Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Courts are still working on cleaning up remaining marriage cases

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
– Kentucky’s governor yesterday released a statement telling clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or resign.

– Marriage equality has come to Georgia.

– In one of the Alabama marriage cases, Aaron Brush v. Bentley, the state and the plaintiffs disagree on how to move forward. The state wants dismissal of the case, and the plaintiffs want a permanent injunction. There’s a status conference on Monday in this case.

– The same situation is playing out in Kansas. The state says that because of its voluntary cessation of the conduct leading to the lawsuit (blocking recognition of marriages) the case is now moot.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:19 am

    Here's an interesting article on the states that still have individuals resisting compliance with the law of the land.

    I think in a year from now, all of this will be a none issue. No one will be talking about "gay marriage", no one will be resisting. The only ones that will be talking about it will be the hate mongers on talk radio, fox news, and the Evangeliastas with a bully pulpit….less than 5% of the population. Although these people can and will continue to inconvenience, delay, put up road blocks….they can not stop gay people from getting married. Marriage is the right that won't be denied.
    -Oh, yes, I forgot, there will be a few republicans pandering for votes who will mislead their sheep into thinking that they can get a "constitutional amendment" re-banning SSM passed. Hopefully their nominee will want to just see this as a settled issue and not want to discuss it or distract from their main objective….vilifying Hillary and Bill.

    It'll be interesting to see where America is one year from now. How do you think "marriage" and America will look one year from now? I really hope we have Australia on the right side of history by this time next year.

  • 2. scream4ever  |  July 10, 2015 at 10:03 am

    A year from now? I'd say more like a month from now lol!

  • 3. 1grod  |  July 10, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    Tony, you make an interesting prophecy. If you consider the states that have implemented marriage equality since May 2004, when Massachusetts initially issued its first license, progressively it has become less and less an issue.
    In Canada, marriage equality quickly because a ho-hum matter.

  • 4. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:27 am

    And a nice audio interview with the Architects of Marriage Equality. Terry Gross of NPR interviews Mary Bonauto and Evan Wolfson… the Heros of Marriage Equality.

    In the life of an individual, 43 years (from 1972 to 2015) is a lifetime, but on a timeline of history….43 years is relatively quick. I think momentum really sped up in part due to the internet, social media, hollywood, and people coming out of the closet and into the light. When society saw that we were their neighbors, friends, children, relatives, and not just the wierdos in jockstraps and leather, or in whiteface drag marching in gay parades….it became harder to hate.

  • 5. iocbyux  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:39 am

    Expert Says Polygamists Have "Clear" Supreme Court Case After Same-Sex Ruling

    While commenting on constitutional matters during Talk Back this week, July 7, former University of Montana Law Professor Rob Natelson says the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on same-sex marriage opens a door to even more types of marriage than discussed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion.

    “[The Supreme Court justices] could have used the Full Faith and Credit Clause, they could have used the Equal Protection Clause, but they chose to use instead the Due Process Clause,” said Natelson. “The Due Process Clause offers a lot more opportunity of the constitutionalization of plural marriage than the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Equal Protection Clause would have. […]If same-sex couples can make a claim for the recognition of civil marriage under the due process clause, I think it’s rather clear that polygamous couples and, perhaps, polyandrous couples can as well.”

    Natelson argues that the use of terms like “autonomy” and “personal expression” in Obergefell v. Hodges also help make the case for plural marriage.

    On June 30, Montana resident Nathan Collier filed for a second marriage license in Yellowstone County and was turned away, but Natelson says if Collier brings it to court, he could be successful.

    “Is Mr. Collier out to lunch when he suggests that this opinion allows him to have polygamous marriages celebrated?… No he’s not,” said Natelson. “What he needs to do is he needs to go to court and he needs to demonstrate that the wording of the Supreme Court’s opinion is such that it permits him to enter into polygamous marriage, and I think there is some chance he will be successfull.”

    Natelson’s opinion on the matter bears more weight than most pundits as his work is frequently cited by the U.S. Supreme Court. Natelson was referenced just last month by Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent in Arizona Legislature V. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

  • 6. DrBriCA  |  July 10, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    I'm not really opposed to polyamorous unions or the idea of some legal protection for the third (or additional) parties, but even with marriage now explicitly a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, plural marriages still remain a difficult topic to rule on. At best, I could see judges ruling not unlike how several courts for other countries (and initially some states here last decade) have advised the legislatures to develop a way to ensure that same-sex unions have the same legal benefits. A ruling would have to almost tell the legislature to develop the entire protocol for how to go about recognizing additional partners and how to process divorces, custody rights, etc.

    The Obergefell ruling was easy to create a precedence and new "law of the land," as it told the remaining 14 or so states to be gender-blind in the issuance of two-person marriage licenses. In the case of polygamy, an entire new set of rules and regulation are required, so I don't see how even a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in favor of polygamy would have the same immediate effect until the groundwork has been laid.

  • 7. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    Legally it's quite simple: a holding that making bigamy a crime is an unconstitutional violation of the right to marry is followed by the revision of state bigamy laws to require only that all existing spouses be legally notified prior to the new marriage.

    After that main act, there will be echoes. These echoes will not be changes to the existing system. Rather, it will be recognized that the existing system was designed to handle only a special case (the case in which a person has at most one spouse) rather than the general case (a person can participate in multiple marriages).

    These echoes will in the first place be handled by the courts using existing principles. For example, child custody is already being decided on the basis of "the best interest of the child" and that principle applies equally well here. Medical decisions are similarly provided for under existing law, for example this Texas law:

    Section 313.004 of the Health and Safety Code provides that if an adult patient of a hospital is incapacitated, an adult can act as a surrogate. In the order of priority, the following people can consent to treatment:

    * Your spouse.
    * Your adult child, with the waiver and consent of all other qualified adult children.
    * The majority of your children.
    * Your parents.
    * An individual clearly identified to act on your behalf before you became incapacitated, your nearest living relative, or a member of the clergy.

    The court would look at the existing law and judicially interpret its meaning in light of the existence of multiple marriages. Since states already vary in how they provide for medical decisionmaking, there is no need to coordinate the approach of different states. A judge in one state may interpret the law to mean that medical decisions can be made by any spouse with the waiver and consent of all other spouses. Or that medical decisions can be made by a majority of the spouses (with ties being broken by the physician in charge of the case). Or in some other way. This is the very essence of what courts do – they are society's way of figuring out and solving these types of problems.

    Once the court weighs in, the state legislature will typically take a look at the court's reasoning and either say "Eh, looks good" or else come up with a new law that does something else instead. And that is exactly what legislatures are designed to do.

  • 8. wes228  |  July 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    This is utter nonsense. The Obergefell decision revolved around the question if same-sex couples were trying to exercise the same fundamental right to marry, or a new and different "right to marry someone of the same sex." The Court analyzed this question through a thorough framework of "four principles and traditions of marriage."

    One of these was that same-sex couples were seeking the same level of legally recognized commitment to each other which marriage promotes. Being able to marry an unlimited number of people would undermine marriage's promotion of commitment, not further it.

