Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage

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
In a 5-4 decision, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court has invalidated same-sex marriage bans. The ruling applies to all 50 states and requires licensing and recognition of same-sex marriages.

The decision is 5-4, authored by Justice Kennedy. There are multiple dissents.

From the conclusion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizationโ€™s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

We will have more as we read the decision.

UPDATE: Nebraska will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. (Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

UPDATE 2: Missouri dismisses their appeal.


  • 1. DACiowan  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:13 am

    Isn't blue such a nice color:

  • 2. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:19 am

    LOVE IT!!!!!

  • 3. Deeelaaach  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Thank you to you and your other map-making friends for updating our maps for us! It is much appreciated!

  • 4. Aaron  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

    so awesome!!!!!

  • 5. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:44 am

    My new wallpaper on my office computer screen. Thank you!

  • 6. DACiowan  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:44 am

    Here is the version just focusing on marriage, without that shameful red streak of punishing countries.

  • 7. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:40 am

    Here is one that will change colors as you hit the play button:

  • 8. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:43 am

    Wow, that is wonderful! Thanks for this!!

  • 9. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:45 am

    You are so welcome!!!

  • 10. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:39 am

    The Rainbow colors are better:

    Not filled in all the way!!!

  • 11. yyyAllenyyy  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:14 am

    Hell yeah! Tears of joy.

  • 12. mjnichol  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    The best part of the ruling is that we will no longer have to listen to the other side claim that "Baker is controlling".

  • 13. Roulette00  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:15 am

    Hooray! Congratulations all around! Pop those champagne corks!

  • 14. StraightDave  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:15 am

    (from SCOTUSblog)
    The Chief Justice has the principal dissent, which is 31 pages long. Toward the end of it, he says, "If you are among the many Americans–of whatever sexual orientation–who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision.
    But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

    Are you shitting me, Roberts????

    Well that shatters any delusions anyone ever had.

  • 15. TDGrove  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:19 am

    Another quote from him "Just who do we think we are". He's truly pissed. To hell with him.

  • 16. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:41 am

    aw screw that guy. Don't give him any more space on this site today please.

  • 17. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:27 am

    First time he's ever read a dissent. Not surprised at his vote but disappointed at how far he had to take his disagreement.

  • 18. flyerguy77  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:27 am

    wtf– a straight marriage is doing nothing with the constitution

  • 19. Deeelaaach  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:40 am

    The decision certainly didn't shatter Roberts' delusions about the Constitution.

  • 20. JayJonson  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:42 am

    Roberts' dissent is disgusting. He avoids the ranting style of Scalia, but he is disingenuous at best. His vision of the Constitution is narrow and restrictive. Beyond that, he is simply guilty of hypocrisy. For example, he whines that the majority decision stops the democratic process and the discussion of the issue: "When decisions are reached through democratic means,
    some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the
    tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the resultof a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the
    winning side to think again."

    "But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be
    consequences to shutting down the political process on anissue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely
    to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide."

    Reading Roberts's duplicitous dissent one would never know that the bans on same-sex marriage were in effect removed from democratic debate by being placed in the state constitutions. What a douchebag Roberts is.

  • 21. Lymis  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    He also – as the parent of adopted children – all but states that the only purpose of marriage is raising the kids that a man and a woman produce together.

    What the hell was he smoking?

  • 22. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:41 pm

    I found his dissent disgusting as well where he referred to the 5 Justices who FOLLOWED the Constitution as just "LAWYERS" like somehow that makes what they did seem sleazy and underhanded!!!

  • 23. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    I COULDN'T read past the I"m going to throw a tantrum crap. Here's a reason why certain Justices SHOULDN'T be on the Court:
    “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved,” Thomas said. “Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

  • 24. Zack12  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:18 am

    Amazing, truly amazing.

  • 25. jcmeiners  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:18 am

    It finally states explicitly "Baker v. Nelson is overruled!"

  • 26. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:20 am

    HUGE WIN. Just reading a few excerpts now but they are WONDERFUL.


  • 27. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:50 am

    Hey, you all have to give each other a hug for every one of the EoT commentators you can think of, so we can be there in spirit. This afternoon, we're off for the weekend to a little town on the shores of Lake Michigan in Michigan. No Pride Parade there, but it'll be MICHIGAN. Take that, Governor Snyder.

  • 28. MichGuy  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    Im Happy. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 29. Waxr  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:21 am

    The electronic version of the opinion is up:

    : The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

  • 30. Deeelaaach  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:09 am

    Thank you for the pdf!

  • 31. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:21 am



  • 32. brandall  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:40 am

    More! More!

  • 33. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:31 am


  • 34. davepurz  |  June 26, 2015 at 3:31 pm


  • 35. Deeelaaach  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:41 am

    I don't think the site will allow me to do 1,000,000 likes! So you only get one from me. Sorry!

  • 36. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:32 am

    Hehehe, thank you for the thought regardless!!

  • 37. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:16 am

    Hey Wiggle Boy…….BIG HUGS TO YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND……YOU ARE LEGALLY MARRIED IN ALL 50 STATES, We should all head on down to Alabama and celebrate!!!

  • 38. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:32 am

    Thank you, love!!!

  • 39. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:34 am

    Hugs to you and your husband!!!

  • 40. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:03 am

    My New Flag is up with all 50 Stars……what a great day this is!!!

  • 41. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:33 am


  • 42. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:34 am

    What a day…….tonight is a celebration!!!!

  • 43. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:23 am

    Can anyone to set it on here on WORD? I cannot accede the original stuff, please.

  • 44. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:27 am

    IT's over 100 pages, but I am sure this site will embed the pdf soon so you can read it here directly on the site. Will that work?

  • 45. Elihu_Bystander  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:18 am

    I just heard from Nina Totenburg (NPR) the opinion was loose 8 x 11 paper and not a bound copy meaning they were working on it up to the last minute.

  • 46. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:24 am

    : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) Thanks for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 47. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:30 am

    Of course, Mr. Dave!!! :o)

  • 48. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:25 am

    This makes USA the major country in the world with SSM.

  • 49. DrPatrick1  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:57 am


  • 50. ebohlman  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Brazil (which used to be the most populous country with ME) has about 200 million people. We've got about 310.

  • 51. 1grod  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:09 am

    Canada has an area of 3,854,085 sq. miles, the United States has an area of 3,794,101 sq. miles . Just saying there are different ways of viewing major country. It ain't a pissing match. G

  • 52. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:23 am

    I meant the most populated. Sorry.

  • 53. Silvershrimp0  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:26 am

    My favorite quote from all of the rulings leading up to this point from Bostic v Schaefer (VA):

    "Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: We the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined.

    Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect…."

  • 54. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:27 am

    I gota say congrats to Mary Bonauto, she got this ball rolling in Massachusetts and now it finishes with in DC

  • 55. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:28 am

    Stunned. It hasn't completely sunk in yet. But Brandall gets to have his party!!!!!!!!

  • 56. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:30 am

    Woo HOOOOO!!!! : )

  • 57. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:30 am

    HUGE WIN. Just reading a few excerpts now but they are WONDERFUL.

  • 58. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:32 am

    …gay couples will be able to start getting married within days. In Alabama, it could happen even faster. That is because Mobile-based U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade, whose Jan. 23 ruling set off a protracted tug-of-war with state officials, issued a ruling May 21 specifically applying the ruling to all 68 probate judges. She had put the order on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. That means Granade's order to all probate judges to treat gay couples the same as heterosexual couples takes effect immediately.

  • 59. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:34 am

    " These considerations lead to the conclusion that the
    right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the
    liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and
    Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
    couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right
    and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex
    couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No
    longer may this liberty be denied to them.

    >>>>>Baker v. Nelson
    must be and now is overruled,<<<<<<

    (emphasis mine)
    and the State laws challenged
    by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid
    to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil
    marriage on the same terms and conditions as oppositesex
    couples. "

  • 60. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    The ruling by Justice Kennedy in some areas sounded as if the what I had been arguing with the trolls on topix…..that either marriage was in fact a FUNDAMENTAL right for ALL or a "SPECIAL" right ONLY for those of the opposite gender and laws CAN'T be made like that…… fact, I have to admit I was worried when SCOTUS was looking at the 2 Questions and I thought the Fundamental right to marry should have been the question, seems Justice Kennedy knew all along how he was going to rule…… the way the one thing most have overlooked is that by ruling that the States MUST recognize the legal marriages from other States that Section 2 of DOMA has been tossed, which basically makes DOMA dead, seeing as there were ONLY 3 sections and Section 1 was just the Title.

  • 61. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:36 am

    It's this moment. After decades, more than 40 years after Baker, we win. It's unbelieveable, truly unbelieveable that this moment came. No amount of bigotry and venom will be able to ruin the most historic moment in the history of the gay rights movement dare I say wordlwide ever.

    WE WON ! Justice is still alive in the USA for its citizens apparently. I am crying as everyone I guess..

  • 62. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:20 am

    I thought u said not to get emotional until monday?

  • 63. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Till the decision is issued I said because everyone pretty much believed that would be the day.

  • 64. Bruno71  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Congratulations everyone! Now, in the U.S., on to other issues in other courts…

  • 65. brandall  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:38 am

    After 7 years of reading this site…I just had to repeat Scottie's headline for the day:

    BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage

  • 66. DrBriCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:42 am


    Page 5 of the decision: "Baker v. Nelson is overruled."

  • 67. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:35 am

    Baker v. Nelson handed down Oct 15, 1971. Overruled just 15,960 days later, June 26 2015!

    On this day in history

    1964 Life Magazine ran "Homosexuality in America", a mostly pejorative look at "homosexuals" and their lifestyles.

    2003 Kennedy Pens Lawrence v. Texas, effectively striking down sodomy laws nationwide

    2013 Kennedy Pens Windsor v. United States, striking section 3 of DOMA.

    I guess we should, in addition to thanking Kennedy and the rest of the progressive court, and all those who have fought for ME over the past 45 years, we should also posthumously thank Ronald Reagan for nominating Kennedy to the bench. Thank goodness that Robert Bork was not confirmed and instead Kennedy was. Providence?

  • 68. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Reagan and a Republican Senate sent Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986.

    The Republican Party then lost the Senate; Democrats took control.

    Reagan and a Democratic Senate sent Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1988.

    Democratic control of the Senate made all the difference.

  • 69. Sagesse  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:42 am

    Happy happy Pride, everyone

  • 70. 1grod  |  June 28, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    A Canadian perspective of the dissenters in Obergefell. IMO it approaches unacceptable for the Chief Judge to be so partisan when he well knows that challenge is to unify the country around the prevailing opinion of the court.

  • 71. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Ian Holloway, Dean of the University of Calgary law school, said no Canadian judges have ever spoken to one another in their rulings the way Justice Scalia spoke to his colleagues.

    “There’s a much greater tradition of what I’ll describe as old-world courtliness in the way in which judges in Canada speak to one another.” He said the more direct expression of differences has grown out of a greater tendency to partisanship in the appointment of judges in the United States.

    Prof. Neuborne added that Canadians tend to be more restrained in how they speak to one another. “I have Canadian friends and they talk to one another differently. Canadians are remarkably civil people. In Manhattan, we get up in the morning and figure out how we can insult our neighbour.”

  • 72. MichaelGrabow  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:43 am

    But guys! Hold on!

    Texas AG Ken Paxton Warns Counties Not To Immediately Issue Licenses.

    "Whatever the ruling, I would recommend that all county clerks and justices of the peace wait for direction and clarity from this office about the meaning of the court's opinion and the rights of Texans under the law," Paxton said in a statement.

  • 73. StraightDave  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:52 am

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!
    Talk about pissing into the wind.
    Local clerks are already marching forward on their own.

    To the AG: My goldfish has already figured out "the meaning of the court's opinion" by now.

  • 74. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:55 am

    "the meaning of the court's opinion and the rights of Texans under the law"

    HEY, ROSE, THERE'S SOME STUPIDITY GOING ON IN THE TEXAS AG'S OFFICE THAT NEEDS SOME MAJOR FIXING. Maybe Wolf could go in and do an interpretative dance for them…

  • 75. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    I would agree……but at Least Paxton DIDN'T do what the Governors of Texas and Louisiana did by saying they were going to fight the ruling……these men are Governor's of State and they should be fighting for ALL the Citizens of those States NOT just the ones who believe as they do!!

    Remember folks the next fight has been started and unless SCOTUS overturns Anti-Discrimination laws, which is HIGHLY doubtful……. these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts UNLESS they are in line with the Federal RFRA will start to show the ANIMUS we have long claimed and if the ANTI-GAY want to continue down that path SCOTUS will eventually make us a protected class with heighten scrutiny!!!

    But let's celebrate this Victory for awhile…….there will be time to start the next battle!!!

  • 76. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:56 am

    Despite Texas AG Paxton's warning, judge Orlando Garcia has lifted his stay on his ruling in "DeLeon v. Perry," which overturned the Texas ban, and same-sex couples have already obtained marriage licenses from all of the following Texas counties (and possibly more):

    Bexar (San Antonio)
    Dallas (Dallas)
    El Paso (El Paso)
    Harris (Houston)
    Hidalgo (Edinburg)
    McLennan (Waco)
    Nueces (Corpus Christi)
    Travis (Austin)

  • 77. Deeelaaach  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:45 am

    I haven't read many court cases in recent years due to fatigue (chronic fatigue syndrome) and because of the incessant slander of our lives by our opponents. But I want to read this one. I doubt I can stomach the dissent by RATS, but I so want the pdf of this… yesterday.

  • 78. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:56 am

    Oh dissents are bad..I began Roberts's and it's already venomous in all its "please do celebrate" mood. Scalia's could be borderline hate speech. Alito's is short and pretty much on Roberts's spirit. Thomas's is more technical but venomous as well. Only Roberts read his dissent though from the bench which is surprising.

  • 79. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Remember dissents are always part of contentious decisions, but they mean absolutely nothing and carry no real weight to speak of. Dissents are just the sour grapes of the minority and will only be remembered by history by those who look up the case in Wikipedia. Only the Decision affirming Marriage Equality NATIONWIDE will be remembered in the days, months and years to come. As it's no longer illegal to get "gay married" in the US, Canada, Almost all of the UK, Mexico, half of South America, the acceptance of marriage for same sex couples will grow and grow and those opposed will become a diminishing minority of sour grapes…or raisins as the case may be.

  • 80. sfbob  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:59 am

    While it isn't always so I would not dismiss dissents out of hand. On any number of occasions in the past, prior dissents have been cited in rather important cases where the original ruling was overturned. I believe one of the dissents in Plessy vs Ferguson is now cited on a regular basis.

    Of course I don't really think today's dissents fall into that category. If anything in fact, to the extent that the find their way into other rulings they are much more likely to be used as examples of embarrassing holdovers from the past.

  • 81. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    I'm not dismissing dissents out of hand, I merely refocus perspective on the more important part of the ruling – the majority opinion aka the law of the land. Of course any bigoted judge can cite comments from dissents, but we have to put this in perspective of the future, where the American people are going, not so much where they are coming from. It matters not if a decision is gay rights related or on Universal Health Care, or whom had jurisdiction of Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance (though Marshal v. Marshal was a unanimous decision). A majority speaks for the court and is the law of the land. At this point even if a lower court used wording from the dissents, the only thing that can reverse today's decision Full Marriage Rights for Gay Couples Nationwide is a constitutional Amendment…or Rick Santorum or someone from his ilk staging a coup d'etat. With church pews getting emptier and emptier every year, and more and more Americans knowing someone gay or being invited to someone's same sex wedding, the possibility of taking a right away just shrinks more and more every day.

    So, these dissents and the blustering from the right are what they are…nothing but hot wind, or as VIRick would call it, Farts. If anyone regurgitates citations from these dissents, they're just sticks and stones.

    Don't pay too much attention to the flatulence going on behind the curtain. Eventually the air will clear the foul stench of these dissents will subside, and now
    "We're out of the woods,
    We're out of the dark,
    We're out of the night!
    Step into the sun, Step into the light!
    Keep straight ahead for the most glorious place
    On the face of the earth or the sky!
    Hold on to your breath,
    Hold on to your heart,
    Hold on to your hope!
    March up to the gate and bid it open…open….Open!
    …Just Sayin

  • 82. SeattleRobin2  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:47 am

    What a strange trip it has been since the Prop 8 trial. Thanks to everyone at EOT for taking the journey together.

    I came out as a lesbian 30 years ago this week. SCOTUS gave me such a nice anniversary gift!

  • 83. sfbob  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    I came out the day after Gay Pride 1975…forty years ago. We should have a party. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 84. SeattleRobin2  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Very cool. I'm throwing virtual rainbow confetti at you!

  • 85. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:48 am

    Jom Obergefell speaking on MSNBC now. Very moving.
    Thank you, Mister Obergefell.
    Thinking of your husband John today.
    Thank you both.

