Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Defending our Marriage Victory Won’t Be Easy


By Matt Baume

Did you have a nice weekend? Last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects marriage for everyone — including same-sex couples. It is a decision we have been waiting decades for. And now, all our work is, well, actually, not quite done yet. Let’s take a look at what the court just decided, and what comes next.

There are two huge wins in the Supreme Court decision: one is that the US Constitution guarantees equal protection when it comes to marriage for same-sex couples. That means that states can no longer refuse to let LGBTs marry. The second is that each state has to recognize licenses from every other state. This isn’t just a win for same-sex couples. And it’s not a loss for anyone. When the court upholds the Constitution, expanding equality and justice, everybody wins.

So, now what? Everyone’s still kind of figuring that out. Across the vast majority of the country, couples are getting married and having their existing marriages recognized. But we’re probably going to see a few isolated pockets of resistance. For example, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said that clerks may be able to turn same-sex couples away. State officials also said that marriages shouldn’t start yet. But a lot of local clerks have were like, no, we’re starting now, and began issuing licenses right away.

Conflicts like that will probably keep popping up here and there for a while. Missouri’s looking at getting out of the marriage business altogether. North Carolina just passed a bill that lets officials refuse to issue licenses to all couples, gay and straight. Florida clerks have done the same, without waiting for a law making it legal for them to do so. There will be a couple places where people will still have to fight for the rights that the Constitution guarantees.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the same thing happened in the 1950s when the Supreme Court ordered an end to segregated schools. Some places just closed their schools altogether, rather than integrate them. Kids literally had nowhere to go, because officials preferred to deprive everyone of their rights rather than extend those rights to a minority.

But that tactic didn’t last. With integration, as with marriage, the Supreme Court’s orders were very clear, and civil rights groups fought to have the schools re-opened so the long hard work of integration could move ahead. Over time, the same thing will happen with marriage, but it won’t happen by itself. There will still be parts of the country where couples will have to fight for Constitutionally guaranteed rights. We got the victory — now we need to defend it.

But now’s also a good time to step back, reflect, celebrate, and thank the millions of people who helped make history. This win is thanks in large part to pioneers who stood up for equality in the 70s, leaders like Andrew Sullivan and Evan Wolfson who expanded the conversation in the 80s, organizations like Lambda Legal and GLAD that fought for equality in the 90s, and the growing chorus of voices from the ACLU to NCLR and HRC in the 2000s. But of course it’s not just organizations that made this happen. Whether you marched in a parade, or held a sign, or talked to your family about why marriage matters, this win is also thanks to you.

Now you might be wondering what’s next for this show, Marriage News Watch? There’s still going to be marriage news to report, though it’ll be very different news from what it was before. We’re heading into a new world, and while there’s no telling exactly what’s going to happen, it’s definitely going to be exciting. So say tuned for more to come.

Thanks again so much for watching, sharing, liking, subscribing, and commenting on Marriage News Watch. Keep in touch, and I’ll see you next week.


  • 1. Aaron  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:31 am

    I got choked up all over again watching this. It's all been so emotional since Friday's announcement!

  • 2. mlenzman  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:32 am

    In reading Paxton's full opinion, rather than his press release, I find him to be me far more tentative on the ability of county clerks to avoid issuance of licenses. Yes, he says that delegating the authority to lower level clerks may survive court scrutiny. But he also warns that refusing to issue a license at all will put clerks in violation of state law that they "shall" issue a license to qualified applicants. A court he says, must balance any religiously-based claim against the right of the applicant to obtain a marriage license. "Such a factually specific inquiry is beyond the scope of what this opinion can answer."

    To accompany that waffle, the opinion is sprinkled with many "mays".

    If I were a clerk, I wouldn't find this comforting.

  • 3. Zack12  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    Someone should remind the clerks they might get legal help but in the end, they will be the ones stuck with the bill when they lose.

  • 4. sfbob  |  June 29, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    Yup. Legal help is one thing, legal cover is quite another.

  • 5. KahuBill  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:37 am

    One of the first forms of resistance to marriage equality will be coming from the religious angle. I foresee two avenues of opposition to equality. On the legislative/legal side is the issue of the First Amendment "Free exercise of religion" clause and the Federal and various state statues passed hysterically a while ago.

    Another are will be in the area of employment discrimination. Can you fire gays who marry because you learn they are gay or does the constitutional right to marry protect you from being fired because you married someone even if of the same gender. Then there is the issue of refusing to cover spouses on health plans and other employee benefits because of religious objections.

    The Roman Catholic Church and some others have been firing teachers, church musicians and others for marrying a person of the same gender. It raises the issues of who is a "minister" and what activities are part of the religious mission of the church body. Can gay married doctors, nurses, teachers of secular subjects etc who marry their partners be fired or barred from employment in Catholic hospitals, schools etc.? Can these institutions refuse to provide benefits to their spouses that are provided to opposite gender spouses?

    I am sure this list will grow.

    Judge Posner in his article in Slate points to the issue of "animus" that the recent opinions largely duck and he concludes that irrational animus is no less irrational because it is supported by sectarian relious beliefs.

  • 6. Eric  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:29 am

    The Constitution doesn't protect people from being fired for getting married, but anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status do.

  • 7. KACinSTL  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:13 am

    I've searched and searched for information Matt wrote in his article about Missouri stopping all marriages and found nothing. I did come across several articles about MISSISSIPPI stopping all marriages though. I'd like to know where his information came from or if he just didn't proofread for mistakes.

  • 8. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Yes, it was a slip: it's certain folks in Mississippi who are considering an end run—I can't even conceive how they could achieve their goal without doing something grossly discriminatory and unconstitutional or stripping all opposite-sex couples of federal recognition in the process. In Missouri, the governor would certainly veto any similar attempts, and schismatics would find it impossible to find sufficient support to override a veto (if they could even pass such a bill in the first place).

