Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

READ IT HERE: Same-sex couples’ reply briefs in Supreme Court marriage cases

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
The reply briefs are due in the Supreme Court marriage cases today, meaning briefing in the four cases will be complete.

The plaintiffs/petitioners (same-sex couples) are filing the final briefs in the cases, and arguments will take place on April 28.

You can read the reply brief in Tanco v. Haslam, the Tennessee case, here:

14-562 Tennessee Plaintiffs' Reply by Equality Case Files

You can read the reply brief in Obergefell/Henry v. Hodges, the Ohio case, here:

14-556 Ohio Plaintiffs' Reply by Equality Case Files

EqualityOnTrial will have the other briefs as soon as they’re available.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

127 Comments

  • 1. F_Young  |  April 17, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Off-topic: As U.S. gay-marriage battle looms, attorneys fight over fees

    …The battles over billables are erupting far from the Washington, D.C., limelight, in lower courts from West Virginia to Wisconsin and Oklahoma. They pit lawyers representing gay couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans against the states that had enacted the laws.

    …..In some cases, the fee requests run well into seven figures and are submitted on behalf of powerful law firms that a Reuters examination found have outsized access to the Supreme Court.

    …..For the nation's most elite law firms, the appeal of these cases goes beyond racking up billable hours: Litigation seeking gay-marriage rights, which began with a steadily growing number of cases filed by couples across the country in the last decade, has offered the possibility of coveted face time before the Supreme Court.

    …..Litigating on behalf of gay couples can also provide firms with a marketing tool for clients and an edge in recruiting.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-usa-

  • 2. ianbirmingham  |  April 17, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    April 17, 2015, 08:16 am
    Poll: Orientation should be a protected class

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/23919

    Seventy-four percent of Americans believe that sexual orientation deserves the same constitutional protection from discrimination as race, according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released Friday.

    Only 18 percent of Americans believe that federal law should not treat discrimination over sexual orientation and race equally, according to the survey, which also found majorities calling for ObamaCare to get more time to be enacted and predicting that marijuana will be legal nationwide in two decades. …

    Fifty-one percent of Americans believe gay marriage will be the law of the land within the next five to 10 years. Only 7 percent believe it will be legalized this year. The Supreme Court could rule in June on whether states have the right to ban gay marriage. …

  • 3. davepCA  |  April 17, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    That seven percent figure is surprising to me. I suppose it shows that most people who aren't directly affected by these bans are completely oblivious to what is about to happen on April 28th and then in June. The other possibility is that people ARE aware of this upcoming SCOTUS trial and decision but the vast majority of them think SCOTUS will rule against us, and it seems extremely unlikely to me that many people would be both aware of the trial and would think that.

  • 4. ianbirmingham  |  April 18, 2015 at 4:25 am

    Yes, they're unaware of what is happening. There won't be significant mass awareness until the media coverage of the oral arguments of April 28th, but even that coverage still won't reach most people. That will only happen when the 72-point headlines scream "GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL" as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in June.

  • 5. wkrick  |  April 17, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    It kind of makes you wonder why we even need to have laws that specifically list all the classes of people that are protected from discrimination. This implies that there will always be some people that are not protected because they don't fall into one of the circles in the venn diagram of discrimination protection. Wouldn't it be easier and more logical to just pass a federal law or constitutional amendment that protects EVERYONE from discrimination without listing each separate class? Why is there a need to reserve the right to discriminate against some as of yet unnamed class of people?

  • 6. domestic_god  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it true that anti-discrimination laws protect EVERYONE? It always bothers me when our opponents say something like 'gays should not be a protected class.' Including sexual orientation in anti-discrimination code doesn't just protect gay people, it protects EVERYONE from being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation (including straight people). The term 'protected class' always bothered me… seems like it should be a 'protected criteria' or 'protected attribute' but these laws protect EVERYONE, don't they?

  • 7. FredDorner  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    Think of "class" as "trait". Protected classes are always scoped so that they include all persons.

    It's like "handedness" being the class, whereas being left-handed is a class instance.

  • 8. domestic_god  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Thanks Fred for the clarification and I think you made my point. I think many people interpret "class" to mean "subgroup" so they don't understand these laws actually protect EVERYONE.

  • 9. ebohlman  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Usually, not always: the laws prohibiting discrimination based on age, disability, and veteran status only apply to certain instances.

  • 10. Eric  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    Pay a modicum of attention and there is no need to wonder why these laws are needed. The laws are created in response to the actions of bigots.

    A general prohibition on discrimination would make no sense. Some discrimination is needed. Everyone is covered by the protected classes.

  • 11. ebohlman  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    FWIW, Justice Kennedy did a pretty good job of explaining this in Romer: laws can't really function without drawing distinctions between people, but at the same time equal protection demands that those distinctions can't create multiple "tiers" of citizenship.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  April 18, 2015 at 4:14 am

    It's based on political feasibility. Discrimination based on certain irrelevant attributes (race, religion, etc.) has reached levels of unacceptability sufficient to enable legislators to prohibit it. However, that is not the case for all irrelevant attributes against which discrimination is rampant (tattoos, body modifications, musical tastes, preferences regarding clothing (including the preference to never wear clothing – this is known as naturism or nudism), etc.). A general law against discrimination based on any and all irrelevant attributes would encounter such strong opposition from multiple bigot groups that it would have no chance of passing.

  • 13. SimmieK  |  April 19, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    If the Fourteenth Amendment section 1 is understood as an anti-discrimination law, it is one which doesn't list any classes: "No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

    A similar example is the European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 12 article 1 section 1: "The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status". This does provide a list, but the words "any ground such as" and "or other status" indicate that the list is non-exhaustive. So, for example, sexual orientation is not explicitly included, yet is nonetheless covered since the list is non-exhaustive. It is quite a pity that many European countries have thus far not signed and/or ratified this Protocol, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland… I know at least in the UK's case, and probably for many of the other countries too, their government is afraid of the very non-exhaustiveness of the Protocol. So that factor probably explains why relatively few anti-discrimination laws are written in as a broad a way as the Fourth Amendment or the ECHR Protocol 12 – politicians are afraid, since they can't never be certain exactly what they are signing up to – at least, with a restricted list of grounds, while judges still have scope to interpret those grounds, they don't have to worry about judges finding whole entire grounds the politicians may have never thought of. And it retains a role (and thus power) for the politicians, since if someone wants to add a whole new ground, they have to go back to the political process, instead of just going to court.