    Most especially, another point was that the Supreme Court had decades ago struck down all marriage laws that differentiated between the male and female party to the marriage. There is no legal difference between the man and woman in a marriage, and so legally speaking there was never a legal need for there to be a man and a woman in the first place. On the other hand, every marriage law is predicated on there being only two parties to the union. This constitutes acceptable discrimination on the basis of "number of people" rather than a biological, inherent discrimination based on sex.

    There is no way anyone can successfully shoehorn this argument into the Obergefell ruling.

  • 9. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:22 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 only difference is that once bigamy laws are adjusted, each person will be able to legally participate in multiple marriages. Like the right to free speech, the right to marry does not vanish after you exercise it. It can be used as often as you see fit.

    Thus, a bisexual person could marry a man AND a woman. This approach synergistically amplifies marriage's promotion of commitment. Details here:

    "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

  • 10. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:12 am

    "Anyone will be able to monogamously marry exactly as before. Marriage continues to be a mutual commitment between two persons. The only difference is that once bigamy laws are adjusted, each person will be able to legally participate in multiple marriages."

    And with that same logic:
    Anyone will be able to use diesel fuel in their gasoline vehicle engine exactly as before. Diesel and gasoline Fuel continues to be a mutually interchangeable fuel source in your cars engine.. The only difference is that once chemistry laws are adjusted, each engine will be able to legally run on multiple fuel types." Yeah Right.
    Birmingham Logic…Alabama's special brand. ◔_◔

    Monagmy: the practice or state of being married to one person at a time.
    the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.
    ZOOLOGY the habit of having only one mate at a time.

    Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia,
    the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time.
    Compare bigamy (def 1), monogamy (def 1).
    Zoology. the habit or system of mating with more than one individual, either simultaneously or successively.

  • 11. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    If I were ever to be incapacitated, the idea that decisions regarding my critical care would be subject to a committee negotiation among multiple spouses doesn't feel very comforting.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    To prevent that scenario, you might consider creating a Medical Power of Attorney to cover yourself in advance: A Medical Power of Attorney grants a person you choose the power to make important medical decisions for you if you become incapacitated. However, you must sign the document before you become incapacitated.

    All states already allow anyone to create a Medical Power of Attorney which specifies their own preferences regarding medical decisionmaking. It's only the people who don't create one who are in effect volunteering to become a legal test case.

  • 13. jjcpelayojr  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    Marriage is a private commitment of exclusivity between you and another person. To enter into two different unions undoes the privacy and the exclusivity. Thus, polygamists really are redefining the marriage right.

  • 14. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:39 pm

    States have, but not all hospitals/medical personnel pay any attention to them. Yes, a person can go to court, but a 'final' decision in their favor in a year just might be a year too late.

  • 15. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:06 am

    There is no way anyone can successfully shoehorn this argument into the Obergefell ruling.

    True wes. That won't however stop them from trying. As I told Birmingham before, there is no way in hell this court will ever find a due process or equal protection right to bigamy. Unlike the restriction on SSM, in which the majority by way of a majority government endowed itself with certain rights, and withheld those exact same rights from a minority…blatantly unjust….the right to bigamy is illegal for everyone in society. If republican nominees are appointed to replace retiring justices in the next five years, there is NO WAY that a more conservative court will find such a "right to bigamy/polyamory". I can't even see Sotomayor or Ginsburg voting for such folly. Breyer and Kagan for bigamy… nationalizing that…as their legacy? Lets get serious, who would do that? Anyone would have to be smoking more than pot to believe that bigamy will be given the stamp of approval by this Supreme Court. But it is their right to try…and fail….I will give them that.

    We won the marriage equality fight in over 65 district courts, 4 appellate courts, and in the Supreme Courts of the US, Canada, Mexico, Spain, in the parliaments of the UK, legislatures of France, Uruguay, and New Zealand, and by popular vote in Ireland because the opposition had simply not a single rational argument that made a lick of sense or had an ounce of integrity behind it. Not a single polygamist propagandist can offer a single valid rational argument for the nationwide legalization of bigamy/polywhatever. The well if the gays and interracials can have marriage, then I want muh rights too….that just won't cut it. Sorry. Comparing bigamy/polyamory to marriage equality for gays and inter racial couples isn't just like comparing apples to oranges….it's about the same as comparing apples to Bruce Vilanch's arm pit stains.

    Imagine being "traditionally" married for 20 years… and out of the blue.your husband comes home one day and says…Hi honey, this weekend, I'm going to marry your sister sue, and next week I'm going to marry our dog groomer steve. And later this year I'm going to marry the baby sitter Melissa and her brother Chuck…….I just need you to sign this consent paper saying I've informed you….no need to read it…it's just all legalese.. Yes your interest in my assets, will be diluted to about 1/5th of what you would have had yesterday. Oh, and as for tommy and jane's college education…well you're gonna have to get a second job because now I'll have to fund, college educations for my new children, lisa, tina, marie, Ian Jr, Marcos, and Alajandro. And you all better get your committee roles in place in case I have a heart attack with all this new responsibility. Maine won't accept the Health Care POA, that I sign here in Massachusettes, and California will only allow me to put Steve as the Health Care agent. And in Montana, they don't even know what a health care POA is. Since Steve is a male, He should get priority even if you and I have been married 20 years, and he and I have been married six months. Yeah, this is just going to work out great. If I become incapacitated…you all and the states and courts and kids can work everything out. How was your day btw :). What's that? You're want me to sign off on your marriage to Johnny's piano teacher Hussein Al-Jazir??? Hell NO! That would be an ABOMINATION!

  • 16. StraightDave  |  July 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    If Natelson's opinions only get cited in dissents, I'm not sure they "bear more weight" with SCOTUS than mine do. In fact, in the AZ case, he was not cited by the court. Roberts did not represent The Court. The Court said otherwise.

    Just being a Professor at a University doesn't necessarily make you an "expert". (See Regnerus)

    sloppy reporting.

  • 17. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    And I'd bet the good professor is a Fundamentalist Mormon, who would feel much more at home in a community in Southern Utah/Northern Arizona.

  • 18. VIRick  |  July 10, 2015 at 6:17 pm

    OK, to date, this the first and ONLY comment this new troll, Iocbyux, has ever made here, and you-all got sucked right into arguing with him and with each other over a useless side-issue that won't be going anywhere and has nothing to do, legally-speaking, with marriage equality.

    All this does is drain our collective energy, and was undoubtedly (and continues to be) purpose-done.

    Just stop with the BULLSHIT on polygamy. The correct subject here at EoT is marriage equality.

    Look before you answer these provoking trolls. And notice he hasn't responded. Instead, you-all have attacked each other, wasting everyone's time and energy. But, then, that's the purpose of planting these trolling posts. Pay better attention.

