Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Courts continue to react to Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Alabama state seal– In Alabama, Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis had filed a motion to withdraw as class representative in the class-action challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage ban, and this week, Judge Granade denied his request for a hearing on the motion. Any responses to the motion are due by July 13. UPDATE: The plaintiffs oppose the request to withdraw.

– A lawsuit has been filed against a Kentucky clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses and a hearing has been scheduled in the case.

– The couples challenging South Dakota’s marriage ban filed a request for the Eighth Circuit to affirm their win in district court.

– Also in Alabama, Paul Hard, the man challenging Alabama’s refusal to recognize his marriage after his husband died in a trucking accident that led to a wrongful death lawsuit, has asked the district court to rule in his favor and allow him access to the proceeds from the wrongful death lawsuit.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. Steve27516  |  July 7, 2015 at 9:20 am

    Welcome back, Scottie! I hope you had a good Fourth. Thank you for the new updates.

  • 2. 1grod  |  July 7, 2015 at 11:03 am

    Scottie, given your July 2 posting on Equality Alabama Facebook that Al's Autauga and Blount counties were not issuing licenses, there has been speculation as to why. Can you fill us in? My count is 51 counties on board, while 6 are out of business. At least 3 say they will issue licenses after the 25 days has expired in Obergefell, and the remaining 7 have yet to declare. Almost 90% of citizens of the state dwell in counties offering licenses, G

  • 3. allan120102  |  July 7, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Which are those three counties? I believe Henry is one bit not sure the other two.

  • 4. SethInMaryland  |  July 7, 2015 at 11:56 am

    I think the marriage are now officially recognized in Kanas

  • 5. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 7, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    And maybe not, fully.

    From the 'Wichita Eagle':
    "Jeannine Koranda, spokeswoman for the Department of Revenue, said that agency has updated its policy so that same-sex couples can change their names on their driver’s licenses if they present their marriage certificate.

    "However, Koranda said that agency had not yet made changes to tax policy to enable same-sex couples to file income taxes jointly."
    (… )

  • 6. 1grod  |  July 7, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    Seth, Equality Kansas agrees with you! Scottie, its time you sent out an SOS. Alabama's Supreme Court lift the temporary injunctions today! Otherwise history will again record your state as the last holdout! Talk of waiting the 25 days when the states in the six circuit have implemented equality demonstrates the inaneness of possible appeal position. Why does the 11th circuit allow the State to so abuse itself?

  • 7. DeadHead  |  July 7, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    Sadly, the remaining old school Alabama bigots/racists in power who haven't died off yet take pride being they way they are and don't care what the rest of the country thinks.

  • 8. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    That's why I predicted many threads back that Alabama would be the last state to fully comply. Looks like I'll be proven correct. A recap:
    (6 days ago) Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, a staunch opponent of LGBT rights, is calling the U.S. Supreme Court decision for marriage equality so immoral that it’s comparable to Nazi war crimes.

    In an interview with, a website for several Alabama newspapers, a reporter asked Moore if he would enforce the decision. He replied contentiously that judges do not enforce the law, and brought up Nazi Germany’s mass murder of Jews as an example of people following immoral orders.

    “Could I do this if I were in Nuremberg [at the war crimes trials after World War II], say that I was following the orders of the highest authority to kill Jews? … Could I say I was ordered to do so?"

    When an reporter reminded Alabama's top jurist that the Nuremberg trials were about "killing human beings, not gay marriage," Moore reportedly responded with a question: "Is there a difference?" …
    (2 weeks ago) I'll place my entire bet on Alabama.

    Is there a separate pool on whether or not Chief Justice Roy Moore self-immolates?

  • 9. allan120102  |  July 7, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Not until Kansas start to allow couples to join taxes together.

  • 10. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Kansas DoR will get that done long before Alabama becomes fully compliant.

  • 11. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    Posters threatening gays with death appear in Turkish capital

    An Islamist group has pinned posters to walls and posts in Turkey's capital Ankara threatening gays with death, adding to concerns over growing intolerance against homosexuals in the country, AFP reported on July 7.

    The appearance of the posters in Ankara comes just over a week after police prevented Istanbul's annual gay pride march – a successful tradition over the past 13 years – from going ahead, using tear gas and water cannon against activists who showed defiance. …

    Homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey and unlike in many Muslim-majority countries visible communities exist in the bigger cities including Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir.