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  April 17, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Martin O'Malley takes shot at Clinton over gay marriage and immigration
    ‘I’m glad Secretary Clinton’s come around to the right positions on these issues,’ top potential challenger says in response to Guardian question

    <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/16/martin-omalley-hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-immigration-reform” target=”_blank”>http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/16/ma

    … Ahead of an official campaign stop in Iowa on Wednesday, Clinton’s campaign team released a statement, confirmed by the Guardian, expressing her support for same-sex marriage as a federal constitutional right. The position marked a reversal – coming just two weeks ahead of a supreme court hearing on the issue – from last year, when she told NPR that she thought marriage legality should be decided by the states.

    O’Malley, who signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland, has said that marriage equality is “a human right” and should not be left to the states. …

  • 15. davepCA  |  April 17, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    Hillary Clinton thought that just last year? Wow, the comments today are full of news that is surprising to me.

  • 16. Eric  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    Yes, her position, until earlier this week, was that marriage recognition should be left to the states (i.e., the fundamental right to marry does not extend to same-sex couples).

  • 17. A_Jayne  |  April 17, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Hillary is a politician. No matter what she says at any given time, it is only what she says, not necessarily what she thinks – even if she says it is what she thinks. And yes, that makes little sense – as do most political maneuvers…

  • 18. RQO  |  April 19, 2015 at 11:59 am

    I'm kinda old, and knew some rather personal things about the Clintons from back in the 70's. Perhaps it was an intellectual and political match, with ambition as the trump suit. Personally I think she is smarter the he, but more awkward. She may make an excellent, hard bitten and driven President, but don't expect to love her personally. If someone argued she is not naturally pro-LGBT but reads the political winds, I would be hard pressed to argue otherwise for lack of evidence. Clintons do not seem to come out in favor of anything that doesn't poll at least 51%, and keep their personal believes utterly opaque, if they indeed have any. (That's a bit unfair; I think Hillary could have a lot more to say about women's poition in societies if you got her alone and drunk; Rose's "stupid!" comes to mind.) Welcome to politics, take your victories where you can – and stay loud.

  • 19. VIRick  |  April 19, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    "Perhaps it was an intellectual and political match, with ambition as the trump suit. Personally I think she is smarter the he, but more awkward."

    Agreed.

    On several occasions, in the immediate aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair, the Clintons rented a villa quite close to our gay, nude beach, and within viewing distance of my own house.

    Although I took their choice of quiet refuges as a personal, yet somewhat abstract compliment, especially once it became evident that there were to be multiple repeat visits, there was little to no social interaction, other than Bill, on his own, popping in unexpectedly, here and there, with no forewarning. Still, I'm also aware that because he was the sitting president of the USA at the time, the Secret Service were literally hiding in the bushes everywhere, including on my own property,– and I didn't have to ask why. But to highlight your point about the awkwardness, and despite the close proximity, we never did see much of Hillary.

  • 20. Waxr  |  April 17, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    FindLaw's "Supreme Court Digest" has an interesting commentary upon some of the 137 Amicus briefs which has been submitted to the Supreme Court in DeBoer v. Synder.
    http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/04/a-

    Have fun reading all of them.

  • 21. RnL2008  |  April 17, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Nope, I'm NOT reading the briefs, especially the ones from the anti-gay side…..I pretty much know what those say already……ugh:(

  • 22. 1grod  |  April 18, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Rose: I appreciate your reluctance. But you miss such 'going for broke" statements as Tennessee petitioner's statement: "In sum, the State’s attempt to reframe the question before the Court fails to account for the nature of petitioners’ Fourteenth Amendment claims, misapplies the Full Faith and Credit Clause, ignores the longstanding adherence of states to the place-of-celebration rule, and, on all these counts, misunderstands the very institution of marriage". p 8. I thought you'd appreciated the straight forward, call it as you see it, cut the BS approach – which I and others have come to anticipate and admire about your usually insightful comments.

  • 23. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    I read everything when it came to the Prop 8 issue and even some of the early briefs back in 2004, but over the last 11 years, they all seem to be muddled together and it's not like the anti-gay folks are creative anymore……the briefs are just copied from other briefs that have failed and will continue to fail……..I know that SCOTUS needs to hold oral arguments to keep up appearances and not look bias, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruling hasn't already been drafted at least……just thinking out loud.

  • 24. 1grod  |  April 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    Rose: I hope the judges have not crafted the ruling before they read Kentucky and Michigan's Reply Briefs: http://www.scribd.com/doc/262258253/14-574-Kentuc… :- Here a few thought the authors put to paper [the submission style is to often speaks of both states:
    "After the States’ filings in this case, there can no longer be any doubt that the States’ marriage bans violate those [fourteenth amendment] guarantees [of liberty and equality – warrents for the here and now]". …… "Marriage – as this Court noted no fewer than nine times in Windsor – is “protection.” It is protection against being alienated from one’s child upon the death of one’s spouse. It is protection against being left destitute after the dissolution of the marital relationship. It is protection of intimate communication, such that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other. It is protection, when one’s spouse dies, against being ejected from the family’s home or left without access to the family’s financial resources. The list goes on and on" In http://www.scribd.com/doc/262258252/14-571-Michig
    there are zinger! I’ve included the following to suggest the style of writing used there. " The State [Michigan] conspicuously avoids discussing the marriage bans’ substantial affronts to gay people’s constitutional liberty and equality, instead invoking federalism and the democratic process. But the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that individuals’ rights to equality and liberty are not left to state governments’ political processes. Judicial enforcement of these constitutional rights is the essence of our constitutional scheme. The States’ general authority to define and regulate marriage is cabined by the imperative to “respect the constitutional rights of persons."…. The origins, broad scope, and harmful message of the bans and similar state constitutional amendments and statutes enacted in the 1990s and 2000s – illustrate the necessity of judicial action. The bans were reflexive reactions to legislative developments and state court decisions in Hawai’i and Massachusetts that recognized the promise of equality for same-sex couples."