  • 9. alatarus  |  June 29, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    Nope definitely not Missouri, as the counties seem to be falling into place… If GREENE county, in the heart of the Bible and Republican belt can issue licenses on the first day ANYONE can!

  • 10. davepCA  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:47 am

    Oh yeah, it was a wonderful weekend. First was getting the news here early Friday morning and celebrating with all of you, then heading into SF at noon for the celebration there, then more of the same all day Saturday in SF, then the parade on Sunday, with some decompression time with friends at a cafe in the Castro before heading back home.

    Near the beginning of the parade here in SF, something unexpected – Jim Obergefell, lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, riding in the back of a convertible, waving to the crowd. I had no idea he would be here, and it seemed to surprise everyone around me, too. When we all realized it was him, the entire crowd along our section of the parade route just leapt to their feet and roared a cheer that you could have heard a mile away. It was clear that this was a very emotional experience for him as well as for all of us. Thank you, Jim and John, for helping us get this far.

  • 11. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:51 am

    Breakfast special "Antonin Scalia is a douche" in Philadelphia restaurant :

    Sounds yummy.

  • 12. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:04 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 that was represented by Jindal when he served in Congress.

  • 13. domestic_god  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:07 am

    I don't see how this whole "religious freedom" thing with anyone who has a civil service job can fly. Can someone explain how a government employee can argue how the duties of their job are an "exercise of their religion"? I also wonder what the guiding principles are when it comes to determining what the bounds of one's religious beliefs are. I am sure there are many who may have religious objections to divorce, but I've never heard of any county clerk objecting to participate in any of the bureaucratic proceedings of a divorce. If the government is going to start giving exemptions to civil servants for their religious beliefs, where do we draw the line?

  • 14. Aaron  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:11 am

    There is something I do not understand, maybe someone here can help me with it. Why would a couple want to get married in a church that doesn't want them? Isn't that just starting trouble? I'm serious, I don't understand. There are plenty of churches that like us, right? I'm seriously not trying to start trouble here, I just don't understand why a couple would throw a conflict into someone's face like suing to get married in a catholic church when they hate us.

  • 15. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:39 am

    No one is trying to marry in a Catholic Church. This is simply bs put out by the crazies who want to spread fear and loathing against gay people.

  • 16. Aaron  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:48 am

    Oh. Okay. Awesome. Logic is not something the crazies contemplate. I guess. 

  • 17. Eric  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:34 am

    Logic and reason are antithetical to superstition.

  • 18. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Perhaps you're operating from an urban mindset, where alternatives are plentiful. If your local civil servants refuse on personal religious grounds, and all the churches in your area cater only to opposite-sex couples, how far are you expected to travel to exercise your own rights?

  • 19. domestic_god  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Exactly. Which is why civil servants can not be exempted from their duties in serving the public in accordance with the law.

  • 20. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:16 am

    It's like the rumor the crazies are putting out that if you are not signed up with 'Obamacare' and show your 'Obamacare' card, you'll have to pay $2,500 in addition to all the hospital charges, and that is EACH time you go to the ER for treatments.

    No info on where that $2,500 goes, but I'd bet Faux News viewers 'know' it goes to the Federal government.

    Scare tactics, that if not investigated and shown to be incorrect will scare lots of people.

    As to the specific concerns that Aaron has – if a denomination or church is known to be anti-GLBT, then anyone who wants to get married at that church should be considered rather stupid. There are times when people don't know the situation, such as when friends of mine wanted to get married. She asked her minister, but her minister refused because she was marrying a person of another race, and several of the congregants didn't want that to happen in 'their' church. He asked his minister, but his minister refused because he was marrying a person of another race, and several of the congregants didn't want that to happen in 'their' church. The couple got married at City Hall. This was in the last 5 years, the 'Loving' decision was in 1967, and Maryland threw out miscegenation laws before the 'Loving' decision at SCOTUS.

  • 21. seannynj  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    'Obamacare' card…how ridiculous. The Affordable Care Act plans are exactly the same plans being offered by private healthcare providers minus the subsidies.

  • 22. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 29, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    They ARE exactly the same plans because they ARE the same plans, just categorized as platinum, gold, silver, bronze, etc., for convenience of pricing purposes on the Federal and state healthcare web sites.

  • 23. Fortguy  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:18 pm

    Ridiculous? What do you expect from people who insist the poor are walking around with their free Obama Phones

  • 24. itscoldoutside  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:16 am

    As an atheist, I don't even care what kind of licences are granted in different houses of worship. But I demand to be able to obtain a marriage licence from a *government* institution, wherever I may live. That was always the issue. Nothing else.

    I do notice that conflating civil marriage and holy matrimony (or whatever it's called in other religions) seems to mainly be an American thing. Even the staunchest Catholic opponents in my country never bring up this point.

  • 25. domestic_god  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:33 am

    Yes, this mingling of the civil marriage with religious rites actually confuses a lot of simple-minded people, I think. The rules vary from state to state (and maybe even county to county in some places), but we should remove the 'courtesy' the government grants to ministers to serve as the legal officiants and just make it a purely civil affair to become LEGALLY married. Then any couple can go participate in whatever other religious ceremony they want to do in whatever venue they choose, with whichever minister who desires to officiate it.

    Here in Santa Clara County, California, we got a close friend deputized by the county to serve as our officiant. Had a wonderful ceremony in a place of our choosing. It was a delightful experience.