  • 86. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:50 am

    Mary is now talking

  • 87. Jaesun100  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:59 am

    Is it effective immediately or is there a hold window ?

  • 88. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:20 am

    it will vary a bit among the 14 states which had not been allowing these couples to marry. I expect most to begin marrying right away. A couple may drag their feet for a couple of months.

  • 89. SWB1987  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:04 am

    Did we get heightened scrutiny??

  • 90. DrBriCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:06 am

    It's not specifically stated. Just that the bans violate both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

  • 91. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:09 am

    No. The word "scrutiny" only appears in the Obergefell decision once:

    In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held Hawaii’s law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples constituted a classification on the basis of sex and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the Hawaii Constitution.

  • 92. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:21 am

    it doesn't say scrutiny but this Language is very broad , lower courts may look at this language use this to strike down antigay gay law attemps

  • 93. LK2013  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:04 am

    Today is such a glorious, historic day!!!!!

    Everyone who celebrates equality and liberty should be happy!

    I certainly AM celebrating the Constitution, and a US Supreme Court with the humanity to grant protection and liberty and the freedom to marry someone of our choosing whom we LOVE to people who have been treated unfairly forever in this country.

    TAKE THAT, Sutton and the Sixth Circuit! I have been waiting for this day since Bowers in 1986!

    I took Monday off in anticipation of the decision coming on that day – what a happy surprise that it's out today!

    Even one more day is too long for those who are waiting to marry in states that still banned marriage equality.

    Congratulations to everyone who can marry now, and be recognized !!!!!!!!!

  • 94. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:57 am

    I was visiting L.A. and was waiting for a seat at a restaurant when an electronic billboard flashed the news about the Bowers decision. I couldn't believe it even then.

  • 95. 1grod  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Take that, Sutton and Cooke. Not fair to include on the mark Martha Craig Daughtrey or possibly others on the 6th circuit's appeals court. Do you not recall her closing remarks in her dissent: If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams..… G

  • 96. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:05 am

    marriage is now starting in Georgia

  • 97. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:12 am

    The majority opinion defines dyadic committment as the fundamental basis of marriage:

    The right to marry thus dignifies couples who “wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 14). Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

  • 98. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:14 am

    Obama speaking on MSNBC now.

  • 99. DACiowan  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:14 am

    President Obama is speaking:

  • 100. SeattleRobin2  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:26 am

    Thanks for the link. He could have been more upbeat about it! He looked and sounded like he was announcing a new war, not celebrating a greater equality.

  • 101. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:30 am

    Keep in mind he is also working on the eulogy for the victims in SC right now. Our thoughts are with those families today too. We must keep working to end bigotry everywhere.

  • 102. SeattleRobin2  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:31 am

    Okay, that makes sense. 100% agree on working towards justice for everyone!

  • 103. Jen_in_MI  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:14 am

    I'm so damned happy I can't stop crying – or laughing!!! WHAT AN AMAZING DAY!!!!

  • 104. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    Jen Congratulations, hopefully today's ruling will give you and your wife the peace and respect you both deserve………I'm sorry you and your wife had to wait, but today's ruling is just that much sweeter and you folks will receive both State and Federal recognition from the Start…….unlike when we got married in 2008 and had to wait 5 years to be recognized at the Federal Level!!!

  • 105. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:11 am

    Congrats, Jen!!!! I'm so happy for you and your wife.

  • 106. KahuBill  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:16 am

    In our joy let us remain mindful of the sorrow of those who mourn the loss of their loved ones in SC and that the funeral of the Rev. Clementa Pinckney is taking place as we speak. We are deluding ourselves if we think the battle is over. The dissents in today's opinion make that absolutelly clear. We are in for a long, ugly and perhaps violent struggle. Remember MLK Jr's dream – "Free, Free at last. Thank God I am free at last!" was carved on his tombstone.

  • 107. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:59 am


  • 108. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:20 am

    South Dakota and Nebraska to comply immediately.

  • 109. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:44 am

    Resistance is Futile….anyway ๐Ÿ˜€

  • 110. andrewofca  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:21 am

    "Baker v. Nelson is overruled."

    Brandall…. Merry Christmas from Justice Kennedy!

  • 111. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:12 am

    About. Damn. Time.

  • 112. Zack12  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:23 am

    Just like Chester Straub of the 2nd circuit who wanted DOMA upheld, Judges Jeffery Sutton and Deborah Cooke have been told to go screw themselves.
    I hope all three of you enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

  • 113. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:29 am

    Sutton received the kind of putting in the back he may be looking for from Roberts so he should be happy. I haven't see such a direct praise of a lower court of opinion from a justice before !

  • 114. Zack12  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Good riddance to Baker V Nelson.

  • 115. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:48 am

    Today's ruling makes up for:
    Baker v. Nelson
    Bowers v. Hardwick
    Citizens United
    and even Gore v. Bush.

    Thank you Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Not to mention the POTUSs that nominated them.

  • 116. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:34 am

    Kennedy was appointed by Reagan (Democratic Senate)
    Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton
    Breyer was appointed by Clinton
    Sotomayor was appointed by Obama
    Kagan was appointed by Obama

    Scalia was appointed by Reagan (Republican senate)
    Thomas was appointed by "Poppa" Bush (H.W.)
    Roberts was appointed by Alfred E. Neuman "W" Bush
    Alito was appointed by Alfred E. Neuman "W" Bush

  • 117. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:39 am

    If Gore v. Bush had gone the other way, neither Roberts nor Alito would have been appointed; Gore would have put two more Ginsburgs on the Court instead.

  • 118. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Well, NOT for Citizens United……Corporations AREN'T people!!!

  • 119. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:30 am

    Marriages in Mississipi, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and..ugh, I don't even know anymore.It doesn't matter anyway at this point. Even wikipedia has removed the map :

  • 120. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:31 am

    AW. Put it back, Wikipedia!!!!!

  • 121. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:34 am

    this map is wrong at least on Georgia , I know for a fact marriage has started there

  • 122. DrBriCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:46 am

    Nebraska AG also announced that they will follow the ruling and drop the appeal.

  • 123. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:49 am


  • 124. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:33 am

    The majority opinion rejects strict reliance on Glucksberg and it defines a second source of Constitutional rights:

    Glucksberg did insist that liberty under the Due Process Clause must be defined in a most circumscribed manner, with central reference to specific historical practices. Yet while that approach may have been appropriate for the asserted right there involved (physician-assisted suicide), it is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy. …

    If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians. See Loving 388 U. S., at 12; Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 566–567. The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.

  • 125. FredDorner  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:44 am

    That's a very important aspect of the ruling.

  • 126. Zack12  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:33 am

    On a related note, my friend who works at the 2nd circuit has to meet with Chester Straub, the judge in the Windsor case at the 2nd circuit who wanted it upheld.
    She is really, really going to enjoy seeing him not try and blow a gasket over this.

  • 127. nicolas1446  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:34 am

    Hello, I just wanted to share a little bit about my experience here and congratulate all of you who have been waiting for this ruling for many years. I am a high school student, a soon to be senior. When I started following marriage equality I was a freshman. In fact, a research topic I wrote about for my English class was about "same sex marriage". But just that short time ago, my research paper was not about marriage equality being a right. My research paper was just on convincing people to allow marriage equality. I was writing my research paper at the time Windsor was being decided but I still did not imagine to argue that marriage equality is a constitutional right. My sources all focused on opinion and very little on the legality of marriage equality. That is just a testament to how fast things change. From then to about the middle of my sophomore year year I imagined marriage equality would be up to the states and that it would take many years before it was a nationwide thing. That is when I started following and noticing the many rulings declaring marriage equality a right. I remember the first one I noticed was the decision in Oregon. From then on I started following all the legal developments. When I first started I was clueless. Not yet haven taken a government class I was clueless on the federal judiciary. In fact, I did not even know what the difference between a state judge and a federal judge was! But as I followed this journey I learned so much. Not only do I now know how the whole judiciary system works, the detailed workings of the supreme court , legal terms and arguments, but most importantly why marriage equality matters and why it is a constitutional right. In my journey of following the legal developments I found this website and I was very impressed with the very smart opinions and conclusions that the commenters had so I started following this website for every legal development. I also later started posting comments myself but later stopped when I did not have as much time due to schoolwork. Anyhow, I remember the nail biting moments we went through. For instance,the times we had to wait for a request on a stay from SCOTUS. Florida stands out in my mind the most. I remember the joyous moment of getting yet another favorable opinion from a federal appeals court. I remember getting the disappointing ruling from the 6th that I could not even bear to read because it was too hateful. I remember this site updating even the tiniest development from a district court. I remember listening to the court arguments. Judge Posner stands out the most. I remember the shocking but pleasing time SCOTUS did not grant cert to a marriage case and therefore making marriage equality legal in 19 states (If I remember correctly). The whole thing was a beautiful thing! And I only followed it for a year and a half. I cannot even imagine what experience you all have been through that have followed this journey since the beginning of Prop 8, or in 2004 when so many state marriage bans were passed, or even worse when the decisions were unfavorable like with Bowers. Although I have not been following this for as long as you guys have, well because of my age, I am extremely grateful that marriage equality was achieved before I even graduated from high school. I am very thankful for all those that worked tirelessly fighting for my rights. This achievement took decades of hard work, commitment and rising time and time again after defeat but it was done! Congratulations to you all for this very well deserved victory and let's not forget those that were not alive to see this day. Sorry for the long post I just had to post this. It was too important not to.

  • 128. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:39 am

    You knocked it out of the park, Nicolas. Well said. Thanks for taking up the torch for the next generation.

  • 129. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:05 am

    OK, THIS gave me the goose bumps I didn't get when the announcement went through this morning. Thank you for taking the time to write this and share your perspective with us. You know, a lot of the dissent from the opposition is based on hearsay and not factual basis of law, so that you took the trouble to learn puts you waaaaaay ahead of most people in the country. I've noticed your previous posts and hope you'll grow into a more active and vocal participant in the future! WHOO and HOO, Nicholas!

  • 130. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:07 am

    Awesome Nicolas……funny how the wife and I were mentioning this to our grandchild and how they will NEVER have to be told who they can or can't marry………it will be something they just have known.

  • 131. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:55 am

    My eyes were filled with tears as I read this. Thank you for the long post.

  • 132. SteveThomas1  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:58 am

    Ditto to everyone else's comments, Nicholas. There's still more to be done, but with folks like you the future looks brighter today than ever before. Keep involved!

  • 133. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Majority opinion emphasizes the irrelevance of political popularity for Constitutional rights:

    An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

  • 134. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:56 am

    Without mentioning names, I have to point out the laughable parts of you-know-who's dissent really :

    "Expression sure enough is a freedom but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."

    So if a certain someone writting is given the shoe from his wife on a regular basis, same sex couples should not be allowed to get married. Right.

    "Ask the nearest hippie."

    We are back to the 60s apparently.

    "It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so."

    I have to agree here with the one who shall not be named today. His dissents are a prime example of that.

  • 135. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:56 am

    An excerpt from Roberts` dissent:
    Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

    He had not read the news and polls.

  • 136. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:59 am

    Loving was unanimous but imagine it wasn't for a second. Change in that sentence "same-sex marriage" with "interracial marriage". And you have exactly what someone like Roberts would say back then, dissenting of course.

  • 137. ebohlman  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:06 am

    In the last couple months I've been thinking of a thought experiment: How would the present Court have decided Loving?

  • 138. StraightDave  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:26 am

    5-4, with lots of bitching and moaning about states' rights and the democratic process. Animus is animus and has "nothing to do with the Constitution".

  • 139. ebohlman  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:46 am

    Couldn't be 5-4 since Thomas would have to recuse himself.

  • 140. mu2  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    Except he wouldn't because he's an ignorant prick.

  • 141. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:49 am

    Substantially the same as the opinions presented today (based on the argument that states have a duty to promote the “right kind” of procreation, i.e., the same irrational and bigoted garbage we see in some of these opinions).

  • 142. SeattleRobin2  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    When I was reading excerpts from Roberts' dissent I was pondering the same exact thing. It gave me chills (not the good kind). If he believes what he wrote today, and what was said in the decision that killed the Voting Rights Act, I can't believe he and his ilk on the present court would support striking down anti-miscegenation laws. It boggles my mind.

  • 143. 1grod  |  June 28, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    Robin, if you have read what I have written elsewhere on this thread, you would know that John Roberts troubles me. Yes he did the wise things in siding with the majority in the Affordable Health Care Subsidies. But with approximately 55 decisions in marriage equality's favour, and the Obergefell decision impacting only 13 states why would he put his personal credibility on the line with the national judicial community. Out of step John? Those who are familiar with the US Supreme Court can enlighten me/us. My experience is with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Canada's 17th chief justice, first women and longest serving individual in that role. On the court since 1989, and Chief Justice since 2000, she is required to retire in September 2018. As an aside, the Chief Justice is the deputy Governor General (GG), and in July 2005, our GG was in hospital and McLachlin was called upon to give Assent to the Civil Marriage Act bringing marriage equality to remaining two provinces and two territories.

  • 144. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:11 am

    Roberts needs to step up and say which of his inalienable rights he'd put up to a public vote.

    If anyone tries to tell you that millions of voters were robbed of their vote, ask them, which of your fundamental rights and liberties will you offer up for a public vote. They'll shut up pretty quickly. Would you put your right to worship as you choose and bow down to the deity of your choice up for a public vote? I thought not. Ask Roberts if we should put his right to adopt up for public vote, or Thomas if we should put his right to marry a white woman or remain married her up to a public vote. There answer will be what it should have been in the Oberfgefell case but was not. These four in the minority will be seen by history in contrast to the decisions of 3 Circuit courts (likely 5, if the 5th and 11th had any balls), and over 60 district courts or over 90% of the lower courts, and majority of Americans. American's are currently at about the same percentage as the IRISH, 60%, in approving of Marriage Equality. And that number will just continue to grow.

  • 145. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:14 am

    Well said!!

  • 146. dlejrmex  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    Posner writes about Robert's dissent…

  • 147. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:07 am

    Pity all those corporations whose "personhood" will forever loom under a similar cloud and remain unaccepted by society!

  • 148. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Breaking Couples are marrying in Mississippi. MISSISSPII

  • 149. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:09 am

    OMFG…..not in Mississippi……oh the agony……

  • 150. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:08 am

    marriage starting in Michigan

  • 151. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:10 am


  • 152. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:12 am

    I know it feel amazing ๐Ÿ™‚ my wife and me couldn't be any more prouder then we are now

  • 153. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:12 am

    GIGANTIC rainbow flag covering the front of San Francisco City Hall now……..

  • 154. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:16 am

    North Dakota governor says he will abide by the ruling.
    South Dakota AG says its now up to counties to issue licenses (I don't get he means they cannot do so does he ?)
    Kentucky governor instructs counties to issue licenses.

  • 155. ExArmyCT  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Congratulations to all those soon-to-be-newlyweds! Although we've had equal marriage in Connecticut for years, it is incredibly satisfying to know that EVERYONE in the United States of America will now share the same!

    Now that June 26th will be enshrined in history as one of the most important dates for the LGBT community, I went online and ordered a chrome "626" badge for the trunk of my car. Just Google "Mazda 626 badge" and go to any shopping site. there are various styles available. I just got mine for six bucks. Enjoy!

  • 156. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:19 am

    An excerpt from Roberts` dissent:
    Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

  • 157. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:21 am

    Please don't give Roberts any free press on this site today. Just my personal request. Thanks!

  • 158. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:56 am

    Yep. Just like I'm not reading any of the Sadz postings on the joemygod blog today.

  • 159. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:19 am

    Updated map :

    According to this 3 of the states directly affected by the decision are complying (Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio) while nothing yet from Tennessee.
    Georgia complies, same as South Dakota and Nebraska.
    We know now that North Dakota and Missouri also comply and licenses are also handed out in Mississippi and some Texas counties..Could that leave Louisiana or Tennessee last ?

  • 160. Silvershrimp0  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Reports are that certain counties in TN are issuing licenses today and the AG has a press conference scheduled for 2pm CDT.

  • 161. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:19 am

    He has not read yet the polls.

  • 162. Waxr  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:24 am

    I just listened to actor George Takei comment on the decision. He remarked that he can now give hie allegiance, only he gave it to the United States, not the flag, and he left out "under God".

    I can go allong with that.

  • 163. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:38 am

    Well yeah, especially since that phrase was only added to the Pledge during the 1950s cold war communism witch hunt.

  • 164. Aaron  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:25 am

    Let's change it to: "Equality No Longer On Trial"

  • 165. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:33 am

    Equality is more than marriage. It involves discrimination lawsuits, parenting rights and only yesterday we had a decision against a "gay cure" organization.
    The fight is far from over.
    The irrational venom of the dissents is still representative of a part of our society, hearts must still be won. Now that everyone will see that marriage equality does not bring the end of the world it may be easier but still.