  • 25. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    "The bans were reflexive reactions to legislative developments and state court decisions in Hawai’i and Massachusetts that recognized the promise of equality for same-sex couples."

    And that, they were. And thus, that's the real reason these bans are indefensible. Any other argument in their defense is an artificially made-up, after-the-fact rationalization.

  • 26. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Wow, thank you for this insight. You are correct in saying that many States who didn't have or even mention marriage for Gays and Lesbians seriously put those bans in place after Hawaii's Supreme Court made it's ruling regarding this issue back in 1993 and as I was stating to a poster on topix's when they seriously stated that they believe that SCOTUS is going to rule that the States have the right and I went on which planet do you live in…….but to some who just don't want to see us gain our rights, this is the same mentality in these briefs.

    Have a great day…….I can't wait to listen to the audio.

  • 27. 1grod  |  April 20, 2015 at 6:48 am

    Rose, if not reading, perhaps Matt's video will do: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/04/gay-marriage-new

  • 28. Alphazip  |  April 17, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    FindLaw's article states: "The same-sex marriage cases, known to posterity as DeBoer v. Synder…" But, are they? I keep seeing it/them referred to as Obergefell. When the marriage decision is cited in the future, how will it be known?

  • 29. JayJonson  |  April 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    It will be known as Obergefell v. Hodges.

    "Because of the way the Supreme Court of the United States refers to consolidated cases, Jim Obergefell is likely to soon become a household name. On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on same-sex marriage cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, and will issue its long awaited decision by the end of June. Because the Court refers to consolidated cases by the one that has the lowest file number, the four cases will collectively be known as Obergefell v. Hodges, which is the name of the Ohio case."

    See: http://www.glbtq.com/blogs/jim_obergefell_soon_to

  • 30. andrewofca  |  April 18, 2015 at 7:56 am

    what if they rule differently on the celebration/recognition issues? Will it still be called Obergefell for the ages?

  • 31. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 18, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    See above.

    Or to save you the time:
    "Because the Court refers to consolidated cases by the one that has the lowest file number, the four cases will collectively be known as Obergefell v. Hodges, which is the name of the Ohio case."

  • 32. A_Jayne  |  April 18, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    The case will not change even if two different decisions are made. I've read several cases that are decided "granted in part, denied in part," and the case name stays the same.

  • 33. F_Young  |  April 17, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Zack12: "It will be fun watching people mispronounce Obergefell when this guy is said and done."

    He should ask his team to include the proper pronunciation in their releases and media advisories and on their websites.

  • 34. Zack12  |  April 17, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    He has but he has also joked about the number of times they'll get it wrong.
    I'm glad he still has his sense of humor about him during these trying times.

  • 35. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 17, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    My last name has 5 letters, and consists of just 2 syllables (which most people understand and/or use on an almost daily basis), but most people want to also include an 's' in it. What's so funny to me is there is NO letter 's' in my full (including middle) name.

    Maybe that's one reason why, when I state my last name, I almost always also spell it? (Also, most people want to incorrectly spell and/or pronounce it in multiple other ways also.)

  • 36. RnL2008  |  April 17, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    My birth last name had to be shortened when my great-grandmother and my grandfather came to America and arrived at Ellis Island……and for many many years, people could NEVER pronounce it correctly and it had all of 4 letters in it…….we always had to shake our head when folks called it out, eventually I changed it before I got out of the Military.

  • 37. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 18, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Growing up, our nearest neighbors were of Polish ancestry. They had to change names when they arrived in the US, as in English, their Polish surname was a cussword (not close to a cussword, but an actual cussword).

    The name they chose was 5 letters long, one syllable, and rarely mispronounced and/or misspelled.

  • 38. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    I can't imagine what someone's last name would translate into a cuss word.

    My Great-Great-Grandfather was born in Ukraine like in the mid 1800's, migrated to Austria where he met the woman who became his wife. The last name was Tymczyszyn and when my grandfather and his mom arrived, well let's just say they drop this to 4 letters……lol

  • 39. brchaz  |  April 18, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    I'll give you a perfect example. Go to whitepages.com and do a search for the last name "Fick" – the result shows 100 landline listings under that last name. Now go to Google Translate and look up what "Fick" means in German… 🙂

  • 40. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    I didn't say it was possible, just that I didn't know about it, I'm sure many translations would be an interesting read.

    I have German ancestors on my mother's side of the family.

  • 41. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    And in reverse, there's this quaint little cutesy town in Austria near Salzburg named Fuck. English-speaking tourists keep stealing their town's signs, so much so, that they're considering changing the name of the town to something else.

  • 42. brchaz  |  April 18, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    That's a false rumor. The town's name is Fucking (not Fuck), the signs are theft-proof, and the residents love the name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria

    …Augustina Lindlbauer, the manager of an area guesthouse, noted that the area had lakes, forests, and vistas worth visiting, but there was an "obsession with Fucking". Lindlbauer recalled how she had to explain to a British female tourist "that there were no Fucking postcards."… In 2004, …a vote was held on changing the village's name, but the residents voted against doing so. Tarsdorf municipality's mayor Siegfried Höppl stated that it was decided to keep the name as it had existed for 800 years, and further stated that "Everyone here knows what it means in English, but for us Fucking is Fucking—and it's going to stay Fucking." …

    False rumours of name change

    Rumours spread through international news media in April 2012 that villagers had been thinking about changing the name of the village or had actually voted to change it. The satirical website The Spoof! published a story on 18 April 2012 saying that the villagers were fed up and wanted to change the name. This minor satire was expanded upon and appeared on the same day in the Daily Mirror newspaper and elsewhere during the following week as a genuine news item, and was repeated by The Guardian and The Huffington Post, who reported that a vote had taken place to change the name to Fugging, but it was discovered that a village with that name already existed in the municipality of Obritzberg-Rust just west of Herzogenburg. The mayor of Fucking denied these false stories when contacted.

  • 43. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    brchaz, thank you for the awesome correction and detailed elaboration. LOL

  • 44. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 18, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    There was no translation. The surname, without translation, was a cussword in English. The family didn't come through Ellis Island, where most people's names that were changed were changed. The family, as a whole, decided to change the name.