  • 19. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Here Here. Polygamy, Polyandry, or Polyester, these are not the topics for this forum. These are not the topics of serious men. Even the Mormons have dropped this fundamentally flawed idea. This forum would be wise to follow suit. It seems as anyone and everyone with a petty cause wants to hitch his wagon to the Marriage Equality train. Had they been successful in their misguided endeavor they would have detailed the Marriage Equality Bullet Train for another 25-50 years. Forget this polyuted idea and move on to bring ME to Australia and the rest of the world.

  • 20. TomPHL  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:55 am

    I don't really care whether polyamorus unions are made legal or not, but I don't see it happening solely in the courts. If some state were to legalize them full faith & credit might apply and open the door for recognition nationwide. I don't se this happening even in Utah. Since I don't see the courts finding that there is a constitutional right to unlimited marriage partners they must set a limit. I don't see why this limit couldn't be 1 and pass constitutional muster.

  • 21. justplainkay  |  July 10, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Yup…polygamy is, legally speaking, fundamentally different an would be easy to disallow even after Obergefell. From the perspective of the law, same sex couples are fundamentally the same as an opposite sex couple. Today, no one is allowed to marry more than one person and there is absolutely no legal infrastructure to support allowing it.

    I would have strongly preferred a EP clause ruling vs. DP, but the DP ruling was the most narrow one possible and solved ONLY the ME question. An EP ruling would have had much wider ramifications.

    I bet Natelson is a conservative who is still stinging from defeat and is using scare tactics while crying in his beer.

  • 22. Rakihi  |  July 10, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Obergefell held that the marriage bans violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

  • 23. ebohlman  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Just as did Loving.

  • 24. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    yup yup yup

    The only thing missing from Kennedy's Obergefell ruling was specific mention of Strict Scrutiny… perhaps for his fifth pro gay ruling…

  • 25. scream4ever  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Kennedy is not a fan of scrutiny levels. I think we may have to wait until either him and/or Scalia to die/retire for us to get heightened scrutiny, although some lower courts did interpret Windsor to grant heightened scrutiny even though it wasn't explicitly stated.

  • 26. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    Let's not forget Breyer! Breyer actively hates levels of scrutiny.

  • 27. scream4ever  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    I've never heard this before. Any sources to back it up?

  • 28. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    I provided that ten weeks ago, in excerpts from the Obergefell oral argument here:

    Breyer (page 58): … marriage is about as basic a right as there is; that the Constitution and Amendment Fourteen does say you cannot deprive a person of liberty, certainly of basic liberty, without due process of law … the reason that I'm interested in that is we don't get into this more scholastic effort to distinguish between rational basis and middle tier and some higher tier and so forth. And it's not going to get into all these questions of balancing free religion rights versus gay rights and so forth. We'd avoid that in this case. And perhaps that's wise, if not legally required, which it may be. And so I'd like your response …

  • 29. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    Too bad the segment you quoted did NOT clearly state Breyer is against levels of scrutiny. What it does say is that Breyer did not feel it was necessary to enter into such a discussion on levels of scrutiny at the time of the oral arguments. Maybe he is in favor of levels of scrutiny, but knew Kennedy is against them, and he didn't want to risk antagonizing Kennedy's vote on the ME question.

  • 30. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:43 pm

    I'm not a fan of Scrutiny levels either… and apparently neither were Breyer or Posner. Scrutiny levels need to go. Scrutiny levels are the Aspertame of justice.

  • 31. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Absolutely correct. And both Due Process and Equal Protection will apply once again in the Collier case, which will happen soon. If Collier gets charged with bigamy for recently applying for a second marriage license, it will be a criminal case (like Loving).. Otherwise, a civil case will be filed (like Obergefell). Either way, a legal challenge asserting polyamorous marriage equality is imminent.

  • 32. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    I disagree and I believe that if Collier does in fact file the lawsuit, he will lose because to marry multiple individuals no matter how you spin it is NOT a Fundamental right……oh and here's the article I found that shows why it might be hard for Collier to win:
    Questions about polygamy are likely to dominate Western family law in the next generation. Two generations ago, contraception, abortion, and women’s rights were the hot topics. This past generation, children’s rights and same-sex rights have dominated public deliberation and litigation. On the frontier of Western family law are hard questions about extending the forms of valid marriage to include polygamy and extending the forums of marital governance to include religious and cultural legal systems that countenance polygamy. This Article analyzes the 1,850 year tradition of Western laws against polygamy and the growing constitutional and cultural pressures to reform these laws today. I show how the traditional Western cases against polygamy and same-sex unions used strikingly different arguments drawn from the Bible, nature, rights, harm, and symbolism. I conclude that, because these arguments are so different, Western nations can responsibly hold the line against polygamy, even if they choose to accept same-sex marriage and its accompanying norms of sexual liberty, domestic autonomy, equality, and nondiscrimination. I reject ideological arguments, pro and con, that anti polygamy laws are a form of traditional Christian morality. I reject slippery slope arguments, from the right and the left, that acceptance of same sex marriage must inevitably lead to acceptance of polygamous marriage. And I reject arguments from domestic and international sources that religious freedom norms command the accommodation, if not validation, of religious polygamy. The West may, and in my view should, politely say no to polygamy. An Appendix to the Article provides a detailed guide to different forms and terms of plural marriage discussed and prohibited in the West—real polygamy, constructive polygamy, successive polygamy, and clerical polygamy.

  • 33. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    Even when your cause is just, it's still hard to win. Richard J. Baker and James M. McConnell found that to be the case on May 18, 1970 when they went to the Hennepin County, Minnesota court clerk and were denied the right to marry. This new war for marriage equality – currently denied to those persons who are exercising the right to marry with respect to a person who is already married – will be fiercely fought and ultimately won, just as Loving and Zablocki and Obergefell were fought and won.

  • 34. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    That may be true, and if so…then so be it……but it WON'T be won anytime soon and the way you put it is NOT exactly how polygamy actually is or works…….by the way, you do know that the arguments Gays and Lesbians used to challenge the gender restriction DIDN'T work for a polygamist group up in Canada and my guess is just because the Chief Justice made a comment regarding polygamy in his dissent is NOT going to be enough to push the issue into the win column…..there are issues to be addressed and there is NO true way to truly protect women and children who have been harmed in these sort of relationships………but again polygamy could be possible but seriously ONLY after bigamy laws are either removed all together or changed, then there are the issues with rights, benefits and privileges associated with marriage that are truly designed for TWO spouses NOT multiple spouses……..and of course there's Reynolds vs The United States that has to be dealt with as well…….sort of like the Achilles heel of polygamy like Baker vs Nelson was for us.

    Again, it may happen, but it could take nearly 20 to 30 years before it's achieved. JMPO

  • 35. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:36 am

    20 to 30 years Rose….you're being WAY to generous or optimistic.
    A gallup poll* last year rated Polygamy in the lowest category of "Highly Unacceptable" along with Suicide, Cloning Humans, and Married Men and women having an affair.

    How many people do you know…or people who know people who think polygamy is morally acceptable, is actually polyamory married, or even wants to be? Unless we're talking about the citizens of Utah, I 'd wager that the number of people interested getting married to more than one person simultaneously is about the same as the number of people that want to marry their goldfish.