    But many gays still keep their sexuality secret out of fear of a backlash from their family or the general public, and remain at risk of unprovoked attacks.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Sam Brownback surrenders: Social conservative warrior gives up fight against same-sex marriage in Kansas
    The right-wing governor ends his "thoughtful process" and finally instructs state agencies to comply with ruling
    Tuesday, Jul 7, 2015 02:15 PM EST

  • 13. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 7, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    Brownback MAY allow ME in the state of Kansas, but has he 'fully surrendered', or is he looking to find ways to interfere, still?

    According to this article in the 'Advocate', he has not 'fully surrendered'

    The 'Kansas City Star' also agrees with the 'Advocate':

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    A better article is here:

    The issue is discrimination by religious organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide social services (e.g., a Catholic adoption agency). As the article notes, the ACLU and Equality Kansas both have lawyers already preparing to file lawsuits.

    That's a "full surrender" on marriage – but "still fighting" for other discrimination.

  • 15. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 8, 2015 at 11:40 am

    Actually, in Kansas, people have been allowed to get married since the 8th Circuit ruled, but Kansas has been dragging its feet on allowing name changes, health insurance policies, tax returns, etc. By allowing people to get married, I suppose you could say Kansas 'fully surrendered' on marriage. But marriage is not ONLY the act of getting married, but involves a lot more.

    So if you want to say Kansas 'fully surrendered' on marriage, they did so several months ago, if the couple didn't want or need to file joint tax returns or enter someone on certain health insurance policies or change names on driver's licenses, etc.

    Even today, a same-sex married couple cannot file a joint tax return in Kansas. If the incomes are fairly equal, it might not be a big concern, but if the income from each is widely divergent, a joint return might be (and probably is) the way to go. And yet, not all married couples in Kansas are treated the same when it comes to taxes. Some are prohibited from filing joint returns while others have the choice of doing so or not.

    If that is your opinion of 'completely surrendered', then you are welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't meet the criteria of 'completely surrendered' that I (and I presume several others) have.

  • 16. VIRick  |  July 8, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    "…. since the 8th Circuit ruled …."

    Mike, minor correction, as Kansas (grudgingly) began to comply on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples some time after the 10th Circuit Court ruled. Kansas is in the 10th circuit (Denver). The 8th Circuit Court (St. Louis) has yet to rule on the appeals before it from Arkansas and South Dakota (the state appeals there from Missouri and Nebraska have been withdrawn).

    But otherwise, you're absolutely correct. Until and whenever Kansas finally begins to recognize those same marriages for ALL state purposes, Kansas is NOT in compliance on the recognition issue (and disgustingly enough, is the last remaining state to be nitpicking itself to death on this important point).

    As a result, Kansas should NOT be colored BLUE on the Wikipedia map, as that color-shading is still premature, and gives the false impression that Kansas is in full compliance, when it quite definitely is NOT.

  • 17. ianbirmingham  |  July 8, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    The Kansas DoR has been directed to comply with Obergefell and they are working on the necessary forms and procedures. Everyone knows taxes are complicated. Nobody is up against a tax filing deadline anytime soon.

    I disagree that Kansas is noncompliant on the recognition issue. The DoR recognizes the validity of the marriage. Soon it will be able to process tax returns accordingly. Then everyone can pick up their calculators and start taking the super-strength Excedrin which they will surely need while doing their taxes.

  • 18. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 8, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    By your own admission ("the DoR … [is] working on the necessary forms and procedures" and "soon"), the state of Kansas IS NOT CURRENTLY in 'full compliance' with ME.

    'Is working' is current and future tense, not past tense. Couples who need or want to file jointly need the instructions TODAY, not in several (unnamed number of) days, weeks or months. If heterosexual couples can file jointly (if they so wish) at any time, including today, it is NOT Marriage Equality if same-sex couples cannot.