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    Most of Europe has laws that the official marriage takes place at City Hall or wherever, and THEN the couple, if they choose, can get a religious ceremony. Such rules applied even to the Prince of Monaco when he was married in 2011. He got civil married on July 1, then, on July 2, there was a religious ceremony.

  • 27. KahuBill  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    The inability of many here in the USA to differentiate civil marriage under the laws of the from Holy Matrimony under the laws of a Church is an unfortunate consequence of our having been former colonies of England and subject to English common and statutory law prior to our Revolution and independence. In England there was the case developed "Common Law" that the various American Colonies and then the USA adopted as controlling. England had (and still has) an Established Church – the Church of England headed by the Monarch. To become legally married back then you had to go to the Church – period. Later, as in the USA, civil marriage by a government official also became possible.

    In England you can get married in church but the marrige license still has to be signed before a civil registrar in order to be valid. Here in the USA clergy licensed by the State can sign the marriage license effectively acting both for the State and the Church. While civil marriage alone is becoming more common in many areas the confusion of tying marriage as "holy Matrimony" according to the Church " still exists in the minds of many here.

    In addition, there are plenty of religious folk who think that whatever they believe should trump the civil law and apply to everyone else. I merely observe that 6 of the 9 justices on SCOTUS are Roman Catholics. The four dissenters are all Roman Catholics known for being strict observers of that faith tradition.

  • 28. sfbob  |  June 29, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    It is a particularly American phenomenon. In most countries either the religious service IS the marriage (and the state recognizes it because many nations recognize one or more religions as being "official" so the acts of clergy are considered to be actions of the state) or the civil ceremony IS the marriage and the church wedding is merely symbolic, and furthermore happens independently of and separately from the civil marriage. In the US however it is typical for clergy to be granted authority to solemnize a civil marriage while they are conducting the religious service. They are performing a secular function on top of and simultaneously with their religious function. This is a convenience that perhaps came about because during frontier days when population density was low there might not have been any civil authority available to provide legal recognition of the union.

  • 29. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:21 am

    the counties in Texas are starting to wrack up now

  • 30. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:13 am

    I had to laugh: unless you mean something akin to "writhe in anguish" (a poetically ironic image), you want "rack up". "Wrack" only serves as a variant of "rack" in certain other meanings. But I like it: a sort of combination of "rack up" and "crack up", with a shade of "wrack and ruin".

  • 31. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:47 am

    The lowest of the low. A true disgrace to the very essence of justice. This court should just be brought down as a whole and SCOTUS should take over its jurisdiction.

    Granade must lift the stay she put in place when she certified the class action and striked down the ban again. Now.

  • 32. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:50 am

    they need to file suit to Judge Granade right away

  • 33. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Yes, and I hope that Judge Granade awards them very generous legal fees for having had to do so. The people in Alabama should learn that this kind of irresponsible action has a price and they should be more careful about whom they elect to fill positions of authority.

  • 34. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:23 am

    can the judge put the Alabama supreme court as the defendants ? I bet they back off then when they fees have to be paying

  • 35. DACiowan  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:32 am

    False alarm. Roy Moore is saying that Alabama is stalled, but the Alabama Supreme Court only asked for briefs on the current situation.

  • 36. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:47 am

    Update from HRC about Alabama:Today, contrary to some press accounts, the Alabama Supreme Court did not order a stop to the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) called on probate judges that were already issuing marriage licenses to continue to do so—and urged the probate judges that had not yet issued marriage licenses to begin doing so. HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow issued the following statement:

    “There is no justification for delaying or obstructing the clear message of the Supreme Court of the United States—marriage equality must begin in Alabama, and probate judges who stand in the way of that legal imperative risk exposing themselves to legal consequences. There is zero chance of marriage equality being reheard by the Supreme Court—particularly given that all four states that were parties in this case have accepted the outcome—and as a result the Court's holding in Obergefell v. Hodeges should be implemented across the country immediately.”

  • 37. 1grod  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    By my count of 26/67 AL counties, 11 counties with population comprising 40% of the state population are reportedly issuing licenses. A twelfth will begin July 1. While other county probate judges are awaiting clarification before beginning; 3 counties, which represent 3.3% of the state population, have stated that they will not issue any marriage licenses. Chief Justice Moore is attempting to cause mis-chief. Is Alabama really trying to be the last state to achieve equality? G

  • 38. 1grod  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Indeed, for the ordinary folk of AL, this legal posturing is sad! Tracking 35/67 counties, 18 counties, comprising 56% of the state population are issuing licenses. On February 18, 49/67 counties representing 82% of the state population were issuing licenses.… and

  • 39. 1grod  |  June 30, 2015 at 5:35 am

    32/67 issuing licenses estimated to comprise counties with 67% of the state population.

  • 40. Deeelaaach  |  July 1, 2015 at 3:55 am

    "Mis-chief." I love it!

  • 41. 1grod  |  June 29, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Judge C Granade shouldn't have to issue another order. Her stay says, "the above preliminary injunction is STAYED until the Supreme Court issues its ruling." That means the stay should now be dissolved.
    If counties don't come into line, the attorneys can certainly go back to Granade and ask that individual probate judges be held in contempt of court.

  • 42. sfbob  |  June 29, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    Despite it being a royal pain for those couples trying to get married I would love to see some of those probate judges get cited for contempt.

  • 43. DACiowan  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Running through the most populous of Texas' counties, it seem that the most populous county not yet issuing licenses is #18, Lubbock County.

    ETA: Second largest straggler is #25, Ellis County.

    So the counties ahead of Ellis but subtracting Lubbock add up to 20.04 million people, or 74.3% of Texans. Both Midland and Ector (Odessa) are issuing, and get us past 75%.