    These people hoping to win at the Supreme Court would do well to remember that the Supreme Court follows the zeitgeist of this nation, it does not lead it. Baker and McConnell lost in '72 because their case was about them, one individual couple….there was not a single state or even other nation which had granted gay marriage. The Supreme Court wasn't about to overturn the laws in 50 states back in '72 and it won't do so now. The polyamourous movement will have to follow the same path as others seeking to join the institution….legalize it in at least 40 states before bringing it to the Supreme Court. Good look with that….Not.

    Baker and McConnell went to court with some smart and novel legal theories….that did not work out well for them now did it. Evan Wolfson, and Mary Bonauto, and a few others, laid out three plus decade plan….laid a foundation of winning hearts and minds, of winning other LGBT rights during the last 30 years. In the meantime, the mormon's threw polygamy out like stale milk.

  • 36. brchaz  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:24 am

    In the US, the percentage saying in Gallup tracking polls that polygamy is morally acceptable went from 7% in 2001 to 16% in 2015. That's an increase of 130%.

    There's every reason to believe that these polygamy numbers will continue to be very similar to the public opinion curves of interracial marriage and SSM, progressing steadily toward majority support.

    Roberts and Scalia have both openly written that they think prohibiting polygamy is now most likely unconstitutional (in Obergefell and Lawrence).

  • 37. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:14 am

    An Increase from 1 to 3 is an increase of 300% What's your point?

    In his 2003 Lawrence dissent Scalia wrote:

    "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. "

    He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".

    His own conclusion didn't persuade him to vote with the Obergefell majority. What's your point?

    In Justice O'Connor's concurrence, she noted that Scalia's dissent conceded that if cases such as Romer v. Evans "have stare decisis effect, Texas’ sodomy law would not pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, regardless of the type of rational basis review" applied. Still he did not join the majority in Obergefell. What's your point?

    To Scalia, Stare Decicis is applicable only when it's convenient to his cause… otherwise 'tis "jiggery-pokery".

  • 38. JayJonson  |  July 12, 2015 at 6:36 am

    Please. Brchaz, you are allowing those trolls Roberts and Scalia to damage your judgment. Roberts and Scalia raised the spectre of polygamy for the same reason NOM and Maggie Gallagher raised it: in an attempt to discredit same-sex marriage and to raise "slippery slope" arguments. Their trolling is only slightly less offensive that Santorum's prediction that same-sex marriage will lead to dog-on-man marriage. This is just silly, but it does show what snakes Roberts and Scalia are, and how naive some of our commenters are.

  • 39. brchaz  |  July 12, 2015 at 9:50 am

    You're conflating the question of whether they are correctly admitting that bigamy laws are unconstitutional with the question of whether Roberts and Scalia will sign on to a majority opinion to that effect.

    Yes, they are unconstitutional and both Roberts & Scalia correctly recognize that; no, Roberts and Scalia won't vote that way when it counts. They are both hypocrites. They will both file results-oriented false statements for political reasons, just as they did with Obergefell.

  • 40. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    “If we’re changing the marriage laws to include gay couples, how else might we change them?”—polygamy doesn’t inherently flow from gay marriage. If anything, what polygamy does flow from is a general opening up of options.

    We increasingly allow Americans to define their own families for themselves while removing coercive public policy and judgmental social norms. And this idea, which is at the heart of everything from increasing access to birth control to the striking down anti-miscegenation laws to so much more, is exactly what conservative religious extremists have always opposed.

    There are interesting arguments to be made for legalizing polygamy, from protecting children from secretive non-consensual multiple-marriage situations to how being “feminist” actually means not protecting women from these marriages but letting them choose for themselves. All compelling points. But the truth is, I don’t really care.

    Folks, you can thumb me down for my opinion, but it won't change the fact that polygamy may or may not happen…….frankly, more power to those who can handle more than one spouse, regardless of whether it is multiple husbands and 1 wife, or multiple wives and 1 husband……the discussions and debates are going to happen.

    I feel that there are other fights for Gays and Lesbians to win, like fair housing, safe employment laws and dealing with these folks who think their religious beliefs can trump the rights or beliefs of others…….but let's NOT be fooled to think that polygamy is just going to slither away into the night, with roughly over 40,000 polygamist groups here in the United States that folks are aware….there will be some who want multiple legal marriages like the Collier's, they are NOT the first nor will they be the last.

    Again, sorry that some CAN'T just discuss the issue instead of thumbing down one's opinion. but Ian has mentioned it and others wish to ignore it…….so be it.

  • 41. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    "I feel that there are other fights for Gays and Lesbians to win, like fair housing, safe employment laws and dealing with these folks who think their religious beliefs can trump the rights or beliefs of others" – absolutely correct!! Total agreement with you here. These are certainly central issues in the fight for legal equality.

    Bisexuals have a particular interest in multiple marriages because by definition they are attracted to both men and women. That's the "B" in GLBT, folks. Legal equality for bisexuals is also an important issue.

    Transgendered people also have many equality issues to be resolved.

    Obergefell is by no means the end of legal combat over equality issues. Many more remain to be fought and won.

    P.S. As VIRick and others have said before, the up/down votes aren't important and they should just be ignored.

  • 42. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    True, Bisexuals are attracted to both, but are you sure that means they have a desire to marry one from each gender?

    I do agree that Obergefell is NOT the end of the Marriage Equality issue, but I'm still not sure how one can see that what folks like the Collier's are fighting for is going to be SIMILARLY Situated to what my wife and I have or what the Lovings had…….I think it's a much more complicated issue than just what we have started to discuss.

    As for the up/down votes, I typically don't pay much attention to them, but if I get to many negative ones, I figure it's a hint to remove my comments and I will.

  • 43. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    That's actually a figure that academic researchers have worked on quantifying for at least the past two decades:

    A few examples from that link:

    In Loving More magazine's survey of 1,010 polys taken in 2000, 667 stated their sexual preference; of these, 51% said they were bisexual.

    In her article "Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power" (Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 251-283; 2005), Elisabeth Sheff writes, "Bisexual women were quite numerous in polyamorous communities. In fact, bisexuality was so common among women in the polyamorous community that they had a standing joke that it allowed them to 'have their Jake and Edith too!'" (p. 266).

    Psychologist Geri D. Weitzman, in her paper "Therapy with Clients Who Are Bisexual and Polyamorous" (Journal of Bisexuality, Vol. 6, Issue 1-2; 2006), wrote: "Page (2004) found that 33% of her bisexual sample of 217 participants were involved in a polyamorous relationship, and 54% considered this type of relationship ideal…."

    In 2010 came this European report on preliminary results released from a large study, which found that 40% of bisexuals "consider themselves to be polyamorous." (The full study was to be published in 2011 in the Journal of Bisexuality.)

  • 44. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:57 am

    Unfortunately…not everyone takes that hint rose.

  • 45. A_Jayne  |  July 10, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    From what I understand, while bisexual people are able to, and do, make emotional and physical connections with people of either sex, it is not common that those connections are made simultaneously.