  • 166. Aaron  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:46 am

    good point, thank you. still, though, saying "equality no longer on trial" felt really good to write. We shall fight on!!!!!!!

  • 167. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    You mean Marriage Equality…No longer on trial ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 168. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    The "Full Marriage Equality" site would vigorously disagree:

  • 169. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    That's the beauty of the USA. They're free to be wrong :D! Just like Alabama, they're free to think whatever they want, so long as they comply with the law ๐Ÿ˜€

  • 170. Nyx  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:34 am

    I'm still at the Supreme Court building in DC, lots of people still here as well as press doing interviews. Only a few anti-equality people showed up for the courts announcement. Many, many, many pro-equality supporters showed up and are still here!

  • 171. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:39 am

    keep the party going, Nyx!! : )

  • 172. AndresM11  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:36 am

    WOW!! Just arrived at the office and read some excerpts of the decision! CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE!!! WE HAVE WON!!!! *-* It's been 12 years since Lawrence, 2 years since Windsor and now, June 26th,2015, marriage equality has finally arrived to every corner of the United States of America.! Thank you Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan for doing the right thing! ๐Ÿ™‚

    It's been an incredible journey! Specially for someone like me who lives in a very homophobic country like Venezuela. Thanks to each and everyone of you for providing me countless moments of joy and hope ๐Ÿ™‚ I'm looking forward to continue sharing with all of you guys ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 173. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:43 am

    Mississippi AG resisting (for no obvious reason) :

    Brownback also resisting, Jindal of course is as mad as Scalia and goes on religious freedom tantrum :

  • 174. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:43 am

    According to the Salt lake Tribune, heads are exploding across Utah like in the movie “Mars Attacks!” Mormon men are abandoning their families to establish long-term relationships with farm animals. Utah Polygamists are gathering up all of the available teenage girls in fear that other Utah men will now want to follow the practices established by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (even though the practice was suspended decades ago—but never denounced).

    Utah hypocrites are decrying the decision as an attack on their religious liberty. (For some reason these hypocrites believe that “religious liberty” means that they have the right to use the Rule of Law to impose their unsubstantiated personal opinions (based on their personal, non-consensus interpretations of Iron Age mythology) on the rest of society; in other words, they believe they have a religious duty to tell other people how to live their lives.)

    If Utah Mormons had not spewed deliberately contrived, fear-mongering lies; established front groups; instructed their club members to support the anti-equality political process with quotas on financial donations and volunteer time, etc., in Hawaii (Hawaii's Future Today, Loren C. Dunn memos), California Prop. 22, California Prop. 8, etc., today's SCOTUS ruling might not have happened for a long, long time. On the other hand, without Mormon bigotry, the ruling might not have ever been necessary.

    Some of you may remember the old tune,

    God moves in a mysterious way
    His wonders to perform;

    Let's give credit where credit is due. Without Mormon bigotry, this day might not have been necessary. Without Mormon bigotry, this day might not have come as soon as it did.

    [The author formerly was know as David from Midland UT, and before that David from Sandy UT.]

  • 175. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:46 am

    Quote from the president of Mormons for straight marriage:
    " ACK!! ACK!!! ACK!!! ACK!!!"

  • 176. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Wasn't that "NAK!! NAK!! NAK!! NAK!!"

    Sorry. A little computer humor there. In communications protocols, such as TCPIP, ACK means acknowledgement, and NAK or NACK means negative acknowledgement. NAK is used to reject a message or signal an error.

  • 177. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:52 am

    but ACK!! ACK!!! ACK!!! ACK!! is what Opus the Penguin says when he goes into a tizzy.

  • 178. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    Bill the Cat (introduced in Bloom County) says "ACK!" when coughing up a hair ball.

  • 179. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    Are you sure it wasn't the Penguin? I haven't read Bloom County in 30 years.

  • 180. RemC  |  June 27, 2015 at 4:59 pm


  • 181. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Hey! I just learned something! Thanks! : )

  • 182. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    If Kennedy we're searching for incidence and evidence of anti gay bigotry….he needed to do nothing more than look over his right shoulder. Look up Vitriol in the dictionary and i'd bet you'd see scalia's picture under that citation. Although, Kennedy may have not relied on animus for this decision (don't know for sure, haven't read it yet), it would still be on the top of his mind, and the nastiness from Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alita, bit them in their assets when it came to winning Kennedy's support for their hateful position.

  • 183. DACiowan  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:47 am

    So I guess the 5th Circuit was willing to drag its feet. For the sake of completeness:

    7th Circuit – 9 days
    9th Circuit – 29 days
    4th Circuit – 76 days
    10th Circuit – 76 days for Kitchen
    10th Circuit – 92 days for Bishop
    6th Circuit – 92 days
    5th Circuit – 168 days and SCOTUS renders them irrelevant

  • 184. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:52 am

    Meh who cares now ? Although three of the states bound to have issues with implementation are in the 5th so they might as well get on with it.

  • 185. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:50 am

    I say "F" the Fifth Circuit. Their decision will be a day late and a dollar short…the [email protected]#(*#S.
    And I'm not a cursing man.

  • 186. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:04 am

    My mother was a Navy veteran. At her funeral, I was given an American flag. My partners and I just hung that flag outside our new home to celebrate today's decision. I can't stop crying. (We also have a rainbow flag on display in the front window.)

  • 187. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:05 am

    Sorry for your loss and as a Navy Veteran, I thank her for her service.

  • 188. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:07 am

    I still have one of those large white & blue protest signs that reads: "WE ALL DESERVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY". I have carried that sign in numerous marches in the past few years.

    I have now covered the word "DESERVE" and replaced it with the word "HAVE" and it is prominently displayed in my front window.

  • 189. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:12 am

    Isn't there a Texas Pastor somewhere that's due to set himself on fire today? Anyone got weenies? ๐Ÿ˜€

  • 190. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:15 am

    um…. I got one…. hee hee. Sorry, couldn't resist.

  • 191. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:18 am

    I hope you brought enough to share Mr.

  • 192. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:28 am

    Yeah…I'm waiting to hear what he has to say for himself now…

  • 193. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:14 am

    A cousin works for the AP in Tennessee. Just wrote me this message:

    The governor told me that the state is going to fully comply with the ruling.
    The first couple got their license in Shelby County at 11:30a. I'm at the clerks office waiting for more people to come

  • 194. flyerguy77  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:19 am

    awesome……… awesome awesome

  • 195. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:21 am

    I am soooo waiting to hear official announcement or press releases from the Governors of Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. I don't give a frack about what they think about the decision, just about how soon they will comply with it. Alacrity Gentlemen! Alacrity! hastag Chop! Chop!

  • 196. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:28 am

  • 197. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Thanks guitarist! Awesome Awesome. I'm saying that all day. I feel like Tim Cook at an Apple product roll out.

  • 198. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Something out of Texas :

    "In Texas, officials did not appear to be responding uniformly. Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a long statement lamenting the court’s decision, saying, “my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace.”"

    They are public servants idiot !

  • 199. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Someone should tell Jindal and Abbott that a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down, the medicine go down, the medicine go down…in the most delightful way!

  • 200. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:39 am

    I want to become a wedding officiant ๐Ÿ˜€
    Can I do my Calvin and Hobbes Happy Dance Now?

  • 201. justplainkay  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:39 am

    Cool. Just as I thought – Kennedy avoided an "animus" decision because of the bad optics with that. He ruled based on the fundamental right jurisprudence. Haven't read it yet but am pretty sure they didn't make S.O. a protected classification. This is the narrowest possible decision they could have made. It's a win, but we still have problems to solve for sure…3-4 more years of court cases before the Supremes have the guts to make S.O. a protected classification.

  • 202. tigris26  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:40 am

    I've been following this blog for almost two years! It has been a fantastic journey with all of you!!! *big hugs to you all*

    And now after we celebrate like crazy, we can move on to the next battle: anti-discrimination laws and hopefully get to heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation and gender identity. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 203. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:48 am

    Next on the agenda elect a A gay POTUS in 2020. Watch him dance at the inaugural ball with his husband (The first Dude?) via Hologram on the iphone 11.

  • 204. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:42 am

    "Gov. Abbot followed his the statement by sending a memo to all agency heads that said they “should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person … on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.”"

    He has no right to do that, he is essentially telling them to even refuse licenses if that violates their religious beliefs. Someone put him in his place !

  • 205. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Send in the national guard! (not really)

  • 206. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    No, send in a nationalized National Guard, really (as was needed to enforce court orders to integrate the University of Alabama).

  • 207. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    Yes, but we want to be gracious winners. We don't want to start a new era bring armed troops on the ground….at least not yet.

  • 208. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:58 am

    Yes, neither he nor the even more religiously conservative AG Ken Paxton have any shame at all. They don't even have the good grace to comply with the rule of law while speaking their twisted minds.

  • 209. Raga  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Whenever the Fifth decides to finalize their opinions, they should act on the long pending motions to lift stay IMMEDIATELY and grant those motions so stubborn states like Mississippi can issue licenses!

  • 210. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:44 am

    For Texas there is no need :

    The district court did so.

  • 211. Raga  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Wow, thanks! I guess it was the district court's own stay that was at issue in Texas, whereas in Mississippi, it is the Fifth Circuit's stay.

  • 212. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:46 am

    District court lifted the stay in Texas so the ruling is in effect. Louisiana has the more complicated situation here as the district court upheld the ban.

    So far the map is down to 3 :

    Any bets on the last one ? My money are on Louisiana.

  • 213. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:54 am

    There is a little error on that page that I hope someone who can edit it will fix. It shows Louisiana in pink, while the legend for the pink (or salmon, perhaps) color says "Same-sex marriage banned, despite federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling ban unconstitutional; Same-sex marriages legal per US Supreme Court Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges"

    However, unless the 5th has finally ruled, there has been no federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that affects Louisiana that declared the ban unconstitutional.

    But it's a minor thing. It'll all sort itself out quickly enough, I'm sure, Governor Jindal and U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman notwithstanding.

  • 214. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    "Any bets on the last one ? My money is on Louisiana."

    Indeed, so is mine.

  • 215. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:46 am

    Alabama Governor Robert Bentley says he disagrees with the SCOTUS ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, but will obey the law. "It will be emotional for many but I want to urge everyone today to be calm. We can express our disagreements verbally as I have. But I have to uphold not only the constitution of Alabama, but I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and we will uphold the law of the United States. I will uphold the law of the nation and this is now the law."

  • 216. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:05 am

    "urge everyone to be calm" ? Good grief, they are handing out a few legal documents, not taking shelter from a hurricane. Such frikken drama.

  • 217. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:10 am

    Well, Dave, maybe it's all those heads exploding that's making it necessary to restore calm.

  • 218. BillinNO  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:48 am

    Louisiana: The picture that is emerging in Louisiana is that the Clerks in many parishes, among them Jefferson and Livingston, are parroting Attorney General Caldwell's observation that there is a 25 day period during which the SCOTUS can be asked to reconsider their ruling (LOL). Therefore it seems quite likely that no marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples until then- or possibly until the Fifth US Circuit revokes its stay- or until Tony Perkins says its OK- or whichever happens last…maybe. Please update if you know better.

  • 219. SteveThomas1  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:09 am

    There is no stay to be revoked in the Louisiana case. In Louisiana the federal district court judge who heard the case held against marriage equality, so there was no injunction to stay. The 5th Circuit needs to reverse the district court judge and order him to issue an injunction, and that may take some time.

  • 220. DrBriCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    What about the stay in the one district-level state court decision? That was in favor of ME and could be lifted.

  • 221. SteveThomas1  |  June 26, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    I don't know anything about Louisiana state court procedures, and don't remember what that case's procedural status was. So I don't know. At any rate, the 5th Circuit wouldn't have jurisdiction over the Louisiana state court.

  • 222. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:28 am

    Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said his office is not immediately enforcing the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage. … the Louisiana Clerks of Court Association is advising parish and city clerks to wait until the 25-day period for states to file an appeal of the Supreme Court ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage … [this refers to the possibility of filing a request that the Supreme Court reconsider its opinion, which obviously won't happen]

  • 223. ReadLearn  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    I thought maybe New Orleans would comply immediately. Has there been any talk of that?

  • 224. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Pike County [Alabama] officials haven't issued marriage licenses in months, and today Probate Judge Wes Allen announced that his office is now permanently out of the marriage business. …

    Some probate offices closed this morning to review the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Alabama and across the nation. Colbert County Probate Judge Daniel Rosser would not say when the office would reopen, or whether it would ultimately issue licenses to same-sex couples.

    Probate Judge W. Hardy McCollum in Tuscaloosa will wait 21 days to issue same-sex marriage licenses, according to WIAT.

    In Henry County, the suspension is temporary, to make sure the office has the proper forms in place, said Probate Judge David Money. The marriage license office could reopen on Wednesday, and his staff will be issuing to all couples. Limestone County officials are also reviewing the Supreme Court's ruling, but intend to issue marriage licenses later today or on Monday, said Probate Judge Charles Woodruff.

    The probate office in Shelby County is not yet issuing licenses to same-sex couples, and officials have not yet announced when that might begin. The Baldwin County probate office will issue marriage licenses to all couples starting on Monday at 10 a.m. Officials in Etowah County will be accepting applications for marriage licenses today, but will not issue any licenses until Monday, according to documents.

    State Representative Patricia Todd says probate judges and politicians who defy the same-sex marriage ruling from the Supreme Court should be removed from the bench.

    Other probate judges opposed to same-sex marriage have also said they are reviewing the ruling and wrestling with the decision.

    Probate Judge Ryan Robertson of Cleburne County said he will stop performing marriages in his courthouse. He has not made any firm decision on whether he will issue marriage licenses. "I still have three weeks to make a decision," Robertson said. "I will be praying on it. I sure don't want to hurt folks in my county who want to get married traditionally."

    Probate Judge Jerry Pow of Bibb County said he will issue licenses to all couples, gay and straight, in light of the Supreme Court ruling. But he and his staff will no longer perform weddings in the courthouse.

    Probate Judge Barry Moore of Franklin County has said in the past that he wouldn't issue any licenses to same-sex couples, but this morning he said he is reviewing the ruling with legal counsel and has not made any decision on how to proceed. "We're going to have our legal counsel review the opinion to make sure we are not in contempt of any laws," he said.

    The Association of County Commissions of Alabama has advised probate judges to accept marriage license applications today, but hold off on issuing them until Monday. In light of the many twists and turns same-sex cases have taken in Alabama, probate judges should take a day to review the ruling, said executive director Sonny Brasfield.

  • 225. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:00 am

    "… reviewing the decision and wrestling with the decision"

    – These idiots just got pinned to the mat.

  • 226. RemC  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:09 am

    I'm dredging up my favorite words for instances like this: UNBELIEVABLE.

    "We're going to have our legal counsel review the opinion to make sure we are not in contempt of any laws."

    What does it mean to them that the highest court in the land just struck down the bans!?!?!?!

  • 227. 1grod  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Ian, thank you for all the helpful information you have regularly provided. Scottie you might consider going to your county seat in Bay Minette to team up with Judge Tim Russell in issuing the first equality license in your county on Monday at 10:00 am. G

  • 228. 1grod  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Ian, what is you interpretation of Chief Justice Moore's intent to get reinvolved?
    "If the Supreme Court's precedent interpreting a federal statute conflicts with the United States Constitution itself, then our duty is not to predict the next bend in the crooked path by asking, 'What would the Supreme Court do?' Moore writes. "Instead, our duty, under oath, is to ask, 'What does the Constitution say?'… G

  • 229. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    He's thrown this tantrum before: In 2003, during Moore's first term as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments (which he had commissioned) from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge. On November 13, 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.

    Unfortunately, he then ran for Chief Justice again and won the election, so he's back in the Chief Justice's chair and up to his old tricks. Looks like he may get booted out of office yet again.

  • 230. 1grod  |  June 27, 2015 at 2:36 am

    Ian: Using your and other data, with 21/67 AL counties tracked, using on or before Monday as issuing date, 9 counties are issuing licenses,four being in counties with the largest population, Mobile being one. Another beginning July 1st. Most others tracked are waiting court orders, expected next week. Some taking applications. One reports now out of the marriage licensing business, Pike.
    In Feb/March, tracked Counties [not] issuing licenses. Texas is currently does so. encouraged to do so again. When will Judge C. Grenada lift stay on class action – specifically the probate judges?

  • 231. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 4:38 am

    I think she is now waiting to see how many of them are still left after the first wave of cranial explosions ๐Ÿ™‚ Then she will lift the stay, thus starting the second wave…

  • 232. A_Jayne  |  June 27, 2015 at 5:51 am

    Didn't her stay automatically lift when the SCOTUS ruling was read?