    If any color of car except red cars can travel on Kansas highways, but the governor says they will be able at some unspecified date, does that mean that ALL cars can travel on Kansas highways now? No, it means that until the regulations are changed, red cars cannot be on Kansas highways. If the tax regulations are being changed, that means the state is not allowing people to file under the new regulations (at some unnamed time in the future), but under the old regulations (which, until changed, are the CURRENT regulations) some people cannot (namely same-sex couples). Thus there is NOT equality for marriage in Kansas.

    And thank you, Rick, for correcting the circuit. Yes, Kansas is in the 10th, not the 8th.

  • 19. sfbob  |  July 8, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Mostly not a response to you, and to the extent it is I'm in agreement with what you said and am adding other considerations but I didn't want to compose multiple comments so I hope you won't be offended if I just put everything here for the sake of perspective.

    Filing taxes is one matter, changing status and filing an updated W-4 (or the state equivalent) is quite another. As you noted, just because taxes aren't due currently (and what about those who file quarterly payments?) doesn't mean there aren't couples that need clear guidance on any changes they need to make and they may well need them immediately. One additional concern would be the state's treatment of health benefits. If your spouse is on your insurance, the benefit is not taxable…unless you are a gay or lesbian couple and lived in a non-equality state. I presume that states like KS would still treat gay/lesbian couples married in other states whose employer provided health benefits to the non-employee spouse continue to tax such benefits to the non-employee unequally. This of course needs to stop and it needs to stop…retroactively in fact. This would affect how both members of a couple have their taxes withheld in addition to what they may pay when they actually file.

    I hope the state understands that it will be receiving a non-negligible number of amended income tax returns from gay couples previously denied their rights under the law. It will be interesting. It will and should be the state's problem rather than the problem of the couples. But given Brownback being who he is I'm sure the state will make every effort to make all of the changes as complicated as they possibly can be.

  • 20. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 8, 2015 at 10:23 pm


    I am not offended. I left out a lot of things so I could post (I'm on Windows 8.0, and the PC will not allow me to upgrade to Windows 8.1, which means I will not be able to upgrade to Windows 10.x when it comes out later this month. Since I can operate the PC for a couple of minutes to hours, and I never know how much time I have left, I sometimes leave out lots of info.).

    And yes, especially for those who file taxes on a quarterly basis, or have taxes taken out for the spouse on the insurance policy, or whatever, ME means what happens to one person happens to all. And in Kansas, not everyone is treated the same, in many cases because 'regulations are being updated' with no time frame for when those regulations will be updated.

  • 21. A_Jayne  |  July 8, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    Gay couples started getting married in Kansas last year – some before and many after the SCOTUS denied cert for the state's appeal of the 10th Circuit decision last October. Those couples may still be trying to get their taxes from 2014 filed appropriately, so although the tax deadline for 2015 is some time in the future, 2014 could still be an issue for many…

  • 22. A_Jayne  |  July 8, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    The tax filing deadline for 2014 taxes has passed – and as soon as KS gets its act together, couples married before January 1, 2015 will probably be filing amended tax returns. No reason for the state to delay that any longer.

  • 23. VIRick  |  July 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    MISSOURI: Gov. Jay Nixon Orders All State Agencies To Comply With "Obergefell"

    Today, 7 July 2015, Missouri's Gov. Nixon signed executive order 15-04 to ensure uniform implementation of the "Obergefell" decision within the Missouri state government. Nixon says the order makes clear that local governments must comply with the ruling as well. One Missouri county, Schuyler, is still not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (The other hold-out, Cape Girardeau, began complying yesterday, 6 July).

    Nixon also called again on the Missouri legislature to pass the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act, which would bar discrimination against LGBT Missourians in employment, housing, and public accommodations. “Same-sex couples now have the right to get married, but here in Missouri, individuals can still be fired for being gay. That’s wrong, it’s not who we are, and it must change,” Nixon said.

    Instead of merely, "dropping his opposition as futile," this is the sort of executive order Sam Brownback in Kansas still needs to issue:

    "NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby Order all departments, agencies, boards and commissions in the executive branch to immediately take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 'Obergefell' decision in all aspects of their operations."

  • 24. F_Young  |  July 7, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Okay, everybody, you have to view this amazing video:

    New 'Kids React' Video Looks at Gay Marriage – and Yields Some Very Grown-up Answers

  • 25. LK2013  |  July 7, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Awesome kids! Truly heartwarming … a nice jolt of positivity.