    A bisexual man, for instance, may fall in love with and marry a woman, then after some years of wedded bliss, discover he is no longer in love with her, but has fallen for his hunky (male) neighbor instead. He and his wife may choose to invite the neighbor in, but I doubt she would be willing for her husband to pursue a second (therefore, multiple) marriage with the neighbor – unless, of course, she has also fallen in love with the neighbor — and then, also of course, it will depend on which (if either) the neighbor has fallen in love with…

    Yeah, complications. Anyway, the bisexual people I know are still monogamists, they just sometimes switch the gender of the person with whom they are a monogamist.

  • 46. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    I'm glad you pointed that out as it was something I was going to mention with the family and friends I know who are Bisexual……'s usually when they are with someone of the opposite-sex, they are typically exclusive heterosexual, likewise when they are with someone of the same-sex, they are exclusively Gay or Lesbian…….and though I have learned and come to understand those who are Bisexual, it wasn't always that way.

    And yes, it all seems complicated to me, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

  • 47. VIRick  |  July 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    " As VIRick and others have said before, the up/down votes aren't important and they should just be ignored."

    Ian, true enough, but I've gone through this thread and downvoted every last individual who mentioned the word, "Collier" and/or "polygamy."

    A brand-new troll set this up to deflect our energy onto a useless side-issue and you-all just got sucked into it. The troll hasn't even bothered to return to defend his position, but you all just keep going on and on about it for no reason whatsoever.

  • 48. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    Thank you rick, now I'll leave the issue a lone 🙁

  • 49. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:45 am

    "A brand-new troll set this up to deflect our energy onto a useless side-issue…"

    From the mouths of Babes…

  • 50. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:17 am

    This last part about ignoring up down votes is especially true when one's particular ramblings widely and consistently garner votes that put ones ramblings in sub zero freezing territory. If one can't persuade one's audience… shoot for notoriety. Constantly and consistently being in negative territory has to count for something, right? Why is the Hindenburg still remembered to this day… for its notoriety of being the one Airbag Airship to go up in flames and come down in a fiery crash. Oh, the humanity!

  • 51. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:55 am

    I up thumped you rose! 🙂
    Hmmm….that sounded dirtier that it was meant.
    You bring a common sense and breath of fresh air to this polycrap.

  • 52. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:28 am

    Thanks, and I returned the favor <3

  • 53. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:26 am

    Rose… You're going to give me whiplash changing your avatar so fast and often.

    oh, and btw, Rosie O'Donnell is in "Another Stakeout"…the sequel to Stakeout.
    Sorry bout that.

  • 54. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:30 am

    I found one cute avatar saying that for Every Clerk that resigns due to Marriage Equality a Baby Unicorn is Born and I wanted that one…….but couldn't get it to fit right.

  • 55. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    The following is the best summary I've seen recently regarding how Texas counties are complying with the Supreme Court on marriage.

    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: Holdouts on Gay Marriage Could Face Lawsuits

  • 56. A_Jayne  |  July 10, 2015 at 7:51 pm

    Maxie, the gay activist, missed the point when he said he'd rather pay $500 for a moving van to help people move out of non-compliant counties than have them pay $400 for an attorney to fight it.

    We support the local economy and pay taxes where we live. We should be able to also access government services where we live. We should not have to move (or even drive) to another location to have our rights upheld by the government we pay for – even at county, city, and other local levels.

  • 57. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    I agree. Maxey is both a DNC member and a leader in the state party. For a leader of a party that desperately needs to expand its reach within the state, describing some jurisdictions as "hell holes" is not very artful or diplomatic. That may come back to bite him in the ass.

  • 58. 1grod  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:46 am

    Hi guy: The article raises for me the apparent discretion that exists in Alabama for the probate judges to issue marriage licenses. Texas's AG says: issue licenses or risk being sued. Alabama AG says that ME is the law of the land but still judge withdraw their service suggested that this site needs to promote the rally 12:30 July 13th in Dothan, Houston Co. to everyone. How is that possible? Because it seems so injustice. Why Houston Co.? Because of the county probate judge holdouts, Houston Co has the largest population: 101550. 76 persons have committed to attend. That up from 53 when I reported it yesterday. Dothan is 1682 miles from here by road, so I wouldn't be there. We need someone there to report on the rally. Scottie, please consider being there. Let me know what you'd paid in gas, and I'll donate that amount to the site. You have my coordinates. We are more that an information group. We are an advocacy network as well: so why not contact your Facebook friends!

  • 59. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:42 am

    just a guess 1grod…. so that would put you in approx Saint-John, NB? I just like to have a sense where all these anonymous strangers are geographically. On the internet, sometimes all I get is "Earth". Apparently we're all over the place.

  • 60. scream4ever  |  July 10, 2015 at 5:48 pm

    Wow, what a prick!

  • 61. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    It would be ironic if the Lt. Gov. is in Puerto Rico 'on vacation'.

    Are you sure he isn't on the 'Appalachian Trail' (or the USVI equivalent)?

  • 62. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:55 pm


    In a word, no.

    If the comment is not worth anything, then why was it posted in the first place? And if someone is childish enough to make sick jokes or comments, then that, in my opinion, is their problem, not mine.

    I have never deleted any comment after I have submitted the comment, and I'm not going to start now.

  • 63. 1grod  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:10 am

    Rick, my electronic signature, witnessed by a notary is recognized. My signature at a bank, witnessed by an officer of that bank is honoured by that bank anywhere. Portfolio transactions, same. What's with having to wait until the LG's physical presence to executive a signature. Go to the nearest consulate office. 'Where there is a will……' Tony below says use FedEx. If he must be physical present – Skype him in. I endorse your and scream4's characterization on James. G

  • 64. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:41 am

    How will anyone know where he signed…unless it has to be notarized. Even so, the legality and validity of the second signature would have to be challenged in court. That would take years….It'll all be pointless Tuesday after next. I'd say go for it.


  • 65. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    I'm afraid I don't understand. You'll have to be more specific… which post(s) and why. I'm not getting the reference to "posts below". What is your concern exactly? I'll be happy to delete or edit something if there's a valid reason.

  • 66. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:53 pm

    Well Rick,

    You've just outlined a plan for Mu2 to bully and silence you. All MU2 now has to do is write his racist biggoted words in reply and you and everyone else will need to delete their posts. You've given him more attention than he would have otherwise attained on his own. I for one will not be silenced by someone who has to resort to name calling. He simply exposes himself as a small weak little person who has no other way to make himself bigger than by trying to make others look smaller than him. Simply, belittling other people makes him feel bigger. It's just sad…and pathetic.

    I really don't understand why references "to where [you] live" and another's bigotry should cause a chilling silence of speech.

    I detest and denounce his small nasty opinion. I am disappointed in you for drawing more attention to him and creating an artificial brouhaha. In my opinion, a better way to "deal" with this sort of "person" or topics such as polygamy is to simply ignore them and give them no response. I for one will never read his posts again or respond to him. Even down voting these types gives them the attention and ego stroke they so desperately seek. I don't think I'll bother reading or responding to polyamory posts either.