    The custom of keeping the same surname was common among immigrants. When I went to school [in NE Indiana], I went with people whose surnames were Bianski, Ananius, Herczog, Halmagyi, etc. – some of whom were from families that had lived in the US for several generations, well before the facilities at Ellis Island were built.

    (At one time, Baltimore was the second largest port of entry for immigrants into the US. Other times, it was Philadelphia, or Charleston (SC) or New Orleans, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, New York City always being the No. 1 port of entry for immigrants into the US. And many people first went to Canada [Halifax, Nova Scotia or Quebec City especially], then entered the US. All my ancestors entered what is now the US through East Coast ports – the last one [with her father, mother and siblings] from Western Switzerland in the early 1800s, about the time of, or just before, the Louisiana Purchase, which basically expanded the US to the Mississippi River. They were especially escaping from Napoleon, who was rampaging through Europe at the time.)

  • 45. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Thanks Mike for sharing. Unlike some families that have been in the United States for many generations, my family only arrived at the beginning of the 20th century. My grandfather was 10 months old when he and his mother arrived in Ellis Island in 1905. My grandparents had 11 children, but one died just after being born. I am like 2nd generation American on my father's side and 3rd generation on my mother's side. My grandmother was born in this Country in April of 1912.

    On the other hand, my wife's family have been in this Country for generations and she had at least one Uncle who served in Congress.

  • 46. Alphazip  |  April 18, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    The stories about names being changed by U.S. immigration officials at Ellis Island are almost always untrue. People certainly changed their names to look and sound more American, but they made the changes themselves, mostly after arriving in the U.S. More here: http://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/07/02/name-changes-

  • 47. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    You know this to be true even back in 1905, right? You're calling my father a liar? Seems he knew the stories and passed them on.

    It's an interesting article and seeing that I wasn't born back then, I believe what folks stated. I have seen the passenger manifest for the ship that my grandfather and his mother sailed on and I know that our last name was changed from when they arrived. Frankly, you can believe what ya want, but seeing as I don't even use the last name that I was born with……it's all just history to me.

  • 48. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 18, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Many of the immigrants to the US, especially during the early days of Ellis Island (open from 1892 to 1954), were illiterate, and wouldn't have noticed that an immigration agent had changed their name.

    Also, many of the people didn't clearly spell the letters of their name because they were illiterate, or had such accents they could not easily be understood, or didn't speak English, or had Cyrillic-spelled (or other alphabets) names (where letters could not be translated by the agents) that the spelling of names could not be considered 100% correct.

    So not all the blame can be placed on any party for name changes. One thing that IS known is that there was no MASS and purposeful change of names conducted at Ellis Island. It was more accidental than intentional.

  • 49. RnL2008  |  April 18, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    That may be true, all I know is the story….seeing as my grandfather, grandmother, my father and many aunts and uncles have long since passed.

    Again, all I know is what I heard from several uncles, aunts and my father. It really doesn't matter to me as I think the story has a better ending.

  • 50. Alphazip  |  April 18, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    Mike- Yes, but the very issues you mention are covered in that article. Did you read it? It's one of those stories that everyone hears and passes on to the next generation without examining whether it's really true.

  • 51. DACiowan  |  April 18, 2015 at 9:42 pm

    I put the IPA for Obergefell on the Wikipedia page, so at least that will help get the right pronunciation out.

  • 52. F_Young  |  April 19, 2015 at 2:52 am

    DACiowan: "I put the IPA for Obergefell on the Wikipedia page…"

    I hadn't thought of Wikipedia; that's a great idea.

    Also, for those who are unfamiliar with the IPA (like me), it would be useful to add an audio byte. I don't feel confident enough about the proper pronunciation to do it myself, though. Any takers?

  • 53. F_Young  |  April 17, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    Off-topic: Hobby Lobby Part II Is Barreling Towards The Supreme Court

    On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito temporarily stayed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upholding Obama administration rules expanding access to birth control. Alito’s order is not particularly surprising, and it only stays the Third Circuit order pending further action by Alito or the Court.

    Nevertheless, Alito’s order hints that a looming battle between religious employers who object to birth control and their employees, who wish to have the same access to contraception as people who work for secular employers, will soon need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/17/36482

  • 54. sfbob  |  April 17, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    If you only want to read one of the briefs thus far posted go with the one from Ohio. You won't be disappointed. We can begin with a footnote at the bottom of Page 4 that neatly disposes of Schuette

    "Schuette in no way supports withholding redress for voter-imposed constitutional violations. Schuette counsels deference to state voters‟ choices between competing constitutionally valid policies."

    And then it goes on to clobber the state on marriage-related exceptions to Full Faith and Credit. Actually the Tennessee brief does a good job on that point as well.

  • 55. A_Jayne  |  April 17, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    In the Ohio brief above, I especially like how the attorneys point out that Ohio's basic argument regarding restricting same-sex marriage and recognition: "we do because we can, and we can because we do" as the circular logic it so obviously is.

  • 56. sfbob  |  April 17, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    There is also (page 18) the observation that contrary to Ohio's assertion that the law doesn't discriminate because it applies equally to men and women, the law is unconstitutional precisely because it constrains equally. It prevents men from marrying other men and women from marrying other women.

    I also appreciate their citation of Christian Legal Society vs Martinez. That underappreciated decision, as far as I'm concerned, may be the linchpin of an argument that leads the court inevitably to make laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny. I'm quite pleased that both briefs make this claim and provide ample support for it.

    There is, finally, a very interesting discussion towards the end of the brief that completely takes apart the "redefining marriage" argument.

  • 57. RemC_Chicago  |  April 18, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Page 4 was my favorite.

  • 58. 1grod  |  April 18, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    Bob, re Christian Legal Society – thank you for pointing that out. I did not experience the brief as emotionally compelling as I did Tennessee's. But the authors here also use compelling language. Rose I did read page 4 and the top of 5 and will remember. "The corrosive effects of Ohio‟s discrimination against same-sex married couples thus spill far beyond Ohio‟s borders." p 5. The most memorable statement for me was: Ohio suggests that “only in communities, not courtrooms,” can “„the people, gay and straight alike … become the heroes of their own stories. But Petitioners did not bring these actions to “become heroes.” They want no more and no less than the basic dignity of legal equality for their marriages in Ohio. p 23

  • 59. RnL2008  |  April 17, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Always works well, right? NOT……..is there truly ANY real argument from the anti-gay side?