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  July 7, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Louisiana Supreme Court dismisses case as moot but does not go down without a fight :

    One of them would actually go against the SCOTUS decision…
    Elected judges is the worst idea ever really..

  • 27. VIRick  |  July 7, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Louisiana Supreme Court Issues Its Marriage Ruling

    On Tuesday, 7 July 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court in the appealed state case, "In Re Constanza," dismissed as moot the matter regarding the rights of a same-sex couple married out-of-state because, the court ruled, the US Supreme Court decision on marriage and marriage recognition had “resolved” the matter. The 6-1 decision means that the California marriage of Angela Marie Costanza and Chastity Shanelle Brewer is to be respected in Louisiana, including for purposes of second-parent adoption.

    But one of the seven justices on the court was not in agreement, Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III. Hughes disagreed that the US Supreme Court resolved the issue, calling adoption “of a young child of the same sex” by same-sex couples “[t]he most troubling prospect” of marriage equality. Hughes, only elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2012, caused a bit of a commotion with his dissenting opinion.

    Among the strongest responses came from Justice Greg Guidry:

    "The dissenting opinion suggests that we should not follow the holding of the US Supreme Court. However, it cites no legal authority. It cannot, because none supports its position."

    At the other extreme, even Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll, who wrote the court’s decision upholding the state’s marriage ban a decade ago, acknowledged she was “constrained to follow” the US Supreme Court ruling. Others, including Justice John Weimer, weighed in as well, taking aim at the perceived bias expressed in Hughes’s opinion. Justice Scott Crichton simply noted his agreement with Justice Guidry.

    Neither Chief Justice Bernette Johnson nor Justice Marcus Clark weighed in with any written opinion on the matter.

  • 28. RnL2008  |  July 7, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Is this the new norm for Supreme Court Justices whether at the State or Federal Level to have these outspoken outburst of disagreements? Because seriously it should be BENEATH the integrity of these Justices.

    Privately they can disagree with the ruling from SCOTUS in Obergefell like ANY other private Citizen, but on the Bench, be Professional for the love of all that's right!!!

  • 29. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    "the integrity of these Justices" – ROFL!!!!!

  • 30. Zack12  |  July 7, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    Yes it is.
    It's part of the Republican takeover plan.
    Can't get your far right ideas passed through voters or the legislature, then make sure you have judges that can do it for you.

  • 31. 1grod  |  July 7, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Missouri Governor Nixon implements full marriage equality. Kansas to provide full recognition of same sex marriage. Louisiana Supreme Court says case is moot regarding the rights of a same-sex couple married out-of-state because, the court ruled,the US Supreme Court's decision on marriage and marriage recognition had “resolved” the matter.
    Can the Governor and AG of Alabama not read the writing on the wall. How about Roy Moore who almost single handedly destroyed the creditability of the State Supreme Court. Is anyone else paying any attention to the 25 day shit! Game up elsewhere by end of Thursday.
    How about, if assistance sought : July 7 2015 AD, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert (Bob) Bentley, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, with the concurrence of Attorney General Luther Strange, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Alabama, do hereby Order all departments, agencies, boards and commissions in the executive branch, including probate judges to immediately take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 'Obergefell' decision in all aspects of their operations."

  • 32. ianbirmingham  |  July 7, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    …no federal laws explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, public accommodations, or housing. While 22 states provide some form of protections, 28 states have no protections whatsoever. … this fight cannot be settled by the courts, as marriage equality was. It will eventually have to be solved by federal legislation, which means getting GOP to buy in to some extent. The first step in that process will be going into the red states and winning them over district by district. It will be interesting to watch. And if it sounds preposterous, Republican pollster Alex Lundry found that 56 percent of Republicans in 2013 supported federal nondiscrimination protections. FFAA has committed to a 5-year campaign and a projected $25 million budget. It's a substantial financial commitment, but also a fraction of what it cost to win marriage equality over the last decade-plus. So the effort will require another all-hands-on-deck moment for the movement.

  • 33. VIRick  |  July 7, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    As per Ballotpedia, here's the latest county-by-county count of marriage equality compliance, through 7 July 2015:

    All counties in these states are in compliance: Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee.