    Deleting my own posts will make it look like I said something I regretted, or was later ashamed I had posted. I don't post any such thing.

  • 67. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 12:36 am

    I understand what you're trying to do. You're attempting a misguided virtual equivalent of everyone turning their back in silence against a foul offender. I just don't think the delete delete here has the same effect here. Since no one knows later why you deleted…to me it looks like you made an error in judgement and deleted your posting as many people do who go on to lose their jobs for posting something stupid. This is your choice….but it is folly. If I had a kid and he posted something on youtube and a single nasty troll posted the n word or the F*g word, i wouldn't tell him to delete his expression and get everyone else to delete their associated comments. Again, now this person knows how to chill speech here. Go ahead and delete your posting every time he posts the N word in reply… It's a free society. I for one will not be bullied or shamed into deleting my expression. You wield your sword by the blade if you continue this, while well intentioned, shaming tactic, as he can now suppress your expression or anyone else's. Perhaps I'll just never reply to your posts again. I will NOT let evil silence me. You do what you want. If someone writes FAG with spray paint on your garage door…do you tear down the house and move away? I guess so. This is just sad…and you've let him win.

    By the same token…I guess families of fallen soldiers should not hold public funerals…to spite WestBoro. Lady gaga should never hold another concert…to spite westboro.

    I can guarantee you…He's LOVING all the attention you continue to draw to him. And now i've been sucked into this vortex…when I could have simply ignored this contemptible shame. Thanks a lot.

  • 68. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    Here's a more uplifting story about someone who is definitely not acting like a prick.

    John Wright, Texas Observer: Gay Republican County Clerk Proudly Issues Same-Sex Marriage Licenses in Conservative Paris, Texas

  • 69. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:03 am

    These are my favorite…prickless stories 🙂

  • 70. RemC  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Read about him on Towleroad, complete with pictures of him posing at the gym,muscles a-bursting.

  • 71. VIRick  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Tennessee Attorney-General Drops Same-Sex Divorce Appeal

    Nashville, TN –– Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage, the Tennessee attorney-general’s office is no longer contesting the divorce of two men who married in another state. On Friday, 10 July 2015, the office sent a brief to the Tennessee Court of Appeals making it clear that it won’t stand in the way of Frederick Michael Borman and Larry Kevin Pyles-Borman getting a divorce.

    The couple married in Iowa in 2010. Rockwood attorney Mark Foster, who represents Frederick Michael Borman, said they have been denied a divorce since filing in Roane County in March 2014 because the state didn’t recognize same-sex marriages before last month’s Supreme Court decision.

    Harlow Sumerford, a spokesman for Attorney-General Herbert Slatery, said in a statement that the filing acknowledges the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on Tennessee law.

  • 72. RnL2008  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:43 pm

    I personally feel that folks rush into marriage and then realize it takes work to keep it going and they feel it's easier to walk away…….maybe if more states forced married couples to have to wait to file for a divorce maybe more folks would actually work on their marriage……..when my wife and I got married, my aunt and uncle gave us the "Marriage" talk and we know it's for the long haul….good or bad. My wife will tell anyone who asks her that I'm the one she chose to annoy her for the rest of her natural life and she says I'm pretty good at it…….lol!!!

  • 73. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:05 am

    My folks have been married for going on 53 years….most of it all mostly bad!
    Back in the day….when I was a teen…and dinosaurs roamed the earth….i used to wish I was from a broken home like all my friends. No such luck.

    Why I want to get married, and why marriage equality is my biggest passion….is a total mystery. Go Figure.

  • 74. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Morning Tony,
    I came from an abusive family, my father was just an upstanding man and I'm thankful every day he's were he belongs……..anyways if the truth be known, I always wished Mr. Brady had been my dad…….I thought he was just an awesome dad.

    My biological parents divorced shortly after I was born……they would have been considered a MIXED orientation marriage.

  • 75. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    I was never abused. They're great parents…they're just terrible to each other.
    Think George Castanza's partents up about 3 notches

  • 76. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Hey, some folks just don't belong together, but at least one good thing came from them and that's you:-)

  • 77. RobW303  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:46 am

    Yeah, no potential for abuse there….

  • 78. VIRick  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    County Clerk in East Texas Resigns over Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

    Henderson, TX –— An East Texas county clerk has resigned rather than comply with the recent US Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry. Rusk County Clerk Joyce Lewis-Kugle submitted her resignation letter Thursday, 9 July 2015. County Judge Joel Hale, Rusk County’s top administrator, said Lewis-Kugle wrote that she could not in good conscience issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    County commissioners are scheduled to vote on her resignation Monday, 13 July 2015. Hale said he expected it would be accepted. District-Attorney Michael Jimerson said Lewis-Kugle asked about her options and he told her “the Supreme Court is the law of the land.” He said she had a choice of issuing the licenses or resigning in protest.

    Lewis-Kugle has no published telephone number.

  • 79. davepCA  |  July 10, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    The report omits information about whether or not the door hit her in the ass on her way out. Sloppy journalism.

  • 80. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    You just know she was standing in the doorway bending over as the door closed in order to feed her Christian martyr complex.

  • 81. RobW303  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:44 am

    The door FORCED her out of her position. Fortunately, it also kept her from being eaten by the lion. At least, that's how Todd Starnes will probably report it.

  • 82. VIRick  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:23 am

    Dave, plus, we don't have a published phone number to call her up and find out, but Fortguy's scenario sounds about right!

  • 83. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Best observation of the thread Dave.

    I don't get it. People with good paying jobs, give it up to spite their face like little children who throw the $5 bill in grandma's birthday card at her. While If i could, I'd pay the county to do the job of issuing licences and performing marriage ceremonies.

    Damn….I wish we had a bigot county clerk… then I could run for her position when she quit.

  • 84. jm64tx  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:14 am

    I dont even understand why she resigned. In Texas, you dont need a marriage license to be married.

  • 85. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:25 am

    You don't understand why she resigned???

    Look up the word "Putz". It will become self-evident. You might even find her picture under the definition. But then. You know Texas…It's like a whole other country.

  • 86. jm64tx  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:42 am

    Yeah … all she had to do was hand them the alternative form from Texas Family Code 2.402 and let them sign it, then they would be married. No clerking action to it.


  • 87. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:56 am

    That looks like the wrong form.

    Is this the TX version of common-law-on-paper?
    I'm sure the clerk wouldn't want to get her hands sullied by even handing them that form. When she says No, she means No to everything.

    But now I'm curious…. does TX now have a revised version of this form? Can LGBT do common-law?
    Nothing is simple anymore….sigh

  • 88. jm64tx  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:35 am

    LGBT can do informal marriage yes.

    "We lived together as husband and wife" is in the statute, but that part has been held unconsititutional by Obergefell. So the court would overlook that in a divorce situation.

  • 89. davepCA  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:34 am

    The state measure that allowed the county clerk to deny the couple the same marriage certificate provided to other couples is ALSO held unconstitutional by Obergefell. Duh.