  • 60. RemC_Chicago  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:02 am

    No. I began reading them for the sake of enlightenment & stopped when it became clear that it was a ridiculous waste of time.

  • 61. Zack12  |  April 18, 2015 at 8:21 am

    They pretty much recycled arguments from the Loving era.

  • 62. Sagesse  |  April 17, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    This bill passed both houses in Florida by veto-proof margins.

    Florida governor to ‘review’ adoption bill [Washington Blade]

    'State officials have not enforced the statute since a state appeals court struck it down in 2010.

    Equality Florida, a statewide LGBT advocacy group, on Tuesday launched an online campaign that urges Scott to sign HB 7013 into law.

    While it has been legal for gays and lesbians to adopt in Florida for several years, this symbolic action would finally move our state past its Anita Bryant era of discrimination and intolerance,” states Equality Florida in its petition."
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/04/14/florida

  • 63. RemC_Chicago  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:06 am

    And yet, they're working on religious exemptions to the law. Give it up already, Florida.

  • 64. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 17, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    I'm more of a boxers guy myself. 😉

  • 65. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 12:23 am

    "I'm more of a boxers guy myself. 😉 "

    Wolfie, where in the heavens did this comment come from? Or are you worrying too much about there being too many "briefs?" LOL

    Personally, I much prefer the "ultra-gay" look for flaunting the goods,– T-shirt up above, and commando down below.

  • 66. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 18, 2015 at 12:56 am

    Yes, hehehe. Too many briefs. I guess that one fell flat. Oh well, can't win 'em all. 🙂

  • 67. RemC_Chicago  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:04 am

    I just upgraded you. Just finished having my morning coffee & was alert enough to get your reference, especially since I find boxers so uncomfortable.

  • 68. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 18, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Thanks, man!

  • 69. brandall  |  April 19, 2015 at 9:45 am

    A briefs boxer, the best of both worlds.
    http://sugarshop.typepad.com/.a/6a00df35222993883

  • 70. 1grod  |  April 18, 2015 at 8:39 am

    Wolf – re the flat fit: While leaving it to Jockey and other companies to focus on offering a selection of 'contour flyes' for those who would choose not to endorse Rick's "ultra" commando preference, I thought I'd mention Tennessee petitioners' way of handling what level of scrutiny should apply – it being imo quite adroit: "For these reasons, this Court should subject the Non-Recognition Laws at least to the “careful consideration” that this Court applied in Windsor." p 15. I also commend the authors of this brief' for explicitly refuting the State respondent's arguments at every turn or failure to address and for their broad range of citations G

  • 71. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 18, 2015 at 10:34 am

    That's a good point! I like that.

  • 72. Raga  |  April 18, 2015 at 10:15 am

    I just tried switching from briefs to boxers recently and I'm liking it so far. I have to order more boxers now.

  • 73. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 18, 2015 at 10:35 am

    Boxers are great. I like boxer briefs too, but I'm picky. Lol.

  • 74. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  April 18, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    For work, absolutely boxer-briefs. Best ever are Calvin Kleins Micro Modal, which they have in both the boxer brief and undershirt. I simply won't wear any other kind under my work clothes.
    http://www1.macys.com/shop/product/calvin-klein-m

    Of course when I'm not working, I agree with Rick's choice!

  • 75. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 11:15 pm

    Ryan, I just KNEW you were going to weigh in here on this very heavy and meaty subject, complete with a link to your ultimate fave!!

    Needless to say, this wonderfully astute comment of yours makes it even better:

    "Of course when I'm not working, I agree with Rick's choice!"

    We're almost (but not quite) too compatible, aren't we? LOL

  • 76. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  April 19, 2015 at 6:08 am

    Seemed like quite the pressing topic that required a response. I wouldn't want to leave the EoT community without the best of the best.

    More compatible than I think we thought! Commando, baby!

  • 77. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 19, 2015 at 9:36 am

    I love that 😉

  • 78. DeadHead  |  April 19, 2015 at 7:22 am

    I switched to boxers a few years ago. Under Armour is my preferred brand. I wear the O Series and the Original Series Heat Gear boxers and get them at Nordstrom http://shop.nordstrom.com/c/mens-under-armour/und

  • 79. 1grod  |  April 19, 2015 at 8:11 am

    DH: It is hard to believe this sexist conversation had gone on without an invitation for our women to join in. Or attire links posted that would demonstrate the gender equality us men profess. I'll try to rectify the situation for us'll and present a link with lots of options for both sexes. But to bring this dialogue back to the Supreme Court, and to the comfort of gals and guys who spend their days sitting on their bums – just what would be bring the most comfort? AND no wedgies!. Would you still recommend Original Series Heat Gear to wear on the 28th? I would think that Justice A. Kennedy, being over 'briefed', would prefer Jockey® Camden Plaid Trunk – H fly. Share what you think your favorite judge will be 'under'wearing? Or can you recommend a style if you, like Scottie, would be there early and standing on First Street NE in a long line waiting to be seated. http://www.jockey.ca/catalog?department=men&c…. And for women: http://www.jockey.ca/home/women . While standing in line that morning, you might want to read about Utah being back in Court over recognition of same-gender mothers' parenting rights : http://www.acluutah.org/newsroom/item/990-aclu-br

  • 80. DeadHead  |  April 19, 2015 at 9:11 am

    1grod: Justice Kennedy strikes me as the type of man who would wear military issue style boxer shorts. Those are comfortable when you have to sit for long periods of time. I use to buy them in the army surplus stores to wear on motorcycle runs. I knew a few womyn riders who also wore them.

  • 81. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 19, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Those sound great. I'm going to check those out!

  • 82. RQO  |  April 19, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    The question of the day should be – what do we want to see Alito, Scalia, and Thomas wearing on their heads come April 28. Whichever is white and pointy?