    For the remainder, there are 4 numbers; total # of counties; # in compliance; # not issuing for whatever reason; # unsure or unknown:

    Alabama ——67 –47 -17 -3
    Arkansas ——75 –68 –6 -1
    Kentucky —-120 -106 –8 -6
    Mississippi —-82 –74 –4 -4
    Missouri —–115 -112 –2 -1
    N. Dakota —–53 –52 –0 -1
    Texas ——–254 -206 -27 -1

    All states, including Alabama, but excluding Kansas, are recognizing marriages between same-sex couples for all state purposes. Kansas, however, is still refusing to recognize such for state income tax purposes, thus officially placing Kansas in last place when it comes to state recognition.

    However, the worst compliance rate for marriage performance on a county basis is occurring in Alabama where 17 counties are refusing to issue marriage licenses to absolutely everyone, lesbian, gay, straight, whatever. Rather surprisingly, the second-worst compliance rate is occurring in Kentucky, with Texas third-worst.

  • 34. Fortguy  |  July 8, 2015 at 12:10 am

    I'm underwhelmed with Ballotpedia as an authoritative source. Apparently, they have too few editors to truly be informed of local news reports, and permit original research from their editors that Wikipedia would never allow. They have Irion Co. completely wrong as an example. Nevertheless, I'll give them credit as they seem to do their best despite the pathetic online reporting that most small town newspapers offer, and they seem to be dedicated to their effort.

    Too bad the sources who we previously relied upon have moved on to reporting different concerns.

  • 35. VIRick  |  July 8, 2015 at 1:05 am

    "…. the sources who we previously relied upon have moved on to reporting different concerns."

    Apparently, the last handful of hold-out counties isn't deemed to be "newsworthy" enough by the broader media to bother with. I was very disappointed that the "Dallas Morning News," for example, having put all that effort into their initial statewide Texas county-count, then did not continue to maintain an updated listing.

    I'm underwhelmed with Ballotpedia, as well, but have no other resource that's even attempting to keep up with the count. They may not be totally accurate, but it's better than nothing. Plus, they intend to produce another update tomorrow, 8 July.

  • 36. Sagesse  |  July 8, 2015 at 3:49 am

    The next front in the battle for LGBT equality. Emily Bazelon's article links to a Yale Law Journal article on the subject as well.

    What Are the Limits of ‘Religious Liberty’? [NYT Magazine]

    From the article by Douglas NeJaime and Reva Siegel

    "The distinctive features of complicity-based conscience claims matter, not because they make the claim for religious exemption any less authentic or sincere, but rather because accommodating claims of this kind has the potential to inflict material and dignitary harms on other citizens.

    "Complicity claims focus on the conduct of others outside the faith community. Their accommodation therefore has potential to harm those whom the claimants view as sinning."

  • 37. RnL2008  |  July 8, 2015 at 3:57 am

    So, it's early in the morning and I can't sleep, so I go out and read an article about how our fight is far from over and I see this little eye catcher about the Justices who dissented from the ruling overturning the 6th. I have NOT read the entire dissents of these Justices because I know they show real contempt for us and our rights, but this one really boiled my blood. This by Chief Justice Roberts:
    The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage…In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. …

    Umm, YES, it DOES…..otherwise it's NOT a Fundamental right…….and this has always been one of the reasons I had confidence that SCOTUS would rule in our favor…….laws in this Country CAN'T be against a sole group of individuals like the Sodomy laws were, the same has to hold true for marriage…..…it CAN'T be considered a Fundamental right JUST because the two individuals are of the opposite-sex. To think this man is NOT only a Supreme Court Justice, but the Chief Justice is mind blogging!!!

  • 38. sfbob  |  July 8, 2015 at 6:11 am

    i would go further than that, Rose. Why do we let ANYONE and particularly a Supreme Court Justice, get away with suggesting that marriage equality "redefines" marriage? The only change marriage equality makes is in establishing boundaries regarding who may marry whom. "Marriage" as such as not been "redefined" in any way at all.

  • 39. RnL2008  |  July 8, 2015 at 9:31 am

    I know…..marriage WASN'T redefined when Richard married Mildred just because they were different skin colors, nor are we redefining marriage just because we married someone of the same gender……now in my opinion polygamy would in fact redefine marriage because it ACTUALLY changes the entire dynamics of marriage as most have understood it.