  • 90. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 11, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Hans did all the cooking (saving the kitchen clean-up and dishes for me and the dish washer). He also did or directed the carpentry at home. He did or directed all the needed repairs at home.

    I worked full time, leaving the house at 6:30 AM, and returning at 8:30 PM (if I was lucky and got an earlier commuter train, sometimes I got home as early as 7:30 PM).

    Oh, and we were together for almost 22 years, but marriage wasn't an option for any of those years – Hans died more than a year before ME was available in Massachusetts, and more than 12 years before ME was available in Maryland.

    So in our case, who was the husband and who was the wife? After all, if we had signed that form, one of us would have to be designated as husband, the other as wife, and we wouldn't want to lie on the form, would we?. And I presume signing the form would be done under rules similar to perjury, thus lies (intentional or not) could be taken to court and sentence pronounced.

    And in Texas, I presume there are at least several dozen couples who had or have similar situations.

    So who is/was the husband, and who is/was the wife?

  • 91. mu2  |  July 11, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    If you knew 23 more things, you would be a god damned fucking moron.

  • 92. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:36 am

    And if they vote not to accept her resignation… what are they going to do… shackle her to her desk? … and pay her?

    Oh wait…this IS Texas….

  • 93. sfbob  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:59 am

    It's probably a capital offense.

  • 94. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:07 am

    I don't get this "voting on whether to accept her resignation". OK, so maybe it's one of those non-binding resolution sort of things just to vent – sort of like a SCOTUS oral dissent, but it doesn't count for squat.

    I mean, what are they gonna do, chain her to her chair and stuff dollar bills in her mouth?

  • 95. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:26 am

    How about them Cowboys!

  • 96. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:58 am

    I swear we typed our shit at the same time. I wasn't just plagiarizing 🙂

  • 97. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 9:08 am

    I'm glad you clarified that. Plagiarization is illegal in them here parts…partner.

  • 98. jm64tx  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:37 am

    Down in Houston we dont have such a high opinion of the Cowgirls.

  • 99. mu2  |  July 11, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    You don't need to, you fuck goats.

  • 100. jm64tx  |  July 12, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Naw … thats the Texas Aggies in college station.

  • 101. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 3:40 am

    I doubt it could be lower than mine.

  • 102. jm64tx  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:30 am

    Shes an elected county official … so it takes a judicial act by the county commissioners court for her to resign her office, because they are the ones who have to fill the vacancy:

    "Sec. 20. COUNTY CLERK. There shall be elected for each county, by the qualified voters, a County Clerk, who shall hold his office for four years, who shall be clerk of the County and Commissioners Courts and recorder of the county, whose duties, perquisites and fees of office shall be prescribed by the Legislature, and a vacancy in whose office shall be filled by the Commissioners Court, until the next general election; provided, that in counties having a population of less than 8,000 persons there may be an election of a single Clerk, who shall perform the duties of District and County Clerks."

  • 103. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 11, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    If the clerk dies of cancer, or in an auto accident, or a gun shot, etc., it's just tough luck for the Commissioners Court? They just have to let the office remain vacant until the next General Election? How are these different from someone resigning, thus creating a vacancy in the office?

    And in counties of less that 8,000 population, it almost certainly is double, as the Clerk is almost always the District and County clerk?

    I guess Loving County won't have to worry about electing two clerks for a while – the county's population in 2013 was estimated at less than 100.

  • 104. jm64tx  |  July 12, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    I guess you missed the point … the commissioners court has to fill the vacancy, which is their way of accepting the resignation of the clerk. She cant just walk off the job.

  • 105. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:17 am

    Oh, and no traditional marriage by the uppity Clerk Joyce Lewis-Kugle, it appears. Bastardizing her husbands name? Tsk, tsk. I'm sure you don't find that in the bible, dear.

  • 106. VIRick  |  July 10, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    American Samoa Questions Same-Sex Marriage Validity in Territory

    PAGO PAGO, American Samoa — American Samoa Attorney-General Talauega Eleasalo Ale is reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage, making American Samoa the only US territory that has yet to voluntarily comply with marriage equality. American Samoa is the last U.S. territory to hold out against the recent Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage between same-sex couples.

    As the Pacific island’s attorney-general reviews the decision, legal observers and gay rights advocates are saying it should go into effect immediately. “It should be unquestioned,” said Rose Cuison Villazor, a professor at University of California, Davis’ law school and an expert on territorial law. “The Supreme Court’s decision was pretty strong.”

    But American Samoa Attorney-General Talauega Eleasalo Ale hasn’t been ready to take that step. “We’re still reviewing the decision to determine its applicability to American Samoa, and I have no specific comments at this time,” he said. Asked if same-sex marriage is legal in the territory, Ale said, “I don’t know. We’re reviewing the law.”

    U.S. territories have some self-governance rights. The right to marry, however, isn’t a question of self-governance, said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, staff attorney for national gay rights group Lambda Legal. “This is a question of individual right, individual liberty,” he said.

    Other U.S. territories have voluntarily complied with the Supreme Court decision. In Puerto Rico, Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed an executive order soon after the ruling. U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp has signed a similar executive order (with the caveat I mentioned above). In Guam, there is no effort to ignore or challenge the ruling, said territorial legislative Vice Speaker Benjamin F. Cruz, who is gay. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is also supporting the decision.

    As of Thursday, 9 July 2015, no same-sex couple had applied for a marriage license in American Samoa, according to the island’s Office of Vital Statistics. Christian churches with conservative social views dominate in American Samoa, home to about 50,000, and the government’s motto is “Samoa, Let God Be First.” Yet the territory has a tradition of embracing faafafine, males who are raised as females and take on feminine traits. There are many faafafine who aren’t supportive of gay marriage out of “respect for our Samoan culture and religious beliefs,” said well-known faafafine Princess Auvaa.

    The lack of marriage license applications by same-sex couples shouldn’t be taken to mean no one in American Samoa desires gay marriage, said Villazor, the professor. “I would think there are cultural barriers to begin with. The AG's position might present some other legal and social barriers, too,” she said.

    For gay marriage to be recognized in American Samoa, there needs to be a voluntary decision or litigation, said Chimene Keitner, an expert on territorial status issues at University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Litigation would require “plaintiffs who have been denied the right to marry and are willing to take a public position on that and challenge their inability to marry,” she said. Plaintiffs could also be those who were married elsewhere and want the marriage recognized in American Samoa, she said.

    Princess Auvaa said she wants gay marriage to be legal in American Samoa. If it’s determined that it is, she said, “I would be the first person to apply for a marriage license, — if I had a boyfriend who would agree to marriage.”

    So, there you go, guys. Princess Auvaa is looking for a boyfriend to marry her.

  • 107. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    My goodness, Rick, your browser's saved bookmarks list must be fascinating!

  • 108. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:02 am

    Haven't they heard of FedEx in the VI???

    FedEx the dude the papers along with a black pen and a paid return envelope…sign here. Done and Done in 4 days.