  • 44. Fortguy  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    According to The Dallas Morning News' interactive map, Ellis County is now offering licenses. Lubbock County by news reports I've seen is like most of the "no" counties in the map in that they are awaiting their software vendor to update them and expect to be issuing licenses anytime between tomorrow and the end of the week.

    As far as the gray "could not contact" counties, either they haven't had a chance to reach them all–Texas does have 254 counties and most of their clerk's offices were closed over the weekend–or their local newspaper websites are rarely updated and more devoted to local boosterism than actually covering meaningful news.

    The extremely rare exception is Hood County whose clerk wants to pull an Alabama according to a report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that has been picked up by CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.

    My predictions:

    The updates upon which every county is waiting are offered by only one or two companies in order to network with the state's Bureau of Vital Statistics. Although the state has an enormous number of counties, the changes necessary are minor and will be completed by the end of the week. Larger counties will be served more quickly.
    Some of the gray counties on the map may remain for awhile until they are individually contacted. Those rural counties either have no couples seeking licenses, or couples may prefer to attain their licenses more anonymously elsewhere.
    By the end of the week, most of the map will be overwhelming blue for compliance or a few pockets of gray for uncertain in very small communities.
    There will only be two or three non-compliant red counties. These counties will then be quickly subject to lawsuits, and their clerks may be placed in the very uncomfortable circumstance of explaining to their respective counties' commissioners courts why they suddenly have a huge hole in their budgets due to liability payments from unfavorable court judgements.
    The people of Tea Party-dominant Hood County, a quickly transitioning exurban to suburban county southwest of Fort Worth, may be willing to front those costs to make a political statement. Most smaller counties would find that to be very divisive.

  • 45. DACiowan  |  June 30, 2015 at 12:22 am

    Thanks for the update. Also, your map link goes awry; here it is.

    ETA: So now the second largest holdout (after Lubbock) is #30, Taylor County (Abilene),, but they will begin tomorrow.

  • 46. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:37 am

    A same-sex marriage has now taken place in New Orleans. Jindal, however, has issued a statement saying that clerks with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

  • 47. domestic_god  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    It's like Jindal is not-so-subtlely suggesting that clerks should refuse to serve the citizens of Alabama. Again, I ask, on what grounds can a civil servant refuse to serve his/her duty based on a sincerely held religious belief? I can't believe this would stand up to legal scrutiny.

  • 48. SteveThomas1  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    I'm sure it's a typo, but you no doubt meant "Louisiana" when you typed "Alabama".

  • 49. itscoldoutside  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    What about loosely held religious beliefs? Those don't count? Who's the arbiter that determines the level of sincerity?

    This will be such a spectacular mess when it comes to courts one day. I can't wait!

  • 50. davepCA  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Indeed. And I don't think we'll have to wait very long before these new measures are taken to court. Like within 30 days of these laws becoming effective.

  • 51. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:45 am

    BREAKING: Mississippi AG Gives Clerks OK To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

  • 52. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:11 pm


    The University of Texas has announced that all benefits-eligible employees and retirees from the Austin campus will be able to enroll their same-sex spouses – and the dependent children of those spouses – in health and dental coverage. The change is effective July 1st

  • 53. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Equality Alabama We will be participating in a conference call with the U.S. Attorney's Office this afternoon.

  • 54. flyerguy77  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Can Judge Grande do something now?

  • 55. ianbirmingham  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:19 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.

    17,516 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!

  • 56. Raga  |  June 29, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Breaking: Fifth Circuit asks parties to respond by July 1 as to what it should do now. Seriously? Didn't those judges go to law school? Isn't it obvious what they should do? Thanks, Equality Case Files.

    Edit: Upon reading some of the comments, it's not really obvious what the best procedural route to take, so I guess that's what they're asking the parties to argue about. Still, no reason to NOT lift the Mississippi stay right away so couples can marry there while the panel and parties bicker on the right way to dispose off these cases! Obviously, the Governments are going to ask the Court to wait 25 days to act whereas the Plaintiffs will ask for an immediate decision and mandate.

  • 57. scream4ever  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    Mississippi is already abiding by the ruling.

  • 58. Raga  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Awesome! So only Louisiana is left?

  • 59. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Louisiana is complying as well according to lgbtqnation and the wiki.

  • 60. DJSNOLA  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    Lousiana is complying. the governor said the state will and Nola and Jefferson Parish are already issuing. Louisiana was a weird case because of the federal judge who upheld the ban. However, seems the government sees the writing on the wall and isnt holding out just cause it can.

    Also, should we take odds on when the first lawsuit is filed in the US about clerks refusing to issue licenses? Seems the courts will have to get invloved in this.

  • 61. Raga  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    Great! Any holdouts in the Eighth Circuit? ND?

  • 62. DJSNOLA  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    Theres going to be little issues here and there but now the big issue will be clerks not issuing to people they dont like or just not issuing at all. This is going to be where the discussion leads. Look for many on the right to falsely claim that they will be forced to marry in their churches even though thats a lie.

  • 63. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    I dont know about the 8th, I havent heard anything. Everything seems to be rolling well in the dakotas (probably not too many couples looking for licenses there especially outside the big counties anyway..) and Nebraska, even Arkansas.

    The only holdout in terms of recognition (as discretion as to whether they should issue licenses exists in other states as well in thr south) is Kansas really. It is officially the last state to adopt marriage equality formally.

    Edit : oops spoke too soon about Arkansas :

    Not that much of a problem actually. I have to congratulate her for her proffesional integrity tbh. She is aware what her job is and since she cannot serve everyone she quits. I respect that.

  • 64. SteveThomas1  |  June 29, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    North Dakota's Attorney General says the state "won't stand in the way":

  • 65. JayJonson  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Licenses have also been issued in East Baton Rouge Parish, Calcasieu Parish, and Ascension Parish. Maybe others as well.