  • 233. 1grod  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:57 am

    Update: Of 26/67 AL counties tracked, using on or before June 29 as issuing date, 11 counties will be issuing licenses comprising 40% of the state population. Most others tracked counties are waiting court orders, expected next week. Some taking applications. Three reports going out of the marriage licensing business: Pike, Houston and Geneva; these counties comprise 3% of the state population. These counties and 36 others were not issue licenses when Chief Justice Moore issued his administrative order not to issue licenses.

  • 234. allan120102  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Any news on the final counties of Kansas? I knew Kansas was going to be one of the final stated to comply completely.

  • 235. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:23 am

    Reno County Chief Judge Macke Dick said her county had declined to issue marriage licenses to two gay couples until there was a definitive ruling. She said it would issue licenses now. “I think the Supreme Court was completely clear in their findings.”

  • 236. 1grod  |  June 27, 2015 at 3:44 am

    We look forward to the State of Kansas immediately dropping all existing barriers to recognition of legal marriages,” said Sandra Meade, chair of the Equality Kansas state board. “It’s time for our state government to grant same-sex couples the dignity and respect all married couples deserve,” Meade said.

  • 237. 1grod  |  June 27, 2015 at 4:00 am

    Ian: Reno Co with population of 64200 is the only county in Judicial District 27. Its inclusion bring to 86% of the total population living in counties that issue same sex marriage licenses. G

  • 238. allan120102  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:49 am

    The thing is that wiki is counting the 20th judicial district and that district is not issuing licenses.we need to take the counties that are in that district from the list of issuing. Rice county for example is in that district and is not issuing.

  • 239. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:03 am

    I think Obama needs to have Eric Holder bring in any recalcitrant governors to the Whitehouse shed along with a switch. (Or Loretta Lynch for the female governors)

  • 240. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:14 am

    One thought on Compared Law: In Venezuela, my country, we obtained a decision in 2008 by the Supreme Court which basically established the "right" of the legislative branch to determine and to define the scope of rights for same sex couples. Now, another ngo is filing a complaint of "inconstitutionality" of the Civil Code where marriage is defined as "between one man and one woman". Any thoughts?

  • 241. davepCA  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Okay, I"ll be signing off for the rest of today and driving into SF to start celebrating. A reminder that any EoTers who want to meet today can meet us at CASTRO TARTS on Castro between 18th and 19th, across the street from Wells Fargo, at 5 PM.

    Just wanted to say thank you, EoT, for giving us all this forum to celebrate together.

  • 242. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:31 am

    Another pearl by Kennedy:
    “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.”

  • 243. Raga  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:32 am

    I've finished reading the whole thing. My favorite passages (majority and dissents):

    "[W]hile Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty."

    "It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same sex couples to marry."

    "Although Bowers was eventually repudiated in Lawrence, men and women were harmed in the interim, and the substantial effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled. Dignitary wounds cannot always be healed with the stroke of a pen."

    "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

    "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered."

    Roberts: "Its [the majority's equal protection] discussion is, quite frankly, difficult to follow." I do agree with him on that. Page 19-20 is too confusing.

    Thomas: "stroke of the keyboard"

    Alito: "Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims." My response: Ha ha… Thanks for looking out for us, but no, thanks!

    Alito: "I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort." My response: I do not doubt that Alito is sincerely blind to the liberty that the Constitution guarantees being infringed by these laws, but that sincerity is a cause for concern, not comfort.

    Lastly, an observation. How very convenient that none of the dissents talk about the majority's arguments about the harm to children of same-sex couples, and how that violates the constitutional rights of those children!

  • 244. JayJonson  |  June 26, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    What is most outrageous about all four of the dissents is how clearly they illustrate the utter indifference of these judges to the very concept of equal protection of the laws and to justice itself. In other words, they do not care tuppence for all the rhetoric of freedom and liberty that this country routinely recites.

  • 245. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    I thought also about that big detail: not even a word for children of LGBTI families.So wise!

  • 246. Raga  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:39 am

    Special Mention: For the first time, I believe, Justice Kennedy has explicitly called out sexual orientation as "immutable" not once, but twice. Coupled with his discussion at length about the history of discrimination faced by the gay community, this is potentially huge for the forthcoming gay rights discrimination cases. Without expressly saying so, he is hinting that sexual orientation should be a (quasi-)suspect class. Classic Kennedy.

    I think Obergefell is to heightened scrutiny what Windsor was to the right to marry. We'll soon see, within the next two years, lower courts elevate sexual orientation to (quasi-)suspect level. It's just a matter of a couple of years before the next gay rights case lands on Kennedy's lap.

  • 247. brandall  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:27 am

    Brilliant of you to catch this and then make the Windsor->Obergefell link. Of course, this is just another of your many brilliant EoT observations over the years.

  • 248. Raga  |  June 27, 2015 at 10:13 am

    You're too sweet! Some credit should also go to my dear friend Jenny who is a lawyer and we were both reading it (9000 miles apart) and noticed it together! There may be several ways to say "born this way", but the word "immutable" has special legal significance attached to it in equal protection jurisprudence and we don't believe the majority used that term lightly at all. It is a wink and a nod, no doubt.

  • 249. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    "There may be several ways to say "born this way", but the word "immutable" has special legal significance attached to it in equal protection jurisprudence …."

    Oh, indeed, there definitely is special legal significance attached to that word which will set the stage for the next round!!

  • 250. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 11:45 am

    'Satan Dancing With Delight': The Religious Right Reacts To The Legalization Of Gay Marriage

  • 251. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Truly ugly comments

  • 252. mu2  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    They're like the Japanese soldiers who hid in Pacific Island jungles for decades after 1945, refusing to admit they lost the war. Not to denigrate the Japanese, I have spent considerable time in Japan and have many very dear and treasured friends there.

  • 253. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Stop making excuses for them. What's gotten into you?

  • 254. mu2  |  June 26, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    I seriously doubt Don McLean appreciates that asshole Fischer appropriating his lyrics to spread hate.

  • 255. DeadHead  |  June 26, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    They're really over the edge by comparing this to 911 and the twin towers.

  • 256. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    News on Puerto Rico?

  • 257. Steve27516  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    AP reports the following:

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico's governor says he will sign an executive order to change the laws of the U.S. territory after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay couples are allowed to marry anywhere in the United States.

    Alejandro Garcia Padilla said in a statement Friday that people of faith like him have to understand that no one is allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others.

    All U.S. Supreme Court rulings apply in Puerto Rico.

    Religious leaders across the island rejected the ruling while supporters gathered at the seaside Capitol building to celebrate.

    Several gay couples in Puerto Rico had filed a lawsuit challenging local laws including those that prohibit same-sex marriage and the recognition of such marriages.

  • 258. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    DeBoer family reaction

  • 259. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    (Article) Here's how the 2016 presidential candidates are reacting to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

  • 260. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    Most of them are IDIOTS and I'm NOT surprised by their stupidity!!!

  • 261. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    Roberts says that the Obergefell decision could lead to polyamorous marriage:

    …from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

    It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices, ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

    Here are two links to the Emory Law Journal article Roberts referenced:

  • 262. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    I read that article and used it in a discussion regarding polygamy and if it's the same article I read, the author CLEARLY showed where the State had good sound reasoning to deny polygamy and at what point would it stop……3? 10?100? There are clear issues on why polygamy is NOT right and a polygamist group in Canada tried to use the arguments we used for the gender restrictions on the number restrictions and the high court in Canada handed the polygamist group a huge loss!!!

  • 263. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Far too many Utahns still spew this fear-mongering slippery slope argument

  • 264. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Probably not the same article:

    This Article takes seriously the substantive due process and equal protection arguments that support plural marriage (being able to marry more than one person at the same time). … Today, a growing number of Americans reject the double standard when a state does not treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples when it comes to eligibility for marriage licenses. The strong dignity language of the recent Windsor decision indicates that future courts will be more skeptical of the rationale for limiting marriage to a man and a woman if it is predicated upon demeaning sexual minorities. Another double standard, which is the focal point of this Article, concerns why the state allows almost all couples to marry for just about any personal reason that they happen to have. At the same time, all states continue to refuse to recognize any plural union. Those who care about gays and lesbians being discriminated against cannot ignore whether those who would marry multiple partners, if they were allowed to do so, are also being treated unfairly. The former kind of discrimination may be more widespread and worse than the latter, but that does not mean the latter is constitutionally permissible.

  • 265. RobW303  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    If Roberts can't understand the vast difference in the underlying issues, perhaps he needs to retire, or seek treatment for his temporary mental debility. And why his pre-judgment that polyamorous marriage is necessarily wrong? That debate hasn't really started yet in the context of modern marriage. If it's clearly a Bad Thing, the courts should have no difficulty articulating why it should continue to be disallowed, putting the lie to his assertion that one "leads to" the other. We all know this "slippery slope" argument is a feeble attempt to rationalize his personal religious objections to same-sex marriage.

  • 266. Rick55845  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:06 am

    Roberts may be right about Obergefell leading to polyamorous marriage. While I am not personally interested in having multiple spouses (would we refer to that as spice? ๐Ÿ™‚ , I cannot fathom why people who seek such unions should not have their marriages recognized.

  • 267. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:34 am

    Yes. "spice" is how many polyamorous people refer collectively to their spouses.

  • 268. DACiowan  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:35 am

    IMO the main stumbling block would be determining what form that recognition would be. Say you have A, B, and C in a poly relationship. Would a marriage of all three be a single A-B-C marriage or a set of three distinct marriages (A-B, B-C, and A-C)? Are the children of A and B also legally the children of C? If C left the marriage would that dissolve A-B as well? Would A's insurance be liable for covering both partners? What if A is in severe condition and B and C disagree on treatment?

    I think this would be a fascinating debate, and I wouldn't mind it being opening if not for all the slippery slopers screaming vindication. (My personal take is that it would be easier to treat a poly marriage as forming a set of binary marriages amongst all combinations of the partners.)

  • 269. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:40 am

    It would be a set of two or three distinct marriages. Read all about it here:

  • 270. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    reading this opinion I have no doubt kennedy would have struck down these bans back 2013

  • 271. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Nintendo to allow gay marriage in latest 'Fire Emblem' game

    "We can confirm that Fire Emblem Fates for Nintendo 3DS… includes the possibility for a same-sex marriage to take place between the main character created by the gamer and another character," it said. "We believe that our gameplay experiences should reflect the diversity of the communities in which we operate."

    …While calls are also growing for Japan to legalise same-sex marriage, there is no specific legal protection for gay people and the issue is not widely debated among the public.

    Tokyo's Shibuya district council voted earlier this year to issue "partnership" certificates to gay couples, the first such recognition of same-sex unions in Japan….

  • 272. tampering  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    Ok I am CANADIAN and FINALLY America, you caught up! Congrats.
    Took long enough…lol
    Love ya America. Now start the bottle popping and celebrating you guys! he he

  • 273. mu2  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    I just happen to have a case of Molson!

  • 274. tampering  |  June 27, 2015 at 10:39 am

    Ha ha, yes, MOLSON rules. (hell any brand will do for this GREAT day)
    Pride in Toronto this year will be SOME kind of wonderful

  • 275. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    lets hope our friends in the Land Down Under will joins us soonn

  • 276. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    I am reading the ruling now and so far the ruling confirms what I have been saying…….Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right and it NEVER was contention on the gender make-up of the couple……I feel vindicated!!!!

  • 277. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Mississippi:Jim Hood just released statement saying they will wait until the 5th opinion in New Orleans , he said their not going to stay in the way of it he said their just wait for the 5th to sign on

  • 278. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Does he know the ruling from the 5th is rather IRRELEVANT at this Point!!!

  • 279. Lymis  |  June 26, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Anyone else note that while the dissenters are very vivid in their outrage, they're all exceptionally light on anything resembling legal analysis?

    They're really clear THAT they don't like the ruling. Far less so on legal reasoning why.

  • 280. josejoram  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Very sad:

  • 281. JayJonson  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    You do know that this happened a year ago, and it was an immolation by a minister who supported marriage equality?

    He is not to be confused with the douchebag minister who vowed to set himself afire if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality.

  • 282. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    now a done deal in Puerto Rico: may be a few days though

  • 283. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Anything new from anywhere ? Do counties in Texas comply ? As far as I know three states show resistance – Louisiana, Kansas and Mississipi

  • 284. Fortguy  |  June 26, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    The Texas Observer reports the following Texas counties are issuing licenses to gay couples: Bexar, Brazoria, Cameron, Dallas, El Paso, Hale, Harris, Hidalgo, Lamar, Limestone, Midland, McLennan, Nueces, Tarrant, Travis, Webb, Wichita, and Willacy

  • 285. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    I remember one of the first TV debates I had on the then-strange question of civil marriage for gay couples. It was Crossfire, as I recall, and Gary Bauer’s response to my rather earnest argument after my TNR cover story on the matter was laughter. “This is the loopiest idea ever to come down the pike,” he joked. “Why are we even discussing it?”

    Those were isolating days. A young fellow named Evan Wolfson who had written a dissertation on the subject in 1983 got in touch, and the world immediately felt less lonely. Then a breakthrough in Hawaii, where the state supreme court ruled for marriage equality on gender equality grounds. No gay group had agreed to support the case, which was regarded at best as hopeless and at worst as a recipe for a massive backlash. A local straight attorney from the ACLU, Dan Foley, took it up instead, one of many straight men and women who helped make this happen. And when we won, and got our first fact on the ground, we indeed faced exactly that backlash and all the major gay rights groups refused to spend a dime on protecting the breakthrough… and we lost. …

    I never for a millisecond thought I would live to be married myself. Or that it would be possible for everyone, everyone in America.

    But it has come to pass. All of it. In one fell, final swoop.

    Know hope.

  • 286. Sagesse  |  June 26, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    So good to hear from Andrew Sullivan, one of the pioneers of the marriage equality movement.

  • 287. wkrick  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:35 am

    Why not link to the original source?

  • 288. Rick55845  |  June 28, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Whoever it was who said "one fell, final swoop" misunderstands the proper use of "fell" in this context.

  • 289. wkrick  |  June 29, 2015 at 6:54 am

  • 290. F_Young  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:48 am

    Andrew Sullivan's article is excellent! Thanks for posting an excerpt, Ian.

  • 291. netoschultz  |  June 26, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    Judge McCollum told ABC 33/40 he will comply with the law but after a three week appeal period.

    "There is an appeal process once there's a ruling its not final, until it becomes final…then we will begin to implement the law," said Judge McCollum.

    Should i remember all probate judges are under an injuction from Callie V. Granade since US Supreme Court issued its ruling? This judge should be put on jail for violating an injuction!

  • 292. Rick55845  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:11 am

    I'm not sure if she has lifted the stay on her injunction yet.

  • 293. netoschultz  |  June 26, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Arkansas' highest court has dismissed a gay marriage lawsuit that had been filed in state court now that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide.

    Justices late Friday rejected the state's appeal of a Pulaski County judge's ruling that struck down Arkansas' constitutional amendment and an earlier state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The state court's ruling came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down gay marriage bans nationwide.

  • 294. Zack12  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:11 am

    They punted, simple as that.

  • 295. SethInMaryland  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:32 am

    yea they did , I don't understand they why they even had arguments knowing they likely punt. that court is huge mess, nothing like it was a few years ago when it struck down the same-sex adoption ban. the republicans have F- UP Arkansas courts. need to get dems back in office to restore these courts to that they once were

  • 296. ReadLearn  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    I am a little surprised at it not being 6 to 3, but we'll take it.

  • 297. Lymis  |  June 27, 2015 at 7:21 am

    Robert's dissent was pretty much unhinged. In the contexts of some of his other rulings, claiming that the Supreme Court has no right to make unpopular rulings, and in the context of his own status as an adoptive parent, stating that marriage only exists to keep biological parents together, he might as well have been frothing at the mouth.

  • 298. brandall  |  June 27, 2015 at 9:12 am

    I agree. Disappointed in Robert's for hiding behind "will of the people" as though there is no constitution to protect minorities from the majority. Glad he was not Chief Justice in 1977 or interracial marriage bans would still be in place.

  • 299. guitaristbl  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    I am so bummed I live so far from the US where everyone is celebrating ๐Ÿ™
    And to top that my country enters one of its most difficult and defining moments in its latest history with a referendum called to approve or not approve austerity measures with unpredictable consequences.

    I would much rather be in SF and other cities right now celebrating..

  • 300. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:54 pm

    Which country are you from?

  • 301. guitaristbl  |  June 27, 2015 at 4:17 am

    Yeah I think that has been not said before but based on what I said and if you follow the news you could tell..Anyway, I am from Greece.

  • 302. brandall  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:34 am

    The Castro in SF last night had a rally. A block was closed, a stage was put up and there were politicians, activists, married couples and entertainers all taking their turn at the microphone. Harvey Milk was the #1 most mentioned name.