  • 40. ianbirmingham  |  July 8, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    No, it doesn't change marriage at all. It does reduce the coerciveness of bigamy laws (downgrading them from inherent crime to legal notification requirements).

    Anyone will be able to monogamously marry exactly as before. Marriage continues to be a mutual commitment between two persons. The difference is that once bigamy laws are adjusted, each person will be able to legally participate in multiple marriages. Thus, a bisexual person could marry a man AND a woman. Details here:

  • 41. RnL2008  |  July 8, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Actually though it WOULD change marriage from a 2 person to a multiple of persons…….you may opt to see them similarity situated, but they AREN'T!!

  • 42. ianbirmingham  |  July 8, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    No, that's false. Each marriage is still between two persons. See
    "It's two distinct marriages, it's two distinct unions, and for us to come together and create family, what's wrong with that?" said Christine.

    from Lockwood polygamist family seeks right to marriage, Jun 30, 2015

  • 43. VIRick  |  July 8, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    This issue to not currently being litigated, so why keep brining it up?

    We're still trying to obtain marriage equality in any number of remaining jurisdictions, and this theoretical side-issue is just that, a theoretical side-issue which has no legal bearing or import upon the actual issue at hand.

  • 44. RnL2008  |  July 8, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    Look, you can believe what ya want, call it what ya want…..but it's still polygamy or plural marriages and it's NOT simply going to happen WITHOUT issues being addressed as well as bigamy laws.

    I am NEITHER for it or against it…'s simply NOT my fight nor the GLBTQI Community's fight!!

  • 45. ebohlman  |  July 8, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Actually, the most recent development that could be said to change the "definition" of marriage was the last few holdout states getting rid of the marital rape exception about 25 years ago. Marriage is no longer considered an automatic state of sexual consent. The elimination of coverture could also be considered a "redefinition" of marriage.

    Allowing same-sex couples to marry, OTOH, is more like changing the age of marriageability, which has happened routinely.

  • 46. JayJonson  |  July 8, 2015 at 5:54 am

    Joe.My.God reports on Rowan Country, Kentucky, whose clerk has been sued by the ACLU on behalf of four couples (two opposite-sex, two same-sex). Yesterday, she refused another same-sex couple. Most of the encounter has been filmed. She must be a glutton for punishment. The disrespectful way this couple was treated should be worth several thousands of dollars in punitive damages. Here is a link to the video that went viral last night. They were kept waiting about ten minutes before this part of the encounter was videotaped:

  • 47. A_Jayne  |  July 8, 2015 at 7:52 am

    "She must be a glutton for punishment."

    More likely, she is an attention hound, and has agreed to "step up" and take a stand for all the xtianists out there offended by the SCOTUS decision – which conflicts with what she has been taught to believe. She believes whatever negatives she experiences will be offset by a few things:

    1. Financially by a Go-Fund-Me account;

    2. By the admiration and appreciation of those "suffering in silence" who have no power over any of it; and

    3. Eternal life at the right hand of her god, or something…

  • 48. StraightDave  |  July 8, 2015 at 8:43 am

    or …
    4. The thrill of getting away with being a bigot….. because she can. Just a power trip to compensate for her resentment at being told by the highest court in the land that she is wrong. (Not very far removed from certain misbehavior, 1865-2015, that got euphemistically mislabeled as "Southern Pride").

  • 49. guitaristbl  |  July 8, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Despicable…Even we here may not be able to appreciate such situations for what they are till we see them. So humiliating for that couple.

  • 50. FredDorner  |  July 8, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    Fortunately she has no legal leg to stand on, unlike the bigoted clerks in Alabama.

  • 51. RemC  |  July 8, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Reading all these comments, and keeping up with the news, from Kentucky to Alabama to Texas—not to mention Confederate flags flying in Iowa and Florida—has resulted in one big ol' band-aid on my forehead to staunch the bleeding from the number of times I've banged it against my desk. The video from Kentucky was the worst—the anxiety and the humiliation these guys must have endured—or no, maybe it's Brownback's religious freedoms statement…wait, the Louisiana judge who presumes all gay parents are sexual predators…Actually, they're all pretty much neck and neck. Excuse me while I go apply a fresh band-aid.

