

    By the way, a marriage license in Nebraska only costs $15.00 ($20.00 if one desires a certified copy), and is mailed back to either Applicant #1 or Applicant #2.

  • 49. jpmassar  |  February 26, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — One of the plaintiffs who filed a federal lawsuit challenging Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage is running for state auditor.

    Jocelyn Pritchett of Jackson sent an advisory Thursday saying she will announce her candidacy Friday at the state Capitol.

  • 50. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    Here's a long, accurate article, complete with an up-to-date map of Mexico, explaining the history and rapid progress of same-sex marriage in Mexico:
    Latest highlights:

    In addition to the 3 jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal, at least one same-sex couple in 22 of Mexico's 32 jurisdictions, have been able to marry by going through the amparo process, even though state law would otherwise prohibit them from marrying. Court cases in 4 more jurisdictions are pending.

    On 24 February 2015, State of Mexico has been ordered by the Supreme Court of Mexico to change its state marriage code to allow same-sex couples to marry (similar as to what has already been ordered of Oaxaca, Baja California, Campeche, and Sinaloa).

    The state of Chihuahua has now had 25 successful amparos, each allowing at least one same-sex couple to marry (theoretically, 5 such successful amparos force the state to change its law, while simultaneously suspending the unconstitutional provision). Same-sex marriage now ought to be the law in Chihuahua, and couples should be able to freely marry without going to court. Advocates in Baja California have argued the same point in that state.

    The Supreme Court for the state of Nuevo Leon has declared their state's prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and topped it off by ordering an "amparo colectivo" for 48 couples.

    On Monday, 2 March 2015, the Supreme Court for the state of Yucatan will be reviewing that state's prohibition in the same manner, but with a twist: The review is being forced by a number of local civic organizations who are arguing that at least 10 successful amparos have already been granted in the state, and thus, that the restrictive law banning same-sex couples from marrying is now void.

    Cases are currently pending before Mexico's Supreme Court from Colima, Jalisco, Chihuahua, and Durango.

    The law student from the largely rural state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico who launched this successful nationwide amparo process to obtain legalization for same-sex marriage is Alex Alí Méndez Díaz. He has now been involved in lawsuits in 19 states even though he is still finishing advanced studies in Mexico City and has an unrelated full-time job.

  • 51. dlejrmex  |  February 26, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    As a resident here in Sinaloa, the times are changing. There are still bigots (including of course our unfortunate Mormons and JW imports here too) but you see young people being pretty comfortable with gays. And of course the Supreme Court of Mexico resolved the recognition of marriage country-wide very early. That made it all the more painful when prop-Hate passed for my home state.

  • 52. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    "…. prop-Hate passed for my home state."

    For those who may be unaware, Sinaloa and Yucatan are among the handful of Mexican states which have state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man/one woman. Most of the remainder only have the state marriage code restriction.

    Still, in Sinaloa's case, both were struck down by the Supreme Court of Mexico, which also ordered the state to re-draw it state marriage code to be inclusive,– and then issued 3 amparos to same-sex couples from Mazatlaan allowing them to be married. The same issues are now pending before the state's Supreme Court for the Yucatan.

  • 53. scream4ever  |  February 26, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    Doesn't Colima also have one (which also recognize registered partnerships)?

  • 54. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Here's what Wikipedia says (with minor editing to correct one major error, plus a few additions):

    "On 14 June 2013, Rosa Lilia Vargas Valle, a judge of the Second District Court of Colima State, ruled that the Colima Civil Code is unconstitutional in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

    On 4 July 2013 the state congress approved an amendment to Article 147 of the state code which formalized same-sex civil unions. Within 30 days, seven of Colima's ten municipalities approved the changes to the civil code. An appeal to these changes was filed and the Supreme Court of Mexico agreed in August 2014 to review it. Deliberations began at the Supreme Court in September 2014 to determine whether the new Civil Code which provides only 'marital bond' for same-sex couples and 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples is discrimination via sexual orientation."

    It's all about the Colima Civil Code, and whether the changes they made are adequate to satisfy the non-discrimination clause in Mexico"s Federal Constitution, as two different Spanish words are used, and whether or not these two words both carry the same meaning.

    In addition, given the "Rule of 5," Colima has already maxed out, and then surpassed that number in terms of amparos issued, and did so in 2013.

    In Colima state, there exisit two kinds of marital relationships:

    Marriage is celebrated just by one man and one woman.

    Marital bond is that which is celebrated by two people of the same sex.

  • 55. dlejrmex  |  February 27, 2015 at 10:13 am

    "…. prop-Hate passed for my home state."

    Hi Rick, I should have been clear, I am a US ex-pat and my home state is (was) California. Sinaloa is a conservative state but everything is improving slowly.

  • 56. guitaristbl  |  February 26, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    The legal system in Mexico is chaotic. A ruling from the Supreme Court of the country should be binding across the country end of story. This whole thing is such a waste of resources and time in endless litigition imo.