    As can happen this time of year, there was a strong, almost too cold, offshore breeze that probably kept a lot of folks from staying longer. The breeze allowed all of the hand-carried flags to fully extend. It was a sea of rainbow flags, and HRC "=" flags with either blue or red backgrounds.

    And, no surprise, a very happy cheering crowd of several hundred supporters.

    I hope this helps describe the evening that could not be here for.

  • 303. allan120102  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    They are still three states not abiding by the supreme court action. I am freaking piss that Kansas have federal court action by supreme court and by a district judge to comply. Btw Judge Crabtree is so slow I will believe he is doing it in purpose.

  • 304. Lymis  |  June 27, 2015 at 7:23 am

    If necessary, a new lawsuit could be filed specifically relating to the current denial of (now) constitutionally required benefits and services, and an end around the hold-up.

  • 305. tornado163  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:23 am

    Now that SCOTUS has ruled in our favor, at what point can lawsuits switch from suing officials in their official capacity to their individual capacity?

    As I understand it, being sued in their individual capacity allows for punitive monetary damage. However most officials are immune from being sued individually unless they're violating a clear constitutional right. Well now marriage equality has been clearly established by SCOTUS.

    So it seems to me that now it's fair game to take as much money as possible from any bigoted clerks who still refuse to issue marriage licenses.

  • 306. F_Young  |  June 27, 2015 at 11:23 am

    tornado163: "Now that SCOTUS has ruled in our favor, at what point can lawsuits switch from suing officials in their official capacity to their individual capacity?"

    Excellent question!

  • 307. ebohlman  |  June 27, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Problem as I understand it is that if a suit isn't filed in official capacity, any injunctive relief obtained applies only to the individual personally and not to his/her successors in office.

  • 308. jpmassar  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:45 pm


    Pitcairn Island, the world’s smallest nation, passed a law allowing same-sex marriage after it received unanimous support from the local council.

    Pitcairn’s deputy governer Kevin Lynch said the change was suggested by British authorities after England, Wales and Scotland legalised gay marrige last year.

    The island is a British Overseas Territory that was settled in 1790.

    The amended law now states that “marriage means the union of two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    When you've lost Pitcairn Island, Brian Brown…

  • 309. ebohlman  |  June 26, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    By the way, this happened over a month ago but due to problems with the nation's website, the rest of the world only learned about it a couple weeks ago.

  • 310. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Etowah County [Alabama] Probate Judge Bobby Junkins’ position on same-sex marriage is the same now as it’s been since court rulings first raised the issue: his office will obey the law regarding whether marriage licenses should be issued to same-sex couples…. In March, the state Supreme Court agreed with the conservative groups and ordered state probate judges to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples. When that order came down, Junkins said his office stopped issued licenses. … Junkins said he has not received any instruction on what the probate office should do regarding requests for licenses. When it comes, he said, his office will do as it has been doing: It will follow the law according to the court’s interpretation of it.

  • 311. Waxr  |  June 27, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    "It will follow the law according to the court’s interpretation of it."?

    It is the Federal Supreme Court he ahould follow. Not the state's.

  • 312. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    Alabama resumes gay marriage licenses, but not everywhere

    Some, but not all, Alabama counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court declared gay people can wed anywhere.

    A supervisor in Mobile County's probate court, Russ Davidson, said the court issued its first same-sex marriage license to two women after months of refusing to sell marriage licenses to anyone.

    "We are open for business for anyone who wants to get married," Davidson said.

    The two women got their marriage licenses within hours of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will allow gays and lesbians to marry nationwide. Alabama was one of 14 states where same-sex couples could not marry statewide.

    Two women wed near the Montgomery County courthouse and went back to file the signed license, the final legal step for a legal marriage. And Alabama's largest county, which includes the city of Birmingham, was prepared to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

    "We are all ready and prepared to. We follow the law here in Jefferson County. I think it is a pretty clear-cut opinion," Jefferson County Probate Judge Sherri Friday said.

    But other counties resisted.

    Pike County Probate County Judge Wes Allen said he was "deeply saddened" by the Supreme Court's decision and said he won't issue licenses to anyone, gay or straight.

    Chilton County Probate Judge Bobby Martin said he was issuing marriage licenses to straight people but not gays because he hadn't seen the Supreme Court's decision yet.

    "Today we are selling to heterosexual couples and giving our attorney time to digest this opinion," said Martin, whose rural county in central Alabama votes heavily Republican. "The decision will be made at 10 a.m. Monday what to do." …

    Within hours of the court's decision, Jessica Dent and Carolee Taylor got married a few blocks from the courthouse in Montgomery. …

  • 313. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Roy Moore predicts backlash over court's gay marriage ruling
    Friday, June 26, 2015 at 5:44 p.m.

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage has "destroyed the foundation of our country which is family," and he predicted a conservative Christian backlash.

    Moore, an outspoken same-sex marriage opponent who has fought against it coming to Alabama, said Friday that the justices disregarded legal precedent and were ruling by their feelings in the case.

    Moore says he is "saddened for the future of the country" and he predicted "a religious battle that is just beginning."

    Moore stopped short of calling for direct resistance to the decision.

    Moore has previously instructed state probate judges to refuse to give marriage licenses to gay couples, and he noted that the order has not been lifted.

    Officials in some Alabama counties issued same-sex marriage licenses Friday.

  • 314. RnL2008  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    Moore is nothing more than an ANTI-GAY bigot who knows he can do NOTHING at this point but whine!!!

  • 315. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    It is time to permanently eliminate the filth that is religion.

  • 316. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    I'll co-sponsor that!

  • 317. sfbob  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:06 am

    Newsflash to Justice Moore: The foundation of the country is the Constitution. Which includes, as far as I know, not a single word, one way or the other, about "family."

  • 318. allan120102  |  June 26, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Reno county Kansas now issuing licenses not sure of the other counties that were resisting.

  • 319. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    Even Louisiana however realizes that they will eventually have to start complying with this ruling. 'Our agencies will have no choice but to comply with the Supreme Court's decision when the 5th Circuit Court orders the ruling into effect – even though we disagree with it and believe it was wrongly decided, and has nothing to do with the Constitution,' said Mike Reed, Jindal's spokesman. 'Until the mandate from the lower court is issued, this ruling is not yet in effect.'

    In Texas, Denton County Clerk Juli Luke also refused gay couples who showed up to apply for licenses on Friday. She later told the Denton Record-Chronicle she needed legal guidance to understand what she was supposed to do when couples applied for a license.

    It was not all bad news in Texas however, as one of the day's most touching stories played out in Dallas. Jack Evans, 85, and George Harris, 82, received their license Friday morning and were married later that day. …

    In Arkansas, the judge who struck down Arkansas' gay-marriage ban last year presided Friday over one of the state's first same-sex weddings after the Supreme Court's historic ruling. Pulaski County Judge Chris Piazza married two men in a brief ceremony in his Little Rock courtroom. He said it was the only same-sex wedding he planned to conduct. 'I looked at their faces and realized how much this meant to them,' Piazza said. The couple, Tony Chiaro, 73, and Earnie Matheson, 65, have been together 26 years. They said they sought out Piazza because of his ruling last year. 'We could have gone off and done it somewhere else … but it meant so much to do it here,' Matheson said.

    The Omaha World-Herald was there as Judith Gibson, 74, and Barbara DiBernard, 66, of Lincoln got their license after 27 years together. They planned to exchange vows later that day in a ceremony at their home. …

    The Republican National Committee disagreed but seemed resigned to the idea that opposing gay marriage had suddenly become a legal dead end. RNC chairman Reince Priebus said the Supreme Court had 'taken power away from the states and from the people to settle the relevant issues for themselves.' …

    (Click over to the article for some beautiful photographs!)

    <a href="” target=”_blank”>

  • 320. whistleblower1  |  June 26, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Let's not forget to thank former Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Hilary Marshall from Mass. –we may not be here today if it were not for her leadership going back over a decade now.

  • 321. JayJonson  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:30 am

    Yes. We must honor Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. We used some of her Goodridge decision in our wedding ceremony. I suspect that now many many couples–gay and straight–will use the conclusion to Justice Kennedy's Obergefell decision in their wedding ceremonies. Hard to read that conclusion without weeping.

  • 322. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    In St. Petersburg [Florida], the Rev. Gustave Victor, associate pastor of Dominion Worship Center Church of God, said he intends to preach about the court's decision at Sunday services. "The Bible says God made a man and then he made a woman for the man, and he did not make a man for a man, or a woman for a woman," Victor said. "It's very confusing why they want to let gays be happy. I don't believe in it. … We can't say that gays are going to be welcome to come in here and get married."

    … many months after gay marriage became legal here, not everyone readily accepts it as the new reality. Immediately after Florida's marriage ban fell, more than a dozen clerks of court, many of them in the most conservative regions of the state, chose to stop holding marriage ceremonies for anyone, rather than perform them for gay couples. In most of the Panhandle and parts of Central Florida, same-sex couples who wish to marry can get marriage licenses from clerks, but have no choice but to find their own officiants. This is still the policy in Pasco County, where the clerk of court has said that most of her staff who oversee marriage licenses are "uncomfortable" officiating same-sex weddings.

    Some state agencies, such as the Bureau of Vital Statistics, have responded to the legalization of gay marriage with bureaucratic lethargy. Although hundreds of gay couples have married in Florida, the bureau still prints marriage licenses with the words "bride" and "groom." Gay couples have also run into difficulty when trying to have their marriages recognized on birth and death certificates.

    …gay rights advocates cautioned that the legal battle for full equality in Florida is far from over. Although at least 10 counties in Florida, including Hillsborough and Pinellas, have passed laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, throughout much of the state it is still legal to fire people or deny them housing for being gay or transgender. Earlier this year, a statewide anti-discrimination bill failed to make it out of its subcommittee. …

  • 323. Waxr  |  June 27, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    "The Bible says God made a man and then he made a woman for the man."

    Saying that woman was made for the man, puts women in an inferior position. Under the law, men and women are equals.

  • 324. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Can we get a new thread please? This one is broken.

  • 325. Rick55845  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    I agree. Let's start anew.

  • 326. ianbirmingham  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses

    Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning.

    As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court’s decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi.” To Bryant’s point of doing “all” the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.

    “One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” Gipson told The Clarion-Ledger, a local newspaper. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see the pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

    Oklahoma is investigating a similar change. A bill there would allow notaries and religious leaders to sign marriage documents and strip the power from judges and clerks.

    Alabama already has one county that operates in this manner. …

  • 327. SethInMaryland  |  June 26, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    i hope our lawyers ask the 5th to issue the mandate right away , these desperate attempts by these wackos is old

  • 328. sfbob  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:08 am

    All it will take will be one UU or UCC minister or one Reform rabbi to test out that whole "religious freedom" thing.

  • 329. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    This ISN'T going to work as it CLEARLY shows ANIMUS towards Gays and Lesbians. SCOTUS AIN'T gonna like another lawsuit surrounding marriage ending up on their lap and if they try to go strictly with the Religion aspect, they clearly will have issues there because there are Religions that are okay with marrying Gays and Lesbians, then if they try to state a specific religion, that violates so many other laws and then you have Agnostics and Atheists, you CAN'T deny them the right to marry as it is again a FUNDAMENTAL right!!!

    One of the issues these States better consider is that by removing marriage licenses all together will mean that the Federal Government WON'T have to recognize those marriages that have a Certificate of Matrimony issued solely by the Church!!!

    These anti-gay folks better be careful what they wish for because frankly if they pull some stunt and straights are affected……there could be hell to pay!!!

  • 330. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:16 am

    What they can't constitutionally do is of little concern to them, since they think they're only beholden to "God's law" (which, of course, they "interpret" however they want). They just want to introduce as many impediments for LGBT folk as possible, knowing it will take time to undo the mischief.

  • 331. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:09 am

    I agree with ya……this ISN'T even truly about their supposed religious beliefs, it's about continuing to cause harm to Gays and Lesbians for as long as they can get away with it……the same with these States that think it's okay to just stop issuing marriage licenses to ALL couples…….both are nothing more than hateful anti-gay bully tactics and couples regardless of sexual orientation and gender make-up need to file lawsuits to force these idiots into compliance!!!

    Maybe if we start hitting them in their financial pocketbook, they'll get the message faster!!!

  • 332. domestic_god  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    What a joke. So are they going to completely erase 'marriage' from state law? I'd like to see them try. That would be no small legislative and bureaucratic task, I'm sure. Citizens are still going to want to get married, and if there are ANY legal ramifications of that under state law, the state government will still need to recognize ALL legal marriages, no matter which state they occurred.

  • 333. Fortguy  |  June 26, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    The Dallas Morning News has posted an interactive map showing the status of marriage licensing among the Texas's 254 counties. The map still is incomplete and has at least one wrong entry. Willacy County in the Rio Grande Valley is shown as a "no" county while the Texas Observer and The McAllen Monitor report this as a "yes" county. The map also doesn't explain why some counties are labeled as no while others are labeled as waiting on the state or what they specifically are waiting on.

    The distinction is important. As the Observer reporting notes, some counties such as Hays will begin issuing licenses once they've updated their forms or software regardless of what Ken Paxton says. Others are waiting for updated forms from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, while others still are expecting Paxton to come down from the mountain top with his stone tablets giving them direction.

    Paxton's entire tenure has been muddled by the ethical quagmire he has created for himself. He could have avoided the constant investigations if he would have studied law from StraightDave's goldfish. Why anyone would value his opinion over that of the highest court in the land amazes me.

  • 334. Sagesse  |  June 27, 2015 at 5:49 am

    White House Lit Up with Rainbow After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling [People]

  • 335. 1grod  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    Sagesse. Might you have arranged with Premier Kathleen Wynne to have Queens Park also light up. [Just teasing]. Thank you fir your always wise comments. Figured if you could get a handle on all institutional matters America from Prop 8 forwards and be an at-home Canadian, I could do the same, hoping that our Nother American perspective would be useful. One of the assertions earlier on – I think from Bob, reinforced by you, was the courts were a more sure path than legislation or ballot initiative, less reversible . Two factors imo which ensure Marriage Equality was proclaimed on July 20 2005 by the Canadian GG, was the Quebec favourable decision in March 2004 in Hendricks and Leboeuf v. Quebec and the Federal government headed by Jean Chretien's decision not to appeal the Ontario Appeals Courts decision in Halpern v Canada. G

  • 336. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:27 am

    American Muslims Supporting Gay Marriage Speak Up
    Often thought of as unremittingly hostile to homosexuality, some American Muslims celebrated Friday’s Supreme Court decision

  • 337. JayJonson  |  June 27, 2015 at 7:23 am

    Here's a link about the situtation in Louisiana, or more particularly in New Orleans:

  • 338. brandall  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:46 am

    Saturday, 6/27/15 – The first day of a new era for many of us. Did that really happen yesterday or was that just a dream?

    No, it was real. My husband's still sleeping, my cousin and his GF (both rabid supporters) are still sleeping. Last night in the Castro was filled with nothing but happy, cheering, celebrating people. All the bars were jammed with some of the longest lines I've ever seen trying to get in. The restaurants were packed with people waiting outside. Flags everywhere. For the LGBTQ and S communities, it was the "happiest place on earth."

  • 339. Raga  |  June 27, 2015 at 10:18 am

    Reading the "view from the courtroom" on SCOTUSblog, I teared up again. I probably wouldn't have been able to control myself had I been in the gallery.

    Leave it to Scalia to lighten the mood after Roberts' fiery dissent: <“Don’t go away,” Scalia commands, in a tone that quickly breaks the tension of the Chief Justice’s dissent. Everyone laughs, even to the point of a second ripple of laughter.>

  • 340. 1grod  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Raga, thank you for this link. I also want to personally thank you for all the insightful effort that you provided to us. You are one of the reasons why I continues to daily visit this site. Rarely did you criticize the contribution of others – including those who appeared to be contrarians. G

  • 341. Raga  |  June 27, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    Aw, thanks a lot – you're very kind!

  • 342. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    From the article:
    The Chief Justice goes through his dissent at some length. He notes that public opinion has been shifting rapidly on same-sex marriage, including in Maine, where in 2012 voters reversed the result of a referendum from just three years earlier that had upheld traditional marriage.

    “However heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause,” Roberts says. “They lose this just when the wind was at their backs.”

    Does Roberts truly even know that had the Court upheld the ruling from the 6th that the winds he claimed we had would have been gone and getting ANY sort of Marriage Equality legislation or ruling from future courts would have been damn near "[email protected]@KING" impossible? Not to mention the chaos that it would have created in existing states and that we could have LOST everything we had gained? Does the idiot even care that to say the Constitution had NOTHING to do with this is as bad or ASININE as Thomas saying that Slaves, Japanese-Americans and Gays and Lesbians NEVER lost their dignity……..why are these moronic azzholes on the Court? How does the Chief Justice rule in favor of a Corporation being a "PERSON" and then make the comments he did in his Dissent? I mean we expect that sort of garbage from Justice Scalia and Thomas, maybe even Alito……but Roberts?