  • 83. ianbirmingham  |  April 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    A "spider gag" would be my suggestion…

    http://www.sextoy.com/Bondage/Ball-Gags/Spider-Ga

  • 84. VIRick  |  April 19, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    To retain his complete attention, Alito could use a set of alligator nipple clamps:
    http://www.sextoy.com/Bondage/Nipple-Play/Nipple-

    While Scalia and Thomas could quite joyously share the Latin American Double-Dong Whopper:
    http://www.sextoy.com/Dildos/Double-Dongs/Latin-A

    Definitely read the full product description of this latter item, as it's quite an eye-opener, and ought to instantly remind Thomas of his old "friend" from Anita Hill days, "Long Dong Silver!" I'm quite certain he can explain to Scalia what to do with it.

  • 85. DACiowan  |  April 19, 2015 at 7:14 am

    I prefer boxers too.

    Wait, not that kind of boxer.

  • 86. 1grod  |  April 18, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Raga, Wolf: I left you men 4 hours ago to rake leaves and spread fertilizer on the just thawed lawn etc only to return to find the conversation about underwear as a 'pun' begun 11 hours ago, remains alive. Would the 'fairer sex' spent as long? Once again [haha], I'll try to refocus the conversation to the "briefs' that have been submitted to the Supreme Court. Here an article on TEN either novel, absurd or irrelevant arguments that have been advanced. It is fitting that a picture of Ray Moore – who yesterday's AL.com article called "a leader of the new civil rights movement" is associated with the descriptor found in the article's title. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/17/3647431/

  • 87. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    1grod, thank you so much for your heroically valiant effort at "de-briefing" all of us. Uh, on the various briefs that have been submitted to SCOTUS.

    However, we've now been carrying on about underwear and sex toys for two days.

  • 88. 1grod  |  April 18, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    Of topic: For those who have been following the snail pace process of bringing Kansas into full compliance with the lifting of the stay, Marie v Mosier, which seeks to address the 'recognition issues,, here is the State's reply to the plaintiff's request for a summary determination: Any guesses? Recall this is the State that celebrates marriages but doesn't recognize same gender celebrations – oops the Record Bureau does. http://www.scribd.com/doc/262189485/2-14-cv-02518
    Presently the legislature is considering a Religious Freedom at University Bill which Equality Kansas is asking help to confront: http://eqks.org/how-you-can-help-us-fight-the-rel

  • 89. VIRick  |  April 18, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    1grod, this is one of the nastiest state responses I've ever encountered, as it's so dismissive, almost to the point of demonstrating downright personal contempt for each and every one of the plaintiffs, on each and every issue. The Kansas Attorney-General's office actually appears to think that they are ultimately going to prevail, despite the imminent ruling from SCOTUS.

    To borrow from and add to a concept expressed earlier in this discussion, the Kansas Attorney-General's office is seriously "obergefickt" if they haven't yet heard of Obergefell.

    For anyone who might need some assistance with German, separately check the two words, "ober" and "gefickt" on Google Translate to obtain the proper meaning, while noting that the second word is in the past passive tense.

  • 90. F_Young  |  April 19, 2015 at 3:04 am

    VIRick: "…the Kansas Attorney-General's office is seriously "obergefickt"…

    Brilliant!

  • 91. ianbirmingham  |  April 19, 2015 at 7:50 am

    I think VIRick meant to say "übergefickt" instead… ("Fucked Over")

    There is actually another Austrian town called Oberfucking ("Upper Fucking")

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberfucking

    as well as yet another Austrian town called Unterfucking ("Lower Fucking")

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterfucking

    Unterfucking is located near to and northwest of Oberfucking (thus actually above it rather than below), and both towns are located about 35 miles southwest of Fucking.

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/4774 Unterfucki…

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/5121 Fucking, A…

  • 92. VIRick  |  April 19, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    Thank you Ian for all the entertaining enlightenment, as I see we're still having plenty of fun with German add-ons.

    So, here's a compromise: Perhaps Brownback and Schmidt can take their pick. When the ruling in "Obergefell" is issued, one of them can volunteer to be "obergefickt," while the other can then be "übergefickt." Their choice.

    After that, we can then tackle a different German add-on and do "abfarht, anfarht, ausfahrt, einfarht, oberfahrt, unterfarht, überfahrt," and whatever-else-farht we can think of.

    But your noting of Oberfucking/Unterfucking does point out that Obergefell (with or without a companion Untergefell) must be a place name somewhere in the mountainous south of Germany or western Austria, as it's not an actual vocabulaty word. It's relatively common for place names (in many different languages) to give rise to family surnames. Mine is.

    Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that the word, "fick" in Swedish is quite common-place and very benign, but becomes insanely vulgar only in German.

  • 93. RQO  |  April 19, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Und verklempt.

  • 94. VIRick  |  April 19, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    Yes, they will cry,– and it can't come soon enough.

  • 95. Zack12  |  April 19, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    Doesn't surprise me one bit.
    Sam Brownback is one of the most vicious homophobes there is so the case playing out like it has doesn't shock me at all.

  • 96. VIRick  |  April 19, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    Sam Brownback's Attorney-general, Derrick Schmidt, is also an equally vicious homophobe, and this brief reads like his typically nasty, nitpicking style, in that flat, dry Germanic stacatto, which tells me that he, Schmidt, probably personally wrote it himself (even though it is attributed to the AG's office).

    The pair of them working together in concert make Kansas, at this moment in time, one of the absolute worst states in the USA for LGBT rights.

  • 97. F_Young  |  April 19, 2015 at 3:31 am

    Off-topic: Cuba's rainbow revolution: Surprisingly, the country is embracing LGBT lifestyles – and at a faster rate than some of its neighbours

    …..The advances have been uneven. Being gay ceased to be a crime in Cuba in 1979, when the locking-up of homosexuals also stopped. Gay people were allowed to serve in the military from 1993. But then when the first cases of Aids surfaced in the 1980s, anyone diagnosed with HIV was infamously forced into quarantine in camps, a policy finally abandoned in 1993. Today changing attitudes to the LGBT community remains a work in progress. There is as yet little sign of Cuba acquiescing to gay marriage.

    …..But the furtive whispering of yore is over. There are choices for going out with your tribe.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/

    I agree that things are lookin up for LGBTs in Cuba, and that things may advance much faster and farther in Cuba than in most Caribbean countries. While legal cases are pending in a few Caribbean countries, popular attitudes are usually very hostile there and I fear they may get even worse if some of the legal challenges are successful, as is apparently happening in Brazil and the American Deep South.