    Correction to DJSNOLA above: no licenses have been issued in Orleans Parish yet. A wedding has taken place in New Orleans, but the couple got their license in Jefferson Parish and then were married in New Orleans by a Circuit Court judge. Orleans Parish is the only one where licenses are not issued by clerks of court; in Orleans Parish they are issued by the Bureau of Vital Statistics, which is a state office.

  • 66. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    They need assistance as to what their job is in an occasion where scotus precedent has been established while they were sitting for months on a case controlled now by the new precedence ? Really ? And given the highly discretionary nature of scotus these judges are supposed to render final decisions in 99 % of the cases before them..
    I will give it to them that in the Texas case the lifting of the stay from the district court may complicate matters a bit but still for the other 2 cases it should be clear in each what must be done..Thankfully all 3 states finally complied without action from the 5th..

    P.S. Even the main Texas plaintiff, Cleopatra De Leon, is at loss and asks on the facebook page of EOT lol

  • 67. VIRick  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Scalia Protests Marriage Ruling Again in Unrelated Case

    From MSNBC:

    On Monday morning, the last day of this Supreme Court term, there were no rainbow flags or same-sex marriage protesters left on the marble plaza before the nation’s highest court. But inside the court room, Scalia wanted to talk about Friday’s 5-4 decision making same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States, despite the fact that there were three other opinions to issue. In an extraordinary reading from the bench in a death penalty case in which he was actually in the majority, Scalia managed to dissent on gay marriage for a second time. “Last Friday, this court took away from the people the right to decide on same-sex marriage on the basis of their own policy preferences,” he said, taking a shot at Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer for suggesting in their written dissent to the case being announced that the death penalty is unconstitutional. It was, in other words, a dissent to a dissent.

    And, to put it mildly, oral dissents of this nature, are considered "Extraordinary."

  • 68. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    He cannot get enough of dissenting lol ! Tbh he didnt have his moment on friday (wonder why he did not read his dissent from the bench really..) so he had to have a hissy fit about it today..!

    This term have left the justices bitterly divided thats for sure. Very strong language today, on Friday, on Thursday in the ACA case, on Din etc.

    I admired today the decency of justice Breyer and his dissent in Glossip. He explained his position and did not answer to Scalia in a direct way anywhere, no personal attacks. Unlike Scalia who as the 5 year old he is cannot disagree without getting personal (today with breyer, on friday with kennedy, on thursday with roberts). That shows the weakness of his arguments really apart from his disturbed mental state.

    I honestly believe the man is completely bonkers at this point.

  • 69. DJSNOLA  |  June 29, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Hes completely bonkers. I dont understand how a man such as this is allowed on the Supreme Court. I literally havent found one opinion that we agree one which is almost statistically impossible. So he really just thinks completely different than I do.

  • 70. Zack12  |  June 29, 2015 at 3:59 pm
    After the fact but North Dakota's ban has now been declared unconstitutional in light of the SCOTUS ruling.

  • 71. guitaristbl  |  June 29, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Do we have the ruling/order ? The opinion section of the court's site says it is under construction and has no opinions..

  • 72. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    While The Texas Governor Dithered, Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir Granted 313 Dreams [New Civil Rights Movement]

  • 73. allan120102  |  June 29, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    Kansas is officially the only state not complying with scotus as they are not recognizing marriage licences. Sad that even Jindal have left Louisiana and not Brownback in Kansas. 77/105 counties are issuing licenses based on equality Kansas. They think without a ruling from the 10th or Crabtree, brownback and schmidt are not going to comply.

  • 74. Zack12  |  June 29, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    It's going to take a ruling from Crabtree or the 10th.
    Brownback is a $#@! of the highest order and if I had to pick the governor who will do the stand in the school house door moment, it will be Brownback.

  • 75. allan120102  |  June 29, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    I agree he is the worst governor Kansas ever had I believe cannot believe people re-elected him, not even the governors of Alabama or Mississippi which are more conservatives are not complying.

  • 76. scream4ever  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    He's been horrible in many ways outside of this issue. He's bankrupted the state with his tax policies.

  • 77. RobW303  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    …and with Photoshop, you can!

  • 78. brchaz  |  June 29, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Photos from Seattle's Gay Pride Parade!! Beautiful!!!

  • 79. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    The Williams Institute had a one hour webinar this morning on the Obergefell decision. I just listened to the audio, and it's time well spent.

  • 80. ianbirmingham  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    Social conservatives don't know what to do next on gay marriage

    [Long article gaming out all the options social conservatives have vs. SSM]

  • 81. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 29, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    Dear Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas:

    Resistance is FUTILE. You WILL Be ASSIMILATED. See Utah, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee, Iowa, Alaska, Kentucky, Ohio, California, et al.

    We are One nation INDIVISIBLE, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL.

    Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer

    P.S. Don't make us send Neil Patrick Harris down there… because we will… oh we will.

  • 82. flyerguy77  |  June 29, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    Somebody on Prop 8 Trial Tracker is spreading rumors that 5th COA asked SCOTUS how to proceed, and SCOTUS told 5th they can hold states in court of Contempt if they don't follow the decision…… WTF that does not make sense!!

  • 83. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 30, 2015 at 11:25 am

    What the F*** does "court of Contempt" mean?

    Contempt of court?

    And you DO realize that 'Equality on Trial' is the successor to 'Prop 8 Trial Tracker'? That the web site "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" no longer exists?

  • 84. VIRick  |  June 29, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    Alabama/Mississippi/Michigan Marriage Equality Update

    By the end of the day today, 29 June 2015, according to CSE (Campaign for Southern Equality), 28 of Alabama's 67 counties were complying with the Supreme Court's decision. They are:

    De Kalb
    St. Clair

    Call CSE at 205-708-0688 to report issues.