    Maybe it is time to take away their lifetime seating on the bench if they truly DON'T understand the Constitution!!!

    This is what the American people should be OUTRAGED over……not whether Gays and Lesbians gained a right they should have NEVER lost just because they wanted to marry someone of the same gender….but that the HIGHEST Court of the Land truly AREN'T capable of understanding the Constitution!!!

  • 343. SoCal_Dave  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:13 am

    I'm so with you, Rose. Why was Roberts so ready to affirm the rights of corporations, but LGBT human beings have to "win" their rights? The Constitution says nothing about "wiinning" rights.
    And did he think the "wind was at our backs" in Alabama that was defying federal court orders? How about Mississippi where they are considering stopping all marriages in order to avoid marrying same sex couples?
    We already had marriage equality in the places where the "wind was at our backs". We needed the Supreme Court to affirm our rights in places like AL and MS. Rights that we HAVE, not that we should have to "win".

  • 344. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:32 am

    Sorry it took me so long to reply……this thread is obviously overwhelmed and finding the replies is a bit challenging……….I personally think that Roberts lied at his confirmation hearing because what he said and what he as done are not even close……..and ANYONE who tells a minority group that has faced years of discrimination that they should have continued to fight and win over the public, clearly shows me he knows NOTHING of the Constitution.

    The other problem I have with Roberts dissent is that he either DOESN'T care how upholding the ruling from the 6th would have CAUSED use greater harm and basically overturned ALL of the ground we gained……or he is just PLAIN ignorant of the issues a ruling in favor of the 6th would have caused and I DON'T believe he is IGNORANT!!!

  • 345. palerobber  |  June 27, 2015 at 11:27 am

    after hearing that Evan Wolfson is planning to wind down Freedom to Marry, it occurred to me that NOM also no longer has any reason to exist. hey Maggie, time to put the staff on notice and start returning donations, no?

  • 346. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    At least Evan Wolfson is not out there trying to take money from others with lies and manipulation……don't get me wrong, there will be other fights, but the right to marry is secure for now and there are other more larger organizations who have deeper pockets to fight those fights.

  • 347. ebohlman  |  June 27, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    NOM, unfortunately, has plenty of havoc to wreak outside the US.

  • 348. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Ex-Pastor Says He Wasn't Going To Set Self On Fire Over Gay Marriage

    Inquiring minds are wondering whether Rick Scarborough, a conservative Christian political advocate who was said to have threatened to set himself on fire if the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, is now merely a pile of smoldering ashes. Several media outlets reported Scarborough's supposed threat. But it turns out it was a bit of an exaggeration. …

  • 349. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    I am so disappointed in him……hell, if ya can't trust a Pastor, who can ya trust……lol!!!

  • 350. allan120102  |  June 27, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Just want so say congratulations to all the same sex couples that will finally get married to the person they love. Was a great day to the people that believes in Human rights .I hope one day my country(Honduras) do it, because I really want to get married in the place I was born, where I hopefully find someone to love and cherish. As one by one countries around the world legalized, it give me hopes that one day I might get married here. Hope is the last thing is lost after all.

  • 351. SethInMaryland  |  June 27, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    Judge Friedman agrees to marry April DeBoer, Jayne Rowse

    Friedman told the Free Press earlier that he and U.S District Judge Judith Levy, the first openly gay district court judge in the history of the 6th Circuit, both cried when they heard the Supreme Court struck down the gay marriage ban.

  • 352. SethInMaryland  |  June 27, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    I'm so glad that judge Friedman will get to laugh in the face of judge Sutton.

  • 353. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
    Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.
    Politico Magazine, June 26, 2015

  • 354. SethInMaryland  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    I think that the next social liberal issue will be marijuana , marijuana is now starting to legalize in some states with growing support

  • 355. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    That's a current issue, not the next one.

  • 356. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    Here's the article on polygamy that gives some real good arguments as to why States have a reason that polygamy is not the next issue:

    Just for the record, I am not against polygamy…..more power to those who live it…….my issue has to do with other things like how many is okay? Can it truly only be consenting adults, the harms to women and children…….and if the polygamist want it, then they have to fight for it, but they DIDN'T need for Gays and Lesbians to win their right to marry because the two AREN'T similarity situated…..and polygamy truly is a REDEFINITION of marriage and it would be a NEW right as currently there is NO fundamental right to marry multiple individuals.

  • 357. guitaristbl  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    If someone in a polygamous relationship thinks they have a case let them argue it.
    It will take much more than a supreme court decision though.
    Tax breaks have to be totally revised, legislation concerning divorce and medical decisions have to be totally revised, laws about alimony and parental rights have to be revised etc.
    Laws concerning same sex couples have little to none of those obstacles as it has been shown in practice (maybe some small revisions in adoption laws in so.e states at most).
    Tbh polygamy with all members in the relationship being equal has never existed legally thus, unlike with same sex couples, we dont really know how family law needs to be revised to accomodate it.
    Anyway I am not against polygamy per se. Its just that its actual ramifications especially on women everywhere it is applied, from mormons to muslims, leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. That said they can go for it but remember that LGBT people got here after more than 40 years of civil struggle. People of colour got their freedom because of their fight as well.
    Point is if you want something as a group, rise up, raise awareness and fight for what you believe in. Especially in such a case where it will take more than a supreme court decision, possibly whole revisions of family law, to implement the change.
    On a more personal note it is true that knowing someone from a minority helps you get more of an insight. I dont know anyone personally in a healthy, in terms of internal balances and rights, polyamorous relationship…
    Finally, justice Kennedy's decision talks about the immutable nature of homosexuality…Can we argue the same about polygamy ? Although I dont think that it matters in the end – after all the utmost level of legal protection under US law is given to a clear choice – religious belief.

  • 358. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    Marriage Equality Holdouts: Louisiana, Mississippi (and Kansas)

    Marriage between same-sex couples remained on hold in Louisiana and Mississippi (despite the fact that several same-sex couples were married yesterday in Hattiesburg MS), even as the US Supreme Court ruling yesterday, 26 June 2015, legalizing it nationwide, led to same-sex couples joyously tying the knot in other states that had banned such marriages before the decision. In Louisiana, Republican Attorney-General Buddy Caldwell's office issued a statement saying that it had "found nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision that makes the Court’s order effective immediately."

    The Louisiana Clerks of Court Association advised clerks not to issue licenses for 25 days, the period in which the Supreme Court could be petitioned for a rehearing, as if there were any chance that the Supreme Court would actually immediately turn around and reverse itself.

    In the meantime, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals urgently needs to issue a ruling overturning the marriage ban in Louisiana which had been upheld in district court by Judge Feldman in Robicheaux v. Caldwell, and which is currently pending appeal before them.

    Mississippi was waiting until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay it had imposed upon Judge Reeves' district court ruling in CSE v. Bentley, overturning Mississippi's ban, before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said state Attorney-General Jim Hood, a Democrat, adding that his office would not stand in the way of the ruling.

    The Mississippi plaintiffs' legal team, DOMA attorney Roberta Kaplan and the Campaign For Southern Equality, have already petitioned the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for the immediate lifting of the stay in the Mississippi case.

    From Kansas, there's still no word from AG Schmidt nor from Governor Brownback regarding any change of attitude regarding their consistent refusal to recognize marriages between same-sex couples for other state purposes, like taxation and health benefits. Of course, now, they're not only in violation of the multiple rulings of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but also of the Supreme Court itself.

  • 359. flyerguy77  |  June 27, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    I have a question.. Can Louisiana ask for a rehearing if they were NOT PART THE CASE?

  • 360. Eric  |  June 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    No, only the losing party can.

  • 361. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 11:50 pm

    That's just a desperate (and ultimately futile) ruse to buy some additional time.

  • 362. F_Young  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:10 am

    VIRick: "Marriage Equality Holdouts: Louisiana, Mississippi (and Kansas)"

    Thanks for compiling all this information, Rick.

  • 363. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 7:05 pm

    Momentum grows to scrap Pentagon's ban on transgender troops

    There is renewed energy on Capitol Hill to lift the Defense Department's ban on transgender troops. Lawmakers view recent steps by the Pentagon and some of the armed services to expand protections for gay and lesbian troops as an opportunity to do away with the decades-old prohibition on allowing transgender troops to serve openly. They are also taking note of other societal changes in calling for the ban on service by transgender troops to be lifted. …

  • 364. ianbirmingham  |  June 27, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Sunday shows preview: What’s next for gay marriage

    Here is a list of Sunday morning’s expected guests, all curious about what comes next after the conclusion of Obergefell v. Hodges:

    ABC’s “This Week”: Host George Stephanopoulos first greets the namesake of Friday’s groundbreaking suit. Plaintiff Jim Obergefell will detail his role in the Supreme Court’s move and what it was like taking part in American history.

    ABC next welcomes two 2016 presidential candidates, one from each political party. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), a former Baptist minister, gives his faith-based perspective on the same-sex marriage debate. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, a Democratic White House hopeful, will provide his progressive take on Friday’s cultural significance. …

    CBS’s “Face the Nation”: CBS begins its coverage of the gay marriage ruling with a discussion between prominent activists on each side of the issue. Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights campaign, will represent the gay-rights movement against Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. …

    “Fox News Sunday”: Host Chris Wallace talks with former Solicitor General Ted Olson about Friday’s legalization of same-sex marriage. Olson, a conservative lawyer, will explain his efforts on protecting the practice nationwide despite his political ideology. …

  • 365. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    More on the Louisiana Situation

    Louisiana is one of the few states in which a federal judge had previously ruled in favor of a state ban on gay marriage, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the matter. The Supreme Court's decision overrides that lower court ruling, and lawyers for the seven Louisiana couples that challenged the ban asked the 5th Circuit on Friday (26 June 2015) to enter a judgment for the plaintiffs.

    Once that happens, the case would be sent back to District Judge Martin Feldman, who would be obligated to overturn his ruling. That process, a mere formality, should take a matter of days. Once Feldman enters the judgment, it would require the state and local clerks to begin complying with the Supreme Court ruling. Clerks and state agencies that don't issue licenses then would risk being sued.

    In New Orleans, the state Vital Records department issues marriage licenses — the only parish in which that duty doesn't fall to a city or parish clerk. So couples in the city would be able to get marriage licenses once the judgment is entered.

    But they could still have to wait a few more days — the state requires a couple to wait 72 hours between getting their license and holding their wedding, unless a judge is willing to waive the delay.

  • 366. davepCA  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Hi all,

    Here's a link to a Flickr photo album with some pictures I took in San Francisco on Friday during the 'Day of Decision' celebration. A few other EoT'ers were there, and can be seen in the group shot with Harvey Milk's old apartment in the background, with the mural of Harvey looking down on us from the upstairs window. Check out the modified "Road Closed" sign, as well as the banner above "Q Bar" with the Justice Ginsburg reference. It was an absolutely amazing day.

  • 367. RemC  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:08 am

    Dave, a big hug of thanks to you for doing this. Can you identify the EoT'ers in any of the pics?

  • 368. davepCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:01 am

    Sure thing! In the picture with the six of us, front row left to right is my friend Jonathan (lurks here but doesn't comment), then commenter Aaron, then me (in the white Harvey Milk t-shirt). Back row left to right is a commenter whom I have not asked about naming so I"ll let him reply, then our commenter Brandall, next to him is a friend of his visiting from out of town. There's also a picture with me and John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney (in the rainbow bow ties), the two plaintiffs in the trial that overturned California's Prop 22 and led the way to the first 18,000 couples legally marrying in CA before that was temporarily interrupted by Prop 8.

  • 369. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    Dave, thanks for the pics of the celebration!

    You know, "Case Closed" is one of my all-time favorite expressions.

    Oh, and I love the group shots with fellow EoT'ers. In particular, this guy named Dave P is especially hot, isn't he??? LOL

    And Aaron's T-shirt is the best!

  • 370. davepCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Yeah, I know what you mean about that Dave dude!

    I hear he's a real nice guy too, and humble! Oh yeah and he can cook, too!

    We gotta find that guy a husband, stat! : )

  • 371. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    "We gotta find that guy a husband …."

    Maybe we could convince him to join me here so he and I could be first-in-line in the Virgin Islands, as I have a plan.

    "Humble" won't necessarily be needed for the job, but "Playful" and "Cute," as well as "Out" and "Up Front," will more than make up for it. And the "Cooking" part would be an amazing bonus.

    Check my profile right now.

  • 372. davepCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    'A plan', you say? Intriguing! : )

    Tell me more!

  • 373. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    "Tell me more!"

    That's why I want you to check my profile and then send me an e-mail, as I'm hatching plan here, but it takes two to tango. The chief judge here is a personal friend, and would likely be willing to issue a summary judgment in favor of marriage equality, in light of the Supreme Court decision.

    He has the new gender-neutral application forms ready. Now he needs a same-sex couple willing to give it a push.

  • 374. davepCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    Got it, email sent.

  • 375. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:43 am

    By the way, loved the pictures and I hope you gave all a big hug from me!!!

  • 376. davepCA  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:03 am

    You bet! Was thinking about you and yours this weekend : )

  • 377. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Thank you, we hope to meet you soon and the next battle has arrived…….I hope our lawyers are ready to go!!!

  • 378. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:47 am

    Thanks for the wonderful pictures. What a day that must have been in San Francisco, and what a weekend that must have followed. Especially glad to see the EoTers out celebrating the cause we have worked so hard for over so long a period. Thanks to all who helped elucidate the issues and who provided so much great information here.

  • 379. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 8:42 pm

    Summary of all Court Actions which Occurred on 26 June 2015

    US Supreme Court announced its decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges" striking down the ban on marriage for same-sex couples, thus overturning the earlier decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although specific to cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, the decision is applicable to all 50 states and all territories.

    Missouri withdrew its appeal of the decision in the in-state marriage recognition case, "Missouri v. Jennifer Florida," which was presently before the Missouri Supreme Court.

    Missouri withdrew its appeal of the decision in "Lawson v. Kelly" which had struck down Missouri's ban and which was presently before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Nebraska withdrew its appeal of the decision in "Waters v. Ricketts" which had struck down Nebraska's ban and which was also presently before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The Arkansas Supreme Court finally dismissed the state's appeal in "Smith v. Wright," thus allowing the lower state court ruling to stand which had overturned Arkansas' marriage ban for same-sex couples.

    In Texas, Judge Orlando Garcia lifted his stay in "De Leon v. Perry," the case in which he had already struck down Texas' ban on marriage between same-sex couples.

    In the Mississippi case, "CSE v. Bryant," the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion requesting that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals immediately lift the stay it had imposed on the district court's decision to overturn Mississippi's marriage ban for same-sex couples.

    In the Louisiana case, "Robicheux v. Caldwell," the plaintiffs requested that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals enter judgment in the plaintiffs favor, thus overturning the district court's decision to uphold Louisiana's ban.

    In Puerto Rico, having already abandoned the defense of the suit, "Conde Vidal v. Garcia Padilla," presently before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla issued an executive order to change the codified law in Puerto Rico to allow same-sex couples to marry, and gave all government agencies a 15-day window in which to comply (until 13 July 2015, or earlier).

  • 380. davepCA  |  June 27, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Excellent summary, thanks!!

  • 381. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    Dave, that's why I didn't post much yesterday on Announcement Day, as I was too busy trying to keep track of the immediate fall-out in the many pending cases which had not yet been resolved. Plus, there's still quite a bit of unfinished court business left over for the coming week. See my next post, as we're not done.

  • 382. DrBriCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 12:33 am

    I agree with Dave. Excellent summary! I found most of the above information as well, but it was tough pouring to the multiple articles just going over the big decision to find the details about the individual states. Great job.

  • 383. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Dr Bri, as per usual, you're so sweet!!

    Thanks everyone for the compliments.

  • 384. F_Young  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:24 am

    Thanks, Rick. Your work is much appreciated.,

  • 385. SeattleRobin2  |  June 27, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    Hilarious cartoon from the Chicago Tribune. Scalia and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.

  • 386. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    Robin, no doubt, Scalia will next be seen surreptitiously cruising DC desperately looking for a Latin Mass.

  • 387. RemC  |  June 28, 2015 at 6:44 am

    Thanks for posting!!!

  • 388. RnL2008  |  June 27, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    There are many articles regarding yesterdays ruling…..some are in agreement and some are not, the not ones just really frustrate me. Here is a good one:
    The Court’s decision striking down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will be regarded as a landmark ruling advancing equality and liberty. It is the Court playing exactly the role that it should in society: protecting those who have been traditionally discriminated against and extending to them a right long regarded as fundamental.