  • 57. VIRick  |  February 26, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    Guitar, the whole shit in Mexico is on the very verge of collapsing. The amparo process alone has allowed hundreds and hundreds of same-sex couples all over Mexico, in state after state, to legally marry.

    The court system in Mexico is strange,– I agree,– but it's not chaotic. Instead, it's inexorable, and it builds and builds, using repeated precedent, before finally obtaining a binding ruling. Try to understand the "Rule of 5," as that helps to make better sense of the entire legal system.

    A provision was added to the Mexican Federal Constitution in 2011 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sexual preferences." That covers sexual orientation and gender identity, and it says so, quite clearly and rather boldly, in black and white. The opposition in Mexico only has ignorance and obfuscation to fall back upon. Oh, and Los Mormones and the Testigos de Jehová.

    Note to Wolf: "Testigos" in Spanish is not what you think,– but it ought to be. LOL

  • 58. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  February 27, 2015 at 7:24 am

    I'm somewhat familiar the Spanish language, thank you, Rick. 😛

    The word you're looking for is "testículos."

  • 59. AndresM11  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:01 am

    Hi guys!

    Spanish native speaker here 🙂

    Testigo is the equivalent for witness and testículos to testicles.

    I read sometime that the word "testigo" has a peculiar meaning. Back in the Roman Empire, witnesses swore to say the truth by delivering an oath while grabbing their testicles lol.

  • 60. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:04 am

    Thank you, Andres…that was the joke

  • 61. AndresM11  |  February 27, 2015 at 8:04 am

    You're welcome Wolfie 🙂

  • 62. VIRick  |  February 27, 2015 at 10:54 am

    "…. the word "testigo" has a peculiar meaning …."

    Indeed, it does!

    Thank you both for clarifying about the "testicles of jesus."

    The so-called religious sect, Jehovah's Witnesses, has a problem when translating the name of their sect into Spanish, because Spanish-speakers who are not overly thrilled with the organization's incessant recruitment will often complain (in Spanish) that the "testicles of jesus" ("testiculos de jesus," rather than "Testigos de Jehová") were at their front door again.

  • 63. DeadHead  |  February 27, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Funny acoustic song about how some religious people actually trim the hedges for piety. Shave Your Ball for Jesus

  • 64. DrBriCA  |  February 26, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Other news for today:

    The permanent injunction for Casper v Snyder (ordering the state to recognize the 300 marriages from the one-day window period) has been issued:

    Also, 2 Justices on the Mississippi Supreme Court believe there's no reason to delay granting a divorce or a same-sex couple until the eventual Supreme Court ruling. The 26-page statement was linked to an order for more briefs. I haven't seen the full document yet, but sounds intriguing!

  • 65. Raga  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    From Equality Case Files:

    It is refreshing to see two Justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court step up boldly in this fashion, but I fear they will eventually still be in a minority (not sure how many of the six that issued the order would be swayed by this).

    "One cannot get to second base without first going to first base."

    "The supplemental briefing order addresses a nonissue and thus appears to be a delay tactic."

  • 66. A_Jayne  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    It seems for at least two MS supreme court justices, much has already been decided where the law and amendment in MS are concerned, but I especially like these lines:

    "1[18. Most notably, as previously mentioned, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to address these very issues. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States states that certiorari must be granted only for compelling reasons and, in granting certiorari on a United States court of appeals decision, it considers the following factors: a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power. U.S. Supreme Court R.lO(a).

    "This appears the most powerful signal that the issues addressed in Baker are indeed substantial federal questions.

    "See also Windsor 133 S. Ct. at 2695-96 (addressing a federal question, finding that the Defense of Marriage Act's discrimination against same-sex marriages violated the Fifth Amendment). Thus, the one-line summary dismissal in Baker v Nelson no longer has precedential value."

    I also like this footnote:

    (footnote) 3 Ironically, this provision was inserted in the same location as the now-defunct provision that provided that [t]he marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. Miss. Const. art. 14, § 263.

  • 67. Raga  |  February 26, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Here's the link to the oral argument, if anyone wants to read the tea leaves:

  • 68. JayJonson  |  February 27, 2015 at 6:07 am

    Justice King's statement, joined by Justice Kitchens, is excellent in every way. It may be pertinent to note that Justice King is an African American appointed to the Court by Hayley Barbour. Justice Kitchens may be the most liberal member of the Mississippi Supreme Court (which probably does not mean that he would necessarily be considered liberal on another court). Kudos to these courageous Mississippi Supreme Court justices.

  • 69. scream4ever  |  February 26, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    Great news out of West Virginia!:

  • 70. F_Young  |  February 27, 2015 at 5:39 am

    Today is Friday again. Many of the decisions have come out on Friday. Anyone care to speculate as to which decisions might come down today?

  • 71. MichaelGrabow  |  February 27, 2015 at 6:11 am

    Hopefully NE!

  • 72. DeadHead  |  February 27, 2015 at 7:28 am

    I'm hoping to hear whether SCOTUS in their conference today will deny or grant cert to on 8 v. Bowen

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