  • 52. JayJonson  |  July 8, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    Yes, there have been a parade of horrors. I think maybe the Louisiana Supreme Court judge is the worst of these because that bastard is supposed to understand the law (maybe, however, he went to the Roy C. Moore School of Law). But of course the sheer disrespect conveyed by the stupid woman who heads the Rowan County Kentucky clerk of court's office and the equally stupid woman named Katie Lang who heads a Texas County clerk of court's office is especially hard to stomach. What we need to remember, however, is that just a couple of decades ago in Texas and Alabama and Louisiana and Kentucky gay people could have been put in jail simply for being gay and sometimes were.

  • 53. VIRick  |  July 8, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    ARKANSAS: Yet Another Renegade Clerk in Another State

    After consulting with the Liberty Counsel, the county clerk of Van Buren County, Arkansas, has distributed a memo which declares that her office will not be issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

    Via the "Arkansas Times:"

    Pam Bradford, the Van Buren County clerk, circulated this memo to all county clerks today,8 July 2015, announcing her intention to defy the US Supreme Court and have her office refuse to issue marriage licenses. She was out of the office when I called, but an employee confirmed the memo and said, as yet, no same-sex couples had presented themselves in the county to obtain a marriage license. Bradford's resistance is contrary to the position taken by both Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Attorney General Leslie Rutledge. Even the anti-gay Family Council, which is promoting ways in which people opposed to marriage can avoid participation in the process, distributed the advice from another religious legal organization that the best means to avoid compliance is to have someone else who is willing to do the work do it in place of someone with objections. Bradford has taken this a step farther. Bradford is a Republican and attends Shirley First Baptist Church according to her Facebook page. The clerk's office is in Clinton. Van Buren County has a population of 17,000 and bans the sale of alcohol.

    From the Van Buren Circuit Clerk's website, she states:

    "The primary duties of the Van Buren County and Circuit Clerk’s office revolve around filing, docketing, attending court, issuing of notices, records management, issuing marriage licenses, and reporting to the Administrative Office of the Courts."

    Pam Bradford's phone number is: (501) 745-4140

    Still on the website, here's a peculiarity: Although undated, it states that Ester Bass is the County and Circuit Clerk for Van Buren County, Arkansas. If so, then who actually is Pam Bradford?

  • 54. VIRick  |  July 8, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    From Equality Case Files: Update, 5:05 PM, 8 July 2015:

    LITTLE ROCK, AR – The Van Buren County Clerk has already changed her stand and says same-sex marriage licenses will be issued by her office.

    Pam Bradford told reporter Marci Manley that the revised decision was made after speaking with Mike Rainwater, legal counsel for the Association of Arkansas Counties.

    Earlier today, our content partner had reported on Bradford's memo to other county clerks across the state to join her in resisting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Bradford did not elaborate on the change but added that same-sex couples will be "treated with respect" by her office.

    So, Liberty Counsel (to use one of my favorite local expressions) can go suck salt.

  • 55. brchaz  |  July 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    "The Delray Beach [FL] City Commission unanimously voted on Tuesday to enact an LGBT-inclusive civil rights ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, genetic information, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, pregnancy, familial status, or age. The vote came as a culmination of work by the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, which has successfully proposed similar ordinances throughout the state."

  • 56. brchaz  |  July 8, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Michigan polls show support for gay marriage ruling, anti-discrimination protections

    Public Policy Polling of North Carolina, in its poll question, asked Michigan voters whether they would support a law making it illegal to fire or deny housing to someone because they are gay, lesbian or transgender.

    Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they would support such a law, while 25 percent expressed opposition and seven percent were undecided. Results crossed party lines, with 76 percent of self-identified Democrats, 66 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans offering support.

    "Michigan voters are pretty clear — across party lines — that they think discrimination against LGBT people should be illegal," said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling. "Even Republicans, while they may still be against gay marriage, don't think anyone should lose a job or a house for being gay."

  • 57. RemC  |  July 8, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    The blogger for the Arkansas Times she followed the Van Buren County Clerk reported by Rick previously also discovered that the Clerk's profile picture on Facebook was recently changed to the Confederate flag. Gun fans too. Scary stuff:

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