  • 98. brandall  |  April 19, 2015 at 10:00 am

    Y'all need something interesting to read today about ME legal issues besides boxers vs. briefs and F**king, Austria….Off-topic doesn't begin to describe these two subjects, but it is amusing to learn who wears what after 7 years of reading comments on this site! By the way, is F**king, Austria one of the "top" or "bottom" ranked towns in that country? Moving right along….

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    April 21, 1975, the 40th Anniversary of the First U.S. Same-Sex Marriage

    INS written response denying the recoginition of their CO marriage certificate: “You have failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots."

    "..A man came in and said, “If a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, why can’t a tired old cowboy marry his best friend?” Who happened to be a horse named Dolly. CO County Clerk Rorex had prepared. She asked how old Dolly was, and when the man answered that she was 8, “I laid down my pen and said: ‘I’m sorry. Dolly’s underaged.’ ”

    [Now SCOTUS Justice] Kennedy was on a panel of three 9th Circuit judges hearing the case. He noted that Sullivan’s arguments that ending his relationship with Adams would “cause him personal anguish and hurt” and that his deportation to Australia would be an undue hardship “because homosexuals are not accepted in that society and because the members of his own family who live in Australia have turned against him.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law

  • 99. Raga  |  April 19, 2015 at 10:54 am

    Interesting proposal… but I'm not sure that it would lead to another Bush v. Gore type showdown with the Supremes – the plain text of the Constitution doesn't prohibit this, does it?
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121533/hillary

  • 100. jm64tx  |  April 19, 2015 at 11:47 am

    12th amendment …

    "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

    Under the 22nd amendment he is constitutionally ineligible to be President.

  • 101. Raga  |  April 19, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    As the article points out, Obama is only ineligible to be elected to the office of President. Other means are left open.

  • 102. DeadHead  |  April 19, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    I'm hoping she will choose Julian Castro.

  • 103. jm64tx  |  April 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    Here's what Bill Clinton had to say on being a VP candidate for HIllary:

    "Letterman: Now there was a discussion last week, and there is I guess a greater discussion, and there's some confusion, and maybe I'm the only one confused about the eligibility of a man who has been elected twice as President to possibly be named later on the ticket as Vice President. Constitutionally speaking, can that happen?"

    "Clinton: I don't believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you're supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they're consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean 'to serve,' not 'to run for.' But I just don't believe it's consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who's been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don't think it's Constitutional. I don't think it's right and I wouldn't want to do that. I'd want to do whatever I could do to be of highest and best use for her, but there are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents. And, that's just not in the cards."

    http://presidentelect.org/art_preztoveep.html

  • 104. Raga  |  April 19, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    Thanks for pointing that quote out. I had already read it in the original article I posted and I don't agree with Bill's 2007 views on this. I don't view plain text interpretation of the 22nd Amendment as a "contorted reading". It's just the plain text that says "elected". I disagree that such a reading is inconsistent with "the spirit of the Constitution" as Bill did in 2007. I agree with Dorf's plain text interpretation in the article you've referred.

  • 105. jm64tx  |  April 20, 2015 at 5:34 am

    "Start with the question of what the 12th Amendment is about. It's about how presidents are elected, namely by the votes of the electors in what's popularly called the "electoral college" (a phrase not appearing in the Constitution). For whom could those electors cast their ballots, for either president or vice president, when the amendment was added in 1804? Any native-born citizen of at least 35 years of age who has "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" (Article, II, section 1, clause 5)."

    "The 22nd amendment, by stating that no person may be elected president more than twice, changed the rules for determining the validity of those ballots that electors cast. Now they may cast their ballots for any native-born citizen, 35 or older and resident in the U.S. for 14 years, who has not been elected twice to the presidency. Since the ordinary path to the presidency contemplated by the Constitution is via the ballots of these electors, then by any ordinary mode of legal reasoning, the 22nd Amendment changed the answer to the question—who is "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"?—which ballot-casting electors must ask themselves. Now the class includes aliens, immigrants, citizens under 35, others failing the residency requirement, and persons previously elected twice (or having served one term elected and more than half of another's term after succeeding from the vice presidency—another requirement of the 22nd Amendment)."

    So you see Raga, Obama could not be VP, because the electors in the electoral college could not vote for him as president, which makes him ineligible to be VP.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080613214946/http://

  • 106. JayJonson  |  April 20, 2015 at 6:40 am

    Lots of electors voted for McCain, who is not a native-born citizen, and may be contemplating voting for Cruz, who is also not a native-born citizen. Like the SCOTUS "originalists," literalists become more liberal in their constitutional interpretations depending on whose ox is being gored.

  • 107. jm64tx  |  April 20, 2015 at 11:41 am

    "natural born" simply means you are a citizen from birth and dont have to go thru naturalization.

    Both Cruz and McCain meet that, since they were born to American citizens.

  • 108. RnL2008  |  April 20, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Yet folks continue to biotch about President Obama's citizenship even though his mother is a United State Citizen……..if they are all Citizens of this Country, why was President Obama given such a difficult time over his ability to run and even be the President.

    Frankly, Ted Cruz has little chance of winning the Republican party's nomination because he is to far to the right aka why he's a Tea Bagger and all those folks want to do is turn this Country into a Theocracy.

  • 109. Raga  |  April 20, 2015 at 7:48 am

    I see no new argument in this elaborate explanation. It simply boils down to whether one believes that "being electable" is an eligibility criterion according to the Constitution. You think it is. I think not. That's all.

  • 110. F_Young  |  April 19, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    Gay poll: Irish could go either way

    …..Polls may put the Yes campaign ahead. But this is Ireland, where the public can spring nasty surprises on the Dublin elite in referendums.

    “I don’t believe the polls for a single second because if you dig into them you can see that support is very soft,” said Panti, whose real name is Rory O’Neill.

    …..On May 22 Ireland will become the first country to hold a referendum on gay marriage. All the other countries that have introduced marriage equality did so by passing legislation in parliament.