    CSE also reported that their confirmed count in Mississippi at the end of the day, today, 29 June 2015, was also 28 counties in compliance, out of the 82 total.

    According to "MI for Marriage," it's official: ALL 83 counties across Michigan are now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Judge Friedman, who ruled Michigan's marriage ban unconstitutional, will officiate at the marriage of April De Boer and Jayne Rouse, the lead plaintiffs in the Michigan marriage case, "De Boer v. Snyder."

  • 85. scream4ever  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    ^^^ God the other side is going to scream "judicial activism" at that lol

  • 86. VIRick  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Let them scream and holler!

    I understand that Judge Friedman literally cried with joy upon hearing SCOTUS' decision which overturned the 6th Circuit Court's ruling, thus completely vindicting his own original judgment which came very early on in this entire process. "Obergefell" beat "De Boer" by exactly 2 digits in SCOTUS' docketing number scheme, or we'd forever and always be discussing "De Boer" instead of "Obergefell." To this day, of the two, I still feel that "De Boer" was the better case.

  • 87. scream4ever  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    I agree, but the final end goal was achieved!

  • 88. Waxr  |  June 30, 2015 at 12:55 am

    "De Boer" would also have been an easier name to remember and pronounce.

  • 89. Rick55845  |  June 30, 2015 at 5:26 am

    I'm trying to figure out if you're joking.

    It doesn't matter to me how the case is styled, but "Obergefell" is far easier for me to spell, remember, and pronounce than "De Boer". I haven't got a clue how the latter is pronounced.

    Can you provide a phonetic spelling of De Boer to aid in pronunciation?

  • 90. DACiowan  |  June 30, 2015 at 5:49 am

    Deh Boh-err

  • 91. Rick55845  |  June 30, 2015 at 5:54 am

    Not too difficult after all! Thank you.

  • 92. Waxr  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:20 am

    Just pronounce "De Boer" with a Dutch accent, and you have it.

    I didn't know how to pronounce "Obergefell" until I saw Katie Couric interview him. She had to ask him how to pronounce it.

  • 93. itscoldoutside  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:36 am

    Yes, I pronounce "De Boer" with a Dutch accent as well.

    I also pronounce "Obergefell" with a German accent. It's oddly satisfying for some reason.

  • 94. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 30, 2015 at 9:57 am

    I had a boss (my first, in fact) whose last name was spelled 'boehr'. He pronounced it as 'boar'. There are others who would pronounce it as 'berr' (or other pronunciations, but not 'boar') (I later worked with a woman whose last name was spelled 'boehr', but she didn't pronounce it as 'boar' or 'berr', but closer to 'bar').

    There are many who have a last name spelled 'boehner', pronouncing it as 'boner'. There are those who spell their last name 'boehner' who insist that it is pronounced 'bay-ner' (or maybe 'bay- nor').

    There is a certain college basketball coach whose name is spelled 'krzyzewski'. Ask a person of Polish ancestry how to pronounce the name, and they'll probably tell you 'kriz-a-zew-ski' (or similar). Ask the coach and he'll tell you it is pronounced 'shi-shev-ski'.

    Spelling and pronunciation can be individual, and there can be several pronunciations of the same spelling of the same name.

  • 95. VIRick  |  June 30, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    Rick, "De Boer" is Dutch, as in the Boer War which took place in South Africa. I've always pronounced it, "dee-BOOR," to rhyme with "poor," or the surname "Moore."

    The double-vowel, "oe," is pronounced differently in German, and Mike has it right (above), where he discusses the pronunciation of "Boehner," where the "h" behind it actually alters its pronunciation even further, making it "extra hard." (Which is why I cringe at the naïve double-entendre whenever I hear it mispronounced as "Boner"). "BAY-ner" is correct.

  • 96. JayJonson  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:04 am

    Both Obergefell and DeBoer were excellent cases. DeBoer had a full-fledged trial, and very sympathetic plaintiffs who were only trying to adopt special needs children. They would have made excellent role models. But the dramatic story of Obergefell and John Arthur's marriage on an airport tarmac is even more compelling. The fact that he and Arthur had to go to great expense to fly to another state to get married on Arhur's deathbed is a telling reminder of how important marriage was to them. And then to have Ohio refuse to include Obergefell's name on Arthur's death certificate showed very clearly the pettiness and hatefulness of our enemies. Obergefell became a wonderful spokesperson for the cause. I would have been quite happy to have DeBoer as the lead case, but I am also quite happy to have had Obergefell as the lead case. The important thing is that these cases were consolidated. All the plaintiffs had compelling stories to tell.

  • 97. RnL2008  |  June 29, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Thanks for the information Rick…….frankly, I'm tired of these EVANGELISTIC FUNDAMENTALIST/TEA PARTY idiots trying to justify their DISCRIMINATION all in the name of religion…….one has the right to their religious beliefs…….one DOESN'T have the right to use that belief for grounds to DISCRIMINATE and folks, SCOTUS will NOT be happy to have these politicians come face them again on Religious Issues…….remember SCOTUS denied cert to the photographer from New Mexico, my take is one's religious beliefs CAN'T trample the Religious beliefs/or non-beliefs!!

  • 98. SethInMaryland  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    The march of marriage equality

  • 99. VIRick  |  June 29, 2015 at 11:48 pm

    Meanwhile in Kansas, the Struggle Continues

    Per Equality Kansas:

    Prior to the Supreme Court ruling on 26 June 2015, 22 (of 31) judicial districts, including 61 (of 105) counties, were granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since then, three more judicial districts have begun issuing licenses. (Actually 4 more began, and one other judicial district either stopped, or was being erroneously reported as issuing when it was not). That brings us to 70 counties in 25 judicial districts, which includes 2.6 million of Kansas' 3 million citizens, where one can legally marry.