  • 109. VIRick  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:07 am

    Chilean Same-Sex Couples Seek Civil Union Licenses

    On 9 July 2015, gay and lesbian couples throughout Chile began applying for licenses that will allow them to enter into civil unions in the South American country.

    Gay author Pablo Simonetti and his partner, José Pedro Godoy, were among the same-sex couples who applied for licenses in the Chilean capital of Santiago. Jaime Parada Hoy, a gay councilman in the wealthy Santiago enclave of Providencia, and his fiancé, Victor Fuentes Venegas, tweeted a picture of themselves after they applied for theirs.

    Thursday, 9 July 2015, was the first day that same-sex couples could apply for a license under the country’s new civil unions law that President Michelle Bachelet signed in April. The statute will fully take effect on 22 October 2015.

    Juan Pablo Fuentealba Álvarez and his partner of more than 10 years, Julio Cezar Dantas, who direct the Chilean "It Gets Better Foundation," which works to prevent anti-LGBT bullying, were among the dozens of other same-sex couples who applied for civil unions licenses in the South American country on Thursday. The two men plan to enter into their civil union at their Santiago home on 24 October. “It is the first concrete step in the beginning of the legalization of diverse families,” Fuentealba said, after he and Dantas received their civil union license. “It was very important to take part in this moment to demonstrate to children and to young people that Chile is changing.”

    Andrés Ignacio Rivera Duarte, a Chilean transgender rights advocate, said the ability for same-sex couples to apply for licenses to enter into civil unions in the South American country allows them to protect their assets they have accumulated “through mutual efforts of a life built together.”

  • 110. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:52 am

    Does anyone know if the Obergefell respondents have conceded their right to request for a rehearing form SCOTUS? If all respondents have conceded and admit that they won't request such a review….doesn't that make the 25 day "waiting period" moot and an illegitimate excuse to continue denying and delaying issuing marriage licences? Even if the Court hasn't officially given it's mandate?

  • 111. 1grod  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:10 am

    Tony: Yes respondants have conceded but. Supreme Court's decisions became effective on issue on appeals from federal courts. Rule 45(2 which references 25 days applies only to decisions arising from State Courts. Which provides a context for Roy Moore's and the AL's Supreme Court's seemingly poor understanding of the federal court's rules.
    Mandate not necessary on appeals from federal courts, Neat that Chilton's probate judge drew Rule 45 (3 to the attention of the AL Supreme Court judges on July 6!

  • 112. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:54 am

    Tell this to those County Clerk Nazis who are withholding issuing licences until the 25 days are up… as if some miracle hail mary maneuver will save them. The Prop 8 proponents tried this in CA…and Kennedy denied an emergency stay request there, thereby opening up ME again within 2 days of the Court's 2013 Perry ruling.

    Have all 4 states expressly written to the court that they in fact do not intend to request a rehearing? I guess that's what you meant by yes, respondents have conceded?

    And that reminds me….If "God" so hates marriage equality….why didn't he do something about it? Where's the fire and brimstone raining down on the Supreme Court? Why all the rainbows across the skies of DC and Ireland on decision day? Riddle me that…

  • 113. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Seem to recall a giant rainbow in NZ too, cited by one of their MP's as an omen during debate on the day of the vote.

  • 114. 1grod  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    I'm not certain which counties are using 25 days – as the excuse: Henry Co's David Money and Cleburne Ryan Robertson told the media, most likely that they would wait that long. Procrastinating Judge Money said he'd be ready to issue licenses on July1, then July 6, then the 7th and now July 21. There are four other counties that are taking applications: Blount ( pop 57,8270)- which has issued licenses until the individual issuing them resigned on July 1; Chambers (pop 34067), Clay (13434) and Marengo (21,017). Autauga (pop 55,541) had been issuing licenses, then stopped on July 1 and now is not issuing any; Choctaw (13,633), Covington ( 37,955), Crenshaw (14,083), Houston (101,547), Pike (32,899) and Washington (17,581) are not issuing licenses to anyone. There is a rally at 12:30 on Monday July 13 in Dathon, Houston Co Court House. 93 persons have committed to attend. Ian are you close enough to attend and report back? Get the welcome message out, considering that Judge Patrick Davenport has become a proxy for the other reticent, recalcitrant jerks of judges. He's got to be a stubborn, self-righteous dork imo!

  • 115. jm64tx  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:43 am

    So apparently you missed this part of SCOTUS rule 45(3):

    "In all other respects, the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Rule apply."

    Scotus Rule 45(2) says:

    "The filing of a petition for rehearing stays the mandate until disposition of the petition, unless the Court orders otherwise. If the petition is denied, the mandate issues forthwith."

    So if a party petitions for rehearing, that in effect stays the mandate from the 6th to the lower federal district court until SCOTUS decides the petition for rehearing.

  • 116. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    The whole point to begin with was the question "have the states written their concession or have they written to the court that they will petition for rehearing." I haven't heard anything about any of the respondents asking for a rehearing. According to your info, if no respondent has petitioned for re-hearing, then there is no stay. And there was no stay in the Obergefell Opinion/Order. It would make perfect sense for the respondents to officially concede. Since Kennedy wrote the opinion….the likely hood of him changing his opinion is nill. The likely hood of the other for progressive justices changing their opinion is even less.

  • 117. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Even apart from the 25 days that apples only to cases coming from a state court, I thought there was always some period allowed for requesting a rehearing. My lame memory thinks it was 20 days. After Hollingsworth was rejected on standing, and the 9CA lifted their earlier stay, someone asked for a SCOUTS stay until the 20(?) days had expired. Kennedy brushed that aside (probably while already on vacation).

    Help me out here, experts. I know I wasn't dreaming.

    In any case, there was no stay in Obergefell, so the question is moot. Moore is just blowing smoke and probably doesn't even care whether he is right as long as he can fool somebody.

  • 118. VIRick  |  July 11, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    Dave, I phoned a friend to discuss this point and to verify it. Supreme Court decisions are effective from Announcement Day, in this instance, 26 June 2015. There is no mandate. There is no re-hearing. The decision is final.

    Instead, both the possibility of requesting a re-hearing, as well as waiting for the issuance of the mandate, apply to the federal circuit courts of appeal. However, as just noted with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, since the state (Puerto Rico) was no longer defending its position, both the judgment and the mandate were issued on the same date, 8 July 2015, thus precluding any possibility for re-hearing.

    "Hollingsworth" is a bit unusual in that the Supreme Court, in effect, bounced the merits of the case back to the lower court for final adjudication. The lower court rules thus applied to the substance of the case, as the Supreme Court only ruled on the issue of "standing," declaring that whoever appealed the lower court decision to the Supreme Court did not have standing to do so.

    By comparison, the "Obergefell" decision on the merits was clean. Bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Done.

    In any event, the 20(?) days you cite would not be a Supreme Court rule, but rather one which perhaps pertains to the 9th Circuit Court, once the substance of the matter was pushed back into their jurisdiction.

  • 119. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Perhaps you