    The difference between the majority and the dissents, and between the liberal and conservative commentators, is about the appropriate role of the Supreme Court in a democratic society. Not surprisingly, the four dissenting opinions all accuse the majority of undue judicial activism and usurping the democratic process. This is always the dissent’s charge when the majority strikes down a law.

    Some like this one:
    Just two terms ago in Windsor, a five-Justice majority emphatically reaffirmed the authority of states to decide whether to adopt same-sex marriage on the basis of democratic deliberation. Windsor invalidated the federal marriage definition in the Defense of Marriage Act because it undermined New York’s decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples. The Court left no doubt that the states’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” was the hinge on which Windsor turned. DOMA’s federal marriage definition was invalid because it wrongly sought “to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married.”

    Windsor did not just mention state authority over marriage in a footnote. Windsor rhapsodized about it. Over sixteen paragraphs, the majority:

    The problem that SCOTUS truly faced yesterday was that if they upheld the ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, by leaving the decision up to the States, they essentially would have taken the wind and momentum out of Marriage Equality and thrown it back roughly to before the beginning back in 1971. In the last 24 hours I've read many articles from the Governors who want to fight the ruling and claim to want to protect the religious freedoms of ONLY those individuals who want to continue to cause harm to Gays and Lesbians……..SCOTUS knew back in October of 2014 how Marriage Equality was going to eventually become legal and a fundamental right…….and had Judge Sutton and Cook taken the hint from SCOTUS when they denied cert to the cases from the 4th, 7th and 10th, yesterdays ruling might have not happened for probably another year or two, but it was eventually going to come and so I am grateful for Justice Kennedy……..but not for his courage, but more for his tenacity, for being who he is……..I mean Justice Scalia predicated that by overturning Bower's in favor of Lawrence, he stated then that marriage was gonna be a comin' and yet, he still dissent from the majority……..seems that some were not pleased with this ruling as some were not please in the Loving ruling and the folks who truly AREN'T pleased are folks who are so afraid of what folks may find out about them, that they can't even admit to themselves why they are so afraid…….we as a Nation should be thrilled with the outcome yesterday, I know I am and for those who AREN'T, well, they will eventually crawl back under their rocks and fade……but they will NEVER truly disappear and we should NEVER truly let them disappear because if we do, they will return with a vengeance to harm us.

  • 389. VIRick  |  June 27, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    Unfinished Court Business for the Coming Week

    In Alabama, Judge Granade still needs to lift her stay in the "Strawser" class-action suit, thus placing all county probate judges, statewide, under her jurisdiction.

    The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals needs to dismiss the several appeals in the multiple marriage cases from both Florida and Alabama.

    The district court in Georgia needs to issue a summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

    The district court in North Dakota needs to issue two summary judgments in the plaintiffs' favor, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

    The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals needs to dismiss the appeals in the marriage cases from both Arkansas and South Dakota (if they haven't already been withdrawn).

    The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals must immediately lift its stay in the Mississippi appeal, and then dismiss the appeal itself (if by that point, it hasn't already been withdrawn).

    The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals must issue a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the Louisiana appeal, and then remand the case, with instructions, back to the district court so that that court can then overturn its own ruling, in light of the Supreme Court's decision.

    The Louisiana Supreme Court needs to dismiss the appeal in the state case, allowing the lower court ruling to stand which had stricken the marriage ban for same-sex couples..

    Strictly as a legal formality, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals need to pointedly dismiss the Texas appeal (thus assuring that both Abbott and Paxton have been told).

    In Alabama, Roy Moore, and the majority of members on the Alabama Supreme Court, need to find new jobs, as they're not fit for their current positions.

    And someone needs to do something about Kansas.

  • 390. DrBriCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 12:35 am

    Thanks for the recap! After this all tidies up, we'll be back to just watching other countries enter the ME fold!

    "And someone needs to do something about Kansas."

    Ironic that one of the final holdouts would be Dorothy's state…. And yes, the glacial pace the federal judge has taken in clarifying his orders has been astounding.

  • 391. F_Young  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:44 am

    DrBriCA: "After this all tidies up, we'll be back to just watching other countries enter the ME fold!"

    Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The war over marriage is not over in the US by any means. The next phase of the religious war against LGBTs is just starting.

    The anti-gays are seeking a special right for businesses, schools, hospitals and other groups, as well as individuals, to discriminate against LGBTs and their marriages on the basis of religious doctrine or whatever ad hoc religious rationale any bigoted individual can concoct.

    Again, the war will be fought in the legislatures, the media and the courts. Again, it will be a huge battle, and we will have some victories and some losses. Complete victory is far from certain.

    The issue will come before SCOTUS in 2 to 4 years, and possibly again in the following years if the court keeps deciding on a piecemeal basis. It would have been so much simpler if the court had simply found that discriminination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.

    Let's hope that the make-up of the court is favorable; that will depend on the health of the incumbents and on the results of the next election. The next election will be critical for the future of LGBT rights in the US; the Democrats need to win majorities in the Senate and House and elect a Democratic president..

  • 392. DrBriCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:54 am

    No, I'm well aware of the discrimination battles ahead. They even talked about it at the rally I went to on Friday.

    I just meant for myself that I often would Google under new the headline "same sex marriage," so soon the big news with that tagline will be sporadic announcements about other countries. And yes, there will still be newswires about conservatives blocking marriages for some 'religious freedom' reason or other. But for now, I look forward to seeing when marriage equality comes to Australia, Northern Ireland, all Mexican states officially, etc.

  • 393. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    A Summary of the Unfinished Court Business in Kansas

    In Kansas, there are actually 3 different court jurisdictions which now need to weigh in and rule on various aspects of the mess which AG Schmidt has caused, all in light of the Supreme Court's decision:

    1. At the district court level, in the expanded and revised case, "Marie v. Moser," Judge Crabtree needs to rule to accept the expansion and the revisions, and then immediately issue the clarification of his previous orders.

    2. The Kansas Supreme Court needs to issue a more definitive ruling regarding state-wide marriage performance, a matter it had put on hold pending SCOTUS, thus, in the meantime, allowing each state district judge to use their own discretion on whether or not they'd allow marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples within their judicial district. That's no longer a discretionary matter.

    3. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals needs to summarily dismiss, and do so immediately and quite harshly, whatever it was from the original "Marie v. Moser" case that AG Schmidt had appealed. The circuit court needs to pointedly remind Kansas that circuit precedent was established over a year ago when they upheld the striking down of the Utah ban, then reconfirmed it when they did the same with the Oklahoma appeal, decisions which were made final when SCOTUS denied certiorari to both on 6 October 2014. A ruling on this matter from the 10th Circuit Court is particularly important in light of Kansas' continuing refusal to recognize marriages between same-sex couples for other state purposes. In fact, "Evans v. Utah" alone, the Utah recognition case, upheld by the 10th Circuit, ought to be sufficient precedent to bring Kansas into line, but may still need to be shoved into their faces.

    Louisiana may well be the last state to allow marriages between same-sex couples to be performed, but Kansas is likely to be the last state to legally recognize such marriages for other state purposes.

  • 394. guitaristbl  |  June 28, 2015 at 6:22 am

    The last two points especially…
    I doubt the Alabama "Supreme Court" will do anything to stop marriages, they know they would be in violation of supreme court precedent.
    As for Kansas judge Crabtree has to do something soon.

  • 395. RemC  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:20 am

    Where's the Good Witch of the North when you need her?

  • 396. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 12:01 am

    Tech companies celebrate SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage

    Facebook has introduced a new feature that lets users show off their support for marriage equality by superimposing a rainbow over their profile picture. The tool is available here at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally announced the Celebrate Pride tool on his page following the US Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry, reported.

    Twitter too joined in the Gay pride celebration. Users can automatically make a tiny rainbow heart appear in their tweets by including the #LoveWins hashtag.

    Google too has rainbow coloured surprise for its users. If you type ‘Gay Pride’ or ‘Gay Marriage’ in the Google search bar, the results page has a little rainbow coloured heart on top, along with a human chain of rainbow coloured people.

    Apple added an LGBT section on the App Store and iTunes store but Apple is commemorating something more other than SCOTUS judgement. Apple’s LGBT section is to remember the 1969 Stonewall riots which took place in a pub in New York when police attacked members of the gay community. …

  • 397. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 12:34 am

    Gay rights activists in Asia, where no country allows same-sex couples to legally marry, are upbeat about prospects for a change following the landmark United States Supreme Court ruling legalising such marriages in every state of the nation. A look at some of the reactions and background on gay rights:


    In Thailand, one of the most tolerant countries in Asia for gays and a top tourist gay destination, there have been attempts by civil societies to introduce a bill that would extend the same rights to same-sex couples. A draft of a new constitution under the military junta that took power in a coup last year contains a clause aimed at protecting the rights of gay and transgender people. The wording would make it illegal to discriminate according to gender. "For Thailand, the momentum is already shifting. In the new constitution that is being drafted, gender is mentioned in a clause, guaranteeing the rights to everyone, regardless of their sexes. With this new example set by the US, we will surely move forward. But now, let's the celebrate with them. I'm very glad for them," said gay rights activist Natee Teerarojjanapongs.

    South Korea

    South Koreans' attitudes toward sexual minorities have been shaped by a patriarchal culture that emphasises traditional values and the experience of military dictatorships that condemned homosexuality. Conservative Christianity, which was mainly imported from the US, is strong in the country and a powerful political lobby. "Following the legalization of same-sex marriages in European countries, the decision in the US strengthens the sense that this is the inevitable way of moving forward, and South Korean politicians will be required to express their thoughts on it," said Han Ga-ram, an openly-gay human rights lawyer and activist.

    Hong Kong

    "It's one step forward for the United States that leaves Hong Kong one further step behind," said lawyer Michael Vidler. Vidler is part of a legal team challenging a government decision to deny a dependent visa to a gay British woman so she can live with her partner in the socially conservative southern Chinese city. The pair formed a civil partnership in 2011 and moved to Hong Kong the same year after the woman's partner landed a job. But the woman, identified only as QT, has been twice denied a dependent visa, leaving her unable to work. The outcome of the case could have an impact on the city's reputation as a global financial center and leading business hub. While the US ruling won't have any effect on legislation in the specially administered Hong Kong, "clearly it shows that the tide is turning, in fact has turned, and Hong Kong has been left behind," said Vidler.


    In Japan, homosexuality is not illegal, "but the atmosphere is such that most people feel homosexuals should not exist," said Kazuyuki Minami, a lawyer in Osaka. "It's tough. It's hard to come out to families, friends and in the workplace." Minami held a marriage ceremony with his own partner, who is also a lawyer, in 2011. Though Japan has some very popular transgender entertainment personalities, homosexuality is not widely accepted in its mainstream culture. Schools tend to foster specific male and female models for behavior.


    The news has quickly spread in China's social media, where the US Supreme Court's ruling rekindled public discussions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage in this traditionally conservative but largely atheist country. Li Yinhe, a leading Chinese sexologist who has long urged Beijing to legalize same-sex marriage, said that the US ruling could be exemplary for China and help sway the public opinion in favour of same-sex marriage in China. "The Chinese people usually think that China is a poor country and the United States is rich, and that what America has achieved is our future goal," she said. "I think the ruling will have a big impact on China and may promote the legalisation of same-sex marriage in China."

  • 398. F_Young  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:56 am

    Thanks for posting this, Ian.

  • 399. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:08 am

    Sometimes this is the best part of a LGBT rights win. The popular discussion of what the decision DOESN'T mean, and where we go next. The national media do a really good job of summarizing the current state of, in this case, LGBT protections across the country. And if the New York Times is paying attention, other people are paying attention.

    Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing [New York Times]

  • 400. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:16 am

    SCOTUSblog has posted its symposium on the Obergefell decision. Check it out.

    Special Feature: Obergefell v. Hodges symposium

  • 401. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:50 am

    Steve Saunders, in his symposium post, makes a fascinating point that the Republican Party and the religious right have been "hoist with [their] own petard". By passing the state constitutional amendments, they were the architects of their own defeat. In a linked article, Saunders calls it a 'political process' argument for equal protection.

    "…heightened federal judicial attention is warranted under the Equal Protection Clause when a majority not only imposes a disadvantage on a minority, but also rigs the political process to prevent the matter from being reconsidered by later majorities in the light of better evidence or the evolution of public attitudes. The Chief Justice observed that courts “do not have the flexibility of legislatures” to consider the wisdom of public policy or take all views into account. But thanks to the state constitutional amendments, no legislature in any remaining anti-marriage equality state actually possessed such “flexibility” today."

    Walter Dellinger made the same point in an Amicus podcast on Slate.

  • 402. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2015 at 6:26 am

    Just found this updating page of reactions to the ME ruling. Enjoy.

    Supreme Court Rules on Gay Marriage – Highlights [New York Times]

  • 403. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2015 at 6:35 am

    Frank Bruni at the New York Times. Always worth reading.

    Our Weddings, Our Worth

  • 404. davepCA  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:07 am

    Thanks for posting this link, Sagesse, That's a great article. Very well done.

  • 405. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2015 at 6:48 am

    Delightful and hilarious. If you don't watch 'Vicious', you should. I'm not promoting the New York Times… I just keep finding these delightful nuggets.

    Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi in a Gay Pride March Debut [New York Times]

  • 406. RemC  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:02 am

    Confession time: I've loved seeing landmarks go rainbow and national brands tout equality, and I'm reading everything online I can get my hands on (thanks for the links, EoT'ers!), but otherwise, I haven't been feeling overwhelmed the way I think I ought to. I was shocked that Marriage was the first opinion released on Friday, but otherwise, it all rolled out the way so many of us predicted it would. After reading every pro ruling from every court across the nation, it didn't seem feasible that SCOTUS would confirm the 6th. Maybe it just hasn't sunk in? Reading Roberts' dissent was a head-shaking experience. And all these predictions of American civilization coming to an end…I need someone to slap me and say, "Snap out of it!"

  • 407. davepCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:20 am

    Go celebrate. Go to a Pride Parade. Go to a City Hall or county court house where same sex couples are finally marrying and watch some couples get married and cheer them on. Maybe volunteer to help if there is a crowd and a need for volunteers. Bring some cupcakes or roses or something to add to the festivities. Have yourself an awesome day and do things to make it memorable.

  • 408. RemC  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:06 am

    Dave, maybe that's the thing. We got in the car for a frustrating rainy trip to MI on Friday to a small town in MI. Here, there's not a ripple of difference—not even clouds of locusts or earthquakes threatening to slip the bluffs into the Lake. Not seen anyone throw themselves off a toof or spontaneously combust. Everything is totally ordinary—as it should be. The really new normal.

  • 409. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:06 am

    Conservative Republicans question what's next after gay marriage ruling

    While some Republican presidential candidates urged action to counter the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage, grassroots activists at a conservative conference this weekend said they preferred to focus on limiting the damage.

    Several presidential hopefuls at the Western Conservative Summit in the swing state of Colorado called for constitutional amendments or civil disobedience to turn back the Court's landmark ruling on Friday.

    But Christian conservatives who have been on the front lines of a battle to stop the advance of gay marriage indicated it was time to cut their losses. Rather, they would prefer to ensure that the ruling would not restrict their ability to practice their religion as they saw fit. …

    The head of a Republican gay rights group that was denied a booth at the conference said his party should stop fighting a battle it has already lost. "Now this is the law of the land, what can we do to ensure that there is religious freedom for all and there is equality of marriage under the law for all?" said George Gramer, president of the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans. …

    Note carefully that last paragraph! All the way to the bitter end, the Log Cabin Republicans were STILL being ostracized by the Republican party!! Does anyone still want to argue that the entire idea of Log Cabin Republicans wasn't an utterly complete waste of both time and money?!?

  • 410. F_Young  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:59 am

    Linked article: "Live and let live has been said repeatedly, and that is part of the genius of America," John Andrews, director of the conservative Centennial Institute, told Reuters."
    ….."Some said the ruling was irrelevant so long as it did not interfere with their religion."

    So, then why have you been fighting marriage equality tooth and mail for the last few years?? Was it only about raising funds, energizing the base and getting out the vote? Say it isn't so.

  • 411. allan120102  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:28 am

    Louisiana and Kansas are really trying hard to be the last state in the union to allow same sex marriages. Unless Kansas governor and attorney general admit defeat they might drag the Kansas case well into July. For Louisiana it might be easier as once the 5th circuit dismiss the case it would only be need for fieldman to change its ruling .I am pretty sure once the 5th circuit rule Mississippi will comply with the ruling.