    4pm UPDATE, 29 June 2015: The 15th Judicial District, which includes the counties of Cheyenne, Logan, Rawlins, Sheridan, Sherman, Thomas, and Wallace, in the northwest corner of the state, is now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That brings the total number of counties to 77 and the total number of judicial districts to 26.

    Regarding the matter of state recognition for other state purposes, the Brownback administration has said nothing since the Governor’s rather terse, angry statement issued Friday.

  • 100. VIRick  |  June 30, 2015 at 12:52 am

    How Texas Counties are Handling Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples

    This exercise is actually quite exciting, as one can watch Texas literally turn BLUE!

    Borrowing some in-put from Fortguy's earlier post showing the interactive state map from the "Dallas Morning News," here's how Texas' 254 counties were handling the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples today, 29 June 2015:

    114 Blue counties – Yes, able and willing to do so
    -99 Red counties – No, unable to do so, mostly due to the lack of proper software
    –4 Yellow counties – No comment
    -37 Grey counties – No response

    Figuring by population, all of Texas' big-city counties are in compliance (except for Lubbock), and account for well over 80% of Texas' total population, with many/most of the "No" counties being rural with much smaller populations.

    And for comparison's sake, on Friday, the first day of legality, only 21 Texas counties had issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Still, Travis County (Austin) alone, managed to issue licenses to 313 same-sex couples on that one momentous day, and may well qualify for the all-time record of "most licenses issued to same-sex couples in one county on one day."

  • 101. Tony MinasTirith  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:35 am

    Just think, how many SS couples across this nation will have wedding anniversaries all on the same day…. 6/26 or 6/29.

    I think July 4th would be a great day for a wedding and anniversary.

  • 102. VIRick  |  June 30, 2015 at 2:14 am


    East Texas Gay Couple Didn’t Accept ‘No’ on Marriage License Request

    AUSTIN — Behind the Pine Curtain, if you’re gay or lesbian and trying to get hitched, be sure to come “loaded for bear,” says Tyler gay rights activist Karen Wilkerson. Having a media scrum trail you at the clerk’s office, and lawyers on speed dial, can also help.

    After the Supreme Court issued its ruling Friday sanctioning marriage for same-sex couples, Wilkerson and her partner, Jolie Smith, raced to file for a marriage license. Wilkerson, 64, and Smith, 52, knew a district judge in nearby Cherokee County (Rusk) who would waive a 72-hour waiting period and marry them.

    But Smith County (Tyler) Clerk Karen Phillips rebuffed the couple, citing a lack of proper forms and an aversion to “whiting out” marginalia that denote sections of the license application as applying to the “man” and “woman.”

    In an exchange caught on local TV news, Phillips said, “We don’t want it to be a circus.” Wilkerson shot back: “I don’t want this to be a circus, either. I want you to act in your capacity as county clerk and follow the law.”

    Phillips refused. Late Friday, 26 June 2015, the couple sued her in federal court. On Monday, 29 June 2015, Phillips relented. By then, new forms and computer programs were ready, according to a Smith County news release. At a private home Monday night, the couple planned to have their wedding, Wilkerson said. “Being a born activist, I always prepare."

    So, there we are,– Smith County TX (Tyler) already has itself a federal lawsuit for non-compliance.

  • 103. F_Young  |  June 30, 2015 at 3:01 am

    VIRick: "DING!"

    Actually, it sounds more like:

    Kuh-ching! $14,348.92. Will that be Visa or Mastercard?

  • 104. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:11 am

    hahah I think cashiers check. But good on them and this will move fast.

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

    Also in Texas, a state senator has asked Attorney General Lynch to monitor the state's implementation of Obergefell and intervene if political hacks attempt to deny civil rights to gay people:

  • 106. F_Young  |  June 30, 2015 at 5:16 am

    More Than A Dozen Landmarks You Won't Believe Were Turned Rainbow

  • 107. JayJonson  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:16 am

    In an entirely unintentional way, our enemies helped us win our great victory. Their hatred for us–despite their insincere protestations of hating the sin but loving the sinner or fears for the damage a new "definition of marriage might cause–meant that they were obdurate in their unwillingness to allow any compromise (except after they lost). They consistently opposed civil unions and domestic partnerships and other recognitions of gay relationships, as well as nondiscrimination ordinances. They made it clear that their opposition was not based on "protecting" marriage but on denying civil rights to gay people. Their hatred and stubbornness helped clear the way for us, especially among young people. Their lies about us were dispelled by our increasing visibility, and their actions–including firing people simply for being gay, comparing us to pedophiles, ranting that the world would come to an end were we allowed to marry–confirmed their bigotry. Our victory was a long time coming, but had our opponents been more reasonable and accommodating, they may have been able to forestall it by a generation.

  • 108. Zack12  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:44 am

    Indeed, if the bigots had allowed civil unions or domestic partnerships, there is a good chance there wouldn't have been a push for marriage.
    But when they made it clear those options were unacceptable as well, that is when our side decided to go full bore, and we now have marriage equality because of it.

  • 109. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:20 am

    So now that the Marriage Debate is settled whats the movements next priority:

    Mine would have to be ENDA and laws to protect minors from gay conversion therapy(if you are over 18 and still want to throw your money away thats your choice).