    …..The last major opinion poll by Irish public broadcaster RTÉ and the Sunday Business Post offers mixed messages over the referendum. Whereas 76% of those surveyed last month said they would vote yes, more than 40% of those polled also expressed concern about married gay couples adopting children.

    http://mg.co.za/article/2015-04-16-gay-poll-irish

  • 111. bythesea66  |  April 19, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    That suggests to me that the actual vote may likely be closer to 60-40 (+/-5) in support in the election. Still a landslide by US standards, but less than polling would imply.

  • 112. F_Young  |  April 19, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    bythesea66: "That suggests to me that the actual vote may likely be closer to 60-40 (+/-5) in support in the election."

    Bythesea, why are you discounting the 76% RTE/Sunday Business Post statistic down to 60%? Do you assume a gay Bradley effect? http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/prop-8-post-

  • 113. bythesea66  |  April 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Not discounting it at all, but reacting to concerns about soft support; Often voters who "mostly support" measures are less likely to turn out than those with strong feelings. In this case I can't look at polling indicating 76 percent support and worry in the slightest about the outcome, but would not be surprised if the results of the actual vote are somewhat closer than the polling suggests.

  • 114. scream4ever  |  April 19, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    True, but keep in mind that our side now very much has the enthusiasm advantage (although in Ireland it may be different).

  • 115. EricKoszyk  |  April 21, 2015 at 9:34 am

    No offense but that article sounds like B.S., starting with the headline. No, it doesn't look like the vote could "go either way." Not at polls showing 76% saying they would vote yes on the measure.

    For the opponents to win, a huge % of voters would have to change their minds AND there would have to be incredibly low turnout amongst supporters.

    I'm not sure if the writer of the piece is against marriage equality or if he's just trying to create the impression of a "horse race" where there really isn't one, but regardless, this is dismal journalism at its worst.

    I'm not saying that supporters should rest on their laurels, of course they should keep campaigning hard until the last minute of the polls being open. I'm just saying that this is shoddy journalism.

  • 116. 1grod  |  April 19, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    First Same Sex Marriages in America http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law

  • 117. 1grod  |  April 20, 2015 at 5:58 am

    Amy Howe of Scotusblog April 20 supplies links to commentators in anticipation on the April 28 hearing: Dig this one for 'genderless' despiration: Forcing States to Recognize Gay Marriage Could Increase Number of Abortions http://www.scotusblog.com/

  • 118. F_Young  |  April 19, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    Poll: No turning back on gay marriage

    …..In a nationwide USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll, those surveyed say by 51%-35% that it's no longer practical for the Supreme Court to ban same-sex marriages because so many states have legalized them. One reason for a transformation in public views on the issue: Close to half say they have a gay or lesbian family member or close friend who is married to someone of the same sex.

    …..In the survey, a majority, 51%-35%, favor allowing gay men and lesbians to marry, and those who support the idea feel more strongly about it than those who oppose it: 28% "strongly favor" same-sex marriage, 18% "strongly oppose" it. Fourteen percent are undecided.

    …..Nearly two-thirds, 63%, are concerned that a law requiring businesses to provide services to same-sex weddings would force those involved to go against their religious beliefs or pay a penalty. Even among those who support gay marriage, 17% also support a law giving people the right to refuse.

    About the same number, 64%, are concerned that a law allowing people to refuse such services on religious grounds would discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Even among those who oppose gay marriage, 37% also oppose a law giving people the right to refuse.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elect

  • 119. RemC_Chicago  |  April 20, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    I was compelled to comment on the quote from the Arizona gay mechanic:

    Kraig Ziegler, 58, of Flagstaff, Ariz., acknowledged being a bit uncomfortable when he attended a wedding reception for two men, friends of his wife, who had married. "I still believe what the Bible says, 'one man, one woman,' " the mechanic, who was among those polled, said in a follow-up interview. On the other hand, he said, "I got to know the guys, and they're all right. They don't make passes or anything at me."

    Hysterical. I'd love to see a picture of this guy. How conceited can anybody be to assume everyone wants to make a pass at him?

  • 120. davepCA  |  April 20, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Indeed. Gosh, two gays guys who had the incredible self-restraint to not make a pass at some mechanic during their own wedding reception! Who knew gay people could do that? eye roll.

  • 121. F_Young  |  April 20, 2015 at 3:22 am

    The next big fight for gay rights will be won by Big Business

    …..In Indiana, for example, Gov. Mike Pence (R) probably wasn't too concerned about objections from the Human Rights Campaign to the "religious freedom" law he signed earlier this month. But when giant corporations like Apple and Subaru, sports franchises like the NCAA and NASCAR, and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce criticized the law, other states and large municipalities enacted travel bans, and several large employers threatened to cancel expansion plans in Indiana, Pence and the GOP-controled legislature took note, amending the law to include protections against LGBT discrimination.

    …..Earlier this week, Texas businesses took their own stand against LGBT discrimination: More than 100 businesses signed the founding pledge of a new group called Texas Competes, affirming that "in order for Texas businesses to compete for top talent, we must have workplaces and communities that are diverse and welcoming for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people."

    The signatories include Texas companies like Dell, Whole Foods, Texas Instruments, and HomeAway, but also large local employers in the tech, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries. The Texas Association of Business — the powerful state chamber of commerce — and several local Chambers are also on board.

    http://theweek.com/articles/550237/next-big-fight

  • 122. DeadHead  |  April 20, 2015 at 7:00 am

    Cert denied, National Org. For marriage v. Geiger, Deanna l., et al – well, we all knew that was coming.

  • 123. DACiowan  |  April 20, 2015 at 7:57 am

    Unlike the buses for NOM's march.

  • 124. scream4ever  |  April 20, 2015 at 10:32 am

    Speaking of which, with only days to go until the deadline NOM only today cracked the $20,000 mark, the halfway point to their $40,000 goal to fund busses for the march (which was a significant decrease from their original ask of $100,000).

  • 125. Randolph_Finder  |  April 21, 2015 at 8:46 am

    The anonymous donation of $10K has helped…

  • 126. mu2  |  April 21, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Hard to even imagine what kind of person would do that. Yikes.

  • 127. Randolph_Finder  |  April 21, 2015 at 9:59 am

    May have been internal…

    Note, I'm still waiting for them to declare bankruptcy so they don't have to pay the Maine fine…

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