  • 412. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:50 am

    Hounded and out of work, gay Ukrainians flee rebel east

    Oleksandr had already lost his job for being gay in the rebel Ukrainian bastion of Donetsk when he was approached by two Russian speakers with rifles dangling on their hips. "So what are you, a fag?" one of them asked as the 28-year-old was grabbing a pack of cigarettes at the local kiosk. Lanky but athletic Oleksandr — an avid cook who loves curling up with a book and is particularly partial to board games — said the prejudiced gunmen's suspicions seemed to have been aroused by his expressive gestures and soft voice. Oleksandr mumbled something vaguely without looking up and walked away. "By the end, I was just afraid someone was going to hunt me down and shoot me outside my apartment building," he said.

    The incident happened shortly after guerrillas preaching the socially conservative values espoused by Russian President Vladimir Putin seized parts of eastern Ukraine just over a year ago. Oleksandr has since joined a wave of people — some openly homosexual and others far less so — who have fled the warzone and tried to rebuild life with the help of friends in Kiev. "The Donetsk people started gossipping and exposing each other," the once fast-rising sales manager recalls. He lost his job after a seemingly innocuous remark about another man crept through the social media networks and eventually reached his boss. Oleksandr recalls being told: "You're a good worker but I do not want gays on my staff."…

    Ukraine's warlords have done little to hide their attachment to such an uncompromising approach to alternative lifestyles. Separatist leader Denis Pushilin told reporters last year that he "never had, and never will, have gay friends". The self-proclaimed People's Republic of Donetsk is drafting a law banning rights groups of all types that receive foreign funding. "The level of homophobia in the east is high. It is worse now than it was in the Soviet era," said gay rights activist Oleksandr Zinchenkov. "Many gays and lesbians have simply fled."

    Yulia ended up in a four-room refuge built out of a dilapidated 1970s flat on the sleepy outskirts of Kiev. The 29-year-old lesbian says it is the only such safe house in Kiev she knows of — and one set up thanks solely to a Western donor who asked to remain nameless. … "The friends I still have left (in Donetsk) have all gone into hiding," she says with a degree of resignation in her voice. …

  • 413. Silvershrimp0  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:52 am

    I saw this on my Facebook feed. The rail bridge in Clarksville, TN (population 142k) illuminated in rainbow colors.

  • 414. SethInMaryland  |  June 28, 2015 at 11:04 am

    that's cool , things have so far went really well in TN

  • 415. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Jim Obergefell to Continue Fighting for 'Something Bigger Than Me'
    by ABC News Videos 4:06 mins

    Supreme Court Plaintiff Jim Obergefell and gay rights advocate Evan Wolfson on the same-sex marriage victory and what's next for the movement.

  • 416. Waxr  |  June 28, 2015 at 11:32 am

    Support for ME has obviously increased since the decision came out. Opposition has been relatively mild. What will the new polls show?

  • 417. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    There's always an increase in support after a favorable Supreme Court decision. Approval of interracial marriage went from 4% in favor (94% against) in 1958 (the year Richard & Mildred Loving got married) to 20% in favor (73% against) in 1968 (about a year after the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in 1967), and kept climbing steadily higher thereafter. Today, 86% approve of interracial marriage.

    But just before Obergefell was decided, 60% already approved of SSM!! Interracial marriage didn't exceed 60% support until 1997, thirty years after Loving v. Virginia.

    The Loving v. Virginia decision was 9-0 (unanimous), vs.only 5-4 for SSM.

  • 418. netoschultz  |  June 28, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    Judge Posner of the 7th circuit wrote a wonderful article about the dissents in Obergefell. He was the judge who wrote the opinion strucking down marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin

  • 419. 1grod  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Richard Posner – of 'go figure' fame' takes on Roberts and Alito's dissent. He is not kind to either as evidenced in Posner's statement 'the chief justice’s dissent is heartless' . As said by me in an earlier posting in this thread, this chief justice has claimed a responsibility to foster collegiality among the Supremes, and promoting credibility for the decisions made of this and past Supreme Courts. It is self-evident that the implementation of the Kennedy majority's decision must be achieved with the least acrimony as is possible if it is to enhance the credibility of the Court as an arbitrating branch for all levels of government. The chief justice must well know that Scalia and Thomas' shot across their Court's bow in the AL AG Strange v Searcy lifting on stay [Feb 9 2015] only encouraged the AL chief Justice, indeed the AL's Supreme Court, to ignore the US Supreme Court's decision. and indeed resulted in tensions between the AL state courts and federal district courts ( e.g. Granade). For a man who stated '“the most successful chief justices helped their colleagues speak with one voice", his opinion and those of the other dissenters in Obergefell speaks to his failure to achieve that benchmark of success: 'go figure'.

  • 420. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    Reading Posner is always and forever good for the mind and spirit, as he's so crisp and clear and to the point,– and shows just exactly how mealy-mouthed and namby-pamby Roberts really is.

  • 421. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Police intervene in LGBT Pride Parade with tear gas, water cannons

    Turkish police fired water cannon and rubber pellets to disperse a gay pride parade in central ฤฐstanbul on Sunday, after organisers said they had been refused permission to march this year because of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    Police sprayed jets of water from trucks at crowds of hundreds who had gathered – many in colourful clothing and waving rainbow flags – near the central Taksim Square neighbourhood, one of Istanbul's busiest shopping and tourist areas.

    As the crowds fell back, men who appeared to be plain clothes police officers detained several demonstrators, according to footage from a Reuters cameraman at the scene.

    The news portal reported that the police also used plastic bullets and detained a protestor who was standing in front of a TOMA. The crowd used whistles to protest the police. Republican People's Party (CHP) ฤฐstanbul deputy Mahmut Tanal also climbed on a TOMA, asking the police to stop the intervention.

    While homosexuality is not a crime in Turkey, unlike many other Muslim countries, homophobia remains widespread. Critics say President Recep Tayyip ErdoฤŸan and the ruling AK Party he founded have shown little interest in expanding rights for minorities, gays and women, and are intolerant of dissent.

  • 422. Rick55845  |  June 28, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    Deleted my comment, which was in poor taste.

  • 423. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Justice Scalia is the Supreme Court’s real loser in Obamacare ruling

    … This battle over the correct way to interpret statutes has been a defining characteristic of Scalia’s jurisprudence. Thursday’s decision confirms that he has lost.

    Note: This is the 400th comment in this thread!

  • 424. Rick55845  |  June 28, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    Yep, we need a new thread. No need to wait for the other shoe to fall. It did already.

  • 425. F_Young  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Rick55845: "Yep, we need a new thread"

    I agree. In the meantime, here's a tip.

    The "Jump to" links in the left column of the home page no longer work. In most cases, you can find new posts at the bottom of page 2 of the comments thread. If you can't find the new post, click on the poster's name in the left column; those links work and they take you to the user's page. which shows all their recent posts.

  • 426. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    It's way easier to just sort the comments by "Last Activity" with a single click…

  • 427. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    Conservative churches confront new reality on gay marriage

    At First Baptist Dallas, where the pulpit was adorned Sunday with red, white and blue bunting to honor the Fourth of July, the pastor called the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling "an affront in the face of Almighty God."

    The iconic rainbow colors that bathed the White House Friday night after the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide represent "depravity, degradation and what the Bible calls sexual perversion," the Rev. Robert Jeffress said. …

    On the first Sunday after the high court ruling, theological conservatives grappled with their new status as what the Southern Baptists call "a moral minority" on marriage. Ministers were defiant about publicly upholding their views, and warned church members to prepare themselves for a rough time ahead.

    "Welcome to the new world. It's just changed for you Christians. You are going to be persecuted," Alabama's Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said from the pulpit at the Kimberly Church of God, in Kimberly, Ala. …

  • 428. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Jindal: Louisiana Will Obey Supreme Court on Marriage Equality

    Today, 28 June 2015, Governor Bobby Jindal said that Louisiana will comply with the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.

    “We don’t have a choice. Our agencies will comply with the court order,” the Republican presidential contender said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” after being asked why his state is the only one that has not yet issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Appearing from the state capital, Baton Rouge, the governor explained his state is waiting on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to reverse the previous district court ruling upholding Louisiana's marriage ban for same-sex couples, at which point it can then implement the Supreme Court’s ruling.

  • 429. guitaristbl  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    If even Jindal says he will comply that leaves Brownback as the last defiant a-hole in the country. Who would have thought Kansas out of all red states would end up a contestant for the last state to comply.

  • 430. brchaz  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Another defiant asshole here:

    County clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on religious objections to gay marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Sunday. Paxton noted that clerks who refuse to issue licenses can expect to be sued, but added that “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs,” in many cases without charge.

  • 431. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 9:43 pm

    If that's the case, then Texas is definitely setting itself up for a show-down.

    As I understand it, unlike Florida, Georgia, Alabama, or even Kansas, where residents can obtain their marriage license from any county clerk anywhere in the state, in Texas, residents are restricted to obtaining it from their county of residence.

    So, if a same-sex couple in some boondocks county in the middle of nowhere in Texas just happens to have a twit/fool/idiot/nut job/religious fanatic for a county clerk, then they're stuck (unless they travel to New Mexico or Oklahoma and obtain their marriage license out-of-state, as non-residents can obtain their marriage license from either state.). Still, I smell lawsuits with punitive damages being added, once our side wins.

  • 432. DJSNOLA  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:20 am

    Yes this will definitely be the case.

  • 433. RemC  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:24 am

    It has appeared evident for sometime that this entire religious liberty issue will be an upcoming battle field. Interesting, too, given the references to it in Roberts' dissent.

  • 434. F_Young  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:44 am

    RemC: "…this entire religious liberty issue will be an upcoming battle field."

    I would say war, not battle, and it has already started in the legislatures, churches and media, and will soon also erupt in election campaigns, legal and constitutional initiatives and the courts.

    I would expect it to go to the SCOTUS one or more times in the next few years. So, it is critical that SCOTUS' composition remain favorable. That is why the next elections are so important.

  • 435. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:49 am

    And I hope in every case that comes up it's shown that these poseurs are ONLY applying their "sincerely-held religious beliefs" when it comes to LGBT folk, not to those whom (according to the Bible they supposedly believe in) Jesus explicitly, vociferously and repeatedly condemned—adulterers (including divorcés), those having premarital sex, those of other faiths, liars, hypocrites, misers, userers, thieves…—while he said virtually nothing about homosexuals. In other words, they're acting in a selectively discriminatory manner wholly inconsistent with the indisputable teachings and emphasis of their professed belief system (a core tenet of which is "judge not lest ye be judged", by the way). The constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief, not the freedom to ACT however you please, according to whatever capricious, inconsistent, hypocritical application of belief system you CHOOSE to adopt, ignoring all legal strictures that are inconvenient to you.

  • 436. ianbirmingham  |  June 28, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    Email to ACLU Members from Jim Obergefell / ACLU – "Help Me Thank Them"

    Two years ago, my husband John and I filed a lawsuit to have our marriage recognized in our home state of Ohio. Our ACLU case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided yesterday that same-sex couples nationwide have the right to marry.

    I can’t help but imagine how John, who passed away three months after our wedding, would have relished that great victory. I’m also thinking of the many, many individuals who came before us in this struggle — those who took the first brave steps to demand the freedom to marry.

    Today, I’m hoping you’ll join me in thanking those ACLU clients. Their names are not in the news, but they deserve every bit of credit we can give them.

    The road to this incredible victory stretches back to 1970, to Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, who brought the first challenge to laws against same-sex marriage. It runs up to 2013, to Edie Windsor, who toppled the Defense of Marriage Act. And it extends through 2014, when Kyle Lawson, Joanne Harris, Paul Rummel, and many others fought for the freedom to marry in their home states. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to these heroic people.

    They faced tremendous odds to fight for their rights—and the rights of us all. Join me in thanking them today.

    And thank you, too, for courageously standing with us.

    Jim Obergefell, ACLU Client

    The linked Thank You message reads:

    To all ACLU clients who have taken a stand for marriage equality—from Jack Baker to Edie Windsor and beyond:

    The road to the freedom to marry has been a long one, and we recognize that your brave steps have brought us to this incredible moment. Collectively, you have helped us win the dignity and respect that comes with having our relationships recognized.

    Our deepest thanks for acting with courage and conviction to challenge discrimination. Today, America is a better place because of you.

    16,203 ACLU Supporters

    The number of supporters in the last line goes up every time somebody signs.

    Click the link below to join Jim's Thank You message:

  • 437. brchaz  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    Loving vs. Virginia was also an ACLU case!

  • 438. guitaristbl  |  June 28, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    A lot of procedural legal actions need to take place from now on. Apart from the ones VIRick listed so eloquently appeals need to be dismissed or withdrawn from the 9th circuit (Alaska, Arizona, Montana) and also tomorrow we should expect at the order list of SCOTUS the dismissal of Latta v. Otter, the Idaho case which should end the legal journey this case has gone through. Also the 4th circuit must dismiss the cases from the Carolinas.

    The most important thing is for the 5th to do something. They cant totally punt, they have to at least summarily reverse the judgement on the Louisiana case. They may as well release a ruling affirming the judgements in Mississippi's and Texas's cases and reversing the judgement in the Louisiana case. They must have written something all these months anyway…It's just Smith's dissent that now goes to the garbage bin (if he has bothered to write it).

    And apart from all the 50 states there needs to be a clarification on the legal situation in the US virgin islands, the northern marianna islands and american samoa.
    From what I read american samoa does not even have a federal district court ! Just a local district court and a high court with two judges sitting there till reagan and bush senior.

    Whats going to happen in these 3 territories ?

  • 439. allan120102  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:18 pm

    The 10th circuit also need to dismiss Kansas challenge of injunction if that happens I believe marriage equality will be achieve in all counties. I see more probable this than a ruling from judge Crabtree but we will see tomorrow.

  • 440. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    "…. appeals need to be dismissed or withdrawn from the 9th circuit (Alaska, Arizona, Montana) and also tomorrow we should expect at the order list of SCOTUS the dismissal of Latta v. Otter, the Idaho case which should end the legal journey this case has gone through. Also the 4th circuit must dismiss the cases from the Carolinas."

    Guitar, yes, indeed, for thoroughness and completeness, all these hopeless appeals need to either be withdrawn or dismissed.

    "What's going to happen in these 3 territories?

    Plus, I knew you were going to ask that question, but at least in terms of the Virgin Islands, I'd prefer to hold my answer until we get a new thread tomorrow.

  • 441. DrBriCA  |  June 28, 2015 at 11:34 pm

    "I knew you were going to ask that question, but at least in terms of the Virgin Islands, I'd prefer to hold my answer until we get a new thread tomorrow."

    Leaving us in antici——pation, I see. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • 442. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    DrBri, I'm sending you an e-mail with the details. See what you think, given that you have already had one "heads up" previously.

  • 443. allan120102  |  June 28, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    Depending on the highest court of Slovenia and Colombia they might be the next marriage equality countries. That would be awesome to win two more countries.

  • 444. scream4ever  |  June 28, 2015 at 11:59 pm

    I was volunteering at the Twin Cities Pride festival on Saturday and met two women vacationing from Slovenia. They were very surprised/flattered that I knew what was going on in their country!

  • 445. VIRick  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    Today, 28 June 2015, coinciding with Gay Pride Day (la jornada del Orgullo Gay) in Bogotá, the President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, asked the judiciary and the legal authorities to approve same-sex marriage and also urged them to support the right of same-sex couples to adopt.

  • 446. SethInMaryland  |  June 28, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    I expect we may hear from the 5th tomorrow . I suspect that Patrick Higginbotham will not hold back the order much longer

  • 447. Raga  |  June 29, 2015 at 6:48 am

    Order list is out. No action on the Idaho petitions yet. It should have been a no-brainer to deny cert, but maybe those petitions are getting the respect they deserve by being brushed into a "clean-up" heap at the very end of the Term.

  • 448. RemC  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:29 am

    An earlier reference to Judge Posner's description of Roberts' dissent as "heartless" at Slate, led me to read the bouquet of writings regarding the dissents. Highly recommend reading them all.

    I love me that guy.

  • 449. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:31 am

    And you thought Obergefell was contentious ? Glossip is 127 pages with 2 dissents and one concurrence read from the bench and Scalia having some nice words for Breyer. Conservatives won here.
    Liberals won the Arizona case about gerrymandering and the assignment of an independent commision.

  • 450. RemC  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:12 am

    Good result for the Arizona case!

  • 451. SoCal_Dave  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:49 am

    Obergefell was obviously the star of this term (and with good reason – still can't stop smiling when I think about it), but IMO Arizona is extremely important as well. I think gerrymandering has created so much grief for us. This doesn't necessarily "fix" that, but at least continues to allow a way to address it. Great news.

  • 452. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:17 am

    5-4 lethal injections upheld, Ginsburg and Breyer would have reconsider constitutionality of death pentaly

  • 453. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Jefferson Parish in Louisiana, the largest parish in population, has begun issuing marriage licenses, defying the Governor and the Attorney General. The parish is part of the New Orleans metropolitan area and is a Republican stronghold. and was represented by Jindal when he served in Congress.

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