    I think the main question that will confront the community is transgender equality and do we get protections piecemeal or stay together for an all or nothing approach? Curious to get peoples reactions here. Also, something that I want to spend more time on is international rights. Starting first would be to pressure our government to suspend aid to country's that jail or harass their LGBT communities. One other major issue is to continue our dialogue with the evangelical and muslim communities. There has been a sort of deafening silence about these communities and how they are spreading hate against the community overseas. Specifically, internationally where we see american evangelical leaders working to get anti gay laws passed in Africa and soviet states.

  • 110. jm64tx  |  June 30, 2015 at 8:12 am

    Obergefell is the Dred Scott of our generation …

  • 111. Silvershrimp0  |  June 30, 2015 at 8:16 am

    All these flavors, and you choose to be salty.

  • 112. sfbob  |  June 30, 2015 at 8:39 am

    I'd go with "bitter."

  • 113. sfbob  |  June 30, 2015 at 8:42 am

    Dred Scott gave some individuals continued license to treat other human beings as property. How is Obergefell in any way comparable to that? You are free to continue to disdain marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples just as you were previously. Not only does the decision not affect you personally (other than perhaps for you not liking it), it doesn't affect anyone else negatively in any way either.

  • 114. jm64tx  |  June 30, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    No Dred Scott was an attempt by the Democrats to write slavery into the Constitution, just as the Democrats are now attempting to write homosexuality into the Constitution.

    President Lincoln was quite effective at disregarding Dred Scott just as the Republican president in 2016 will be effective at ignoring Obergefell.

  • 115. davepCA  |  June 30, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    And winged monkeys will fly out of his butt and carry him off to the moon.

  • 116. VIRick  |  June 30, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Dave, that's so wonderfully poetic, plus the imagery of the troll being carried away is splendidly apt!!!

  • 117. davepCA  |  June 30, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    Yes, I really like that phrase too : )

  • 118. SethInMaryland  |  June 30, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    leave you homophobic loser

  • 119. F_Young  |  June 30, 2015 at 9:10 am

    jm64tx: "Obergefell is the Dred Scott of our generation …"

    Nonsense. On the contrary, the truth is that Obergefell is the Brown vs Board of Education of our generation, which is precisely why the religious right is fighting it tooth and nail, just as they viciously fought against desegregation, which they now deny.

    That's it. I'm not going to dignify jm54tx' inane troll post any further.

  • 120. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 11:37 am

    So back on topic..what do we think should be our next areas of focus.

  • 121. sfbob  |  June 30, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Adding sexual orientation and gender identity and gender expression to existing federal anti-discrimination laws as they pertain to employment, housing and public accommodations. This, to my way of thinking, is a superior approach to piecemeal legislation such as ENDA which would address employment only.

  • 122. RnL2008  |  June 30, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    I would agree and ensure we can't be fired from our jobs or lose our right to housing.

  • 123. Fortguy  |  June 30, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    It's not only evangelical Protestants but Eastern Orthodox Christians who try to slander and dehumanize us to stop the spread of equality into Russia and Eastern Europe.

  • 124. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:35 am

    Good map updating all the parishes in Louisiana Issuing Licenses(not too many left )

  • 125. JayJonson  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:46 am

    Glad to see so many parishes defying the attorney general and the governor.

  • 126. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:48 am

    The clerks association is what most follow and it said to start issuing so pretty much everyone has followed. Dont think anyone is listening to our governor… but that can be said for pretty much anything he says these days. He is about as popular as FEMA in this state now.

  • 127. Zack12  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:42 am

    It's amazing that he thinks he has a shot.
    He has burned pretty much every bridge there is.

  • 128. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 11:26 am

    Seriously he has. Ive never seen a republican governor turn off more republicans than this one has. Im not sure what his deal is, but what does someone expect from a guy that claims he performed an exorcism back in the day. Amazing the type of people that can make it into high level office these days.

  • 129. VIRick  |  June 30, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Watch Louisiana turn BLUE!!

    The results showing on the inter-active Louisiana state map provided by the "New Orleans Advocate" are quite impressive. As of 6 PM today, 30 June 2015, only 7 parishes remain (of 65 total) that are either unable or unwilling to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. They are:

    Jackson (claims she has nothing telling her to issue)
    La Salle (plans to begin this week after a software issue is resolved)
    Lincoln (no one able to comment)
    Madison (a definite 'No')
    Red River (plans to follow the ruling of the 5th Circuit)
    St. Tammany (plans to begin tomorrow after computer issues are resolved)
    Webster (waiting for advice from legal counsel and the state AG)

    This latter clerk, Holli Vining, is the president of the Louisiana Clerks Association. So, in addition to not listening to Louisiana's Governor or to Louisiana's AG, it would appear as if very few, if any, of the other Louisiana clerks are presently listening to her either.

  • 130. F_Young  |  June 30, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    VIRick: "Watch Louisiana turn BLUE!! "

    Boy, has it ever turned blue fast! This is a link to the map.

  • 131. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 30, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    "Right now we have to get how the marriage license will print out," said Clerk of Court Steve Andrew." – LaSalle Parish

    Um, Steve? If it's upside down, you turn it rightside up. If it's sideways, you turn it 90 degrees. Simple concepts, huh?

    And your next excuse will be ?

  • 132. Raga  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:25 am

    The final orders list of the term is out. Idaho petitions denied cert.

  • 133. guitaristbl  |  June 30, 2015 at 8:44 am

    Finally, another one is officially done..!

  • 134. SethInMaryland  |  June 30, 2015 at 7:53 am

    Tennessee' 91 0f 95 counties are now issuing licenses

  • 135. worldcup26  |  June 30, 2015 at 8:12 am

    A small but important step in Africa. Mozambique decriminalized homosexuality – goes into effect today:

  • 136. DJSNOLA  |  June 30, 2015 at 10:51 am

    That makes my day. Great news. Mozambique is a fairly large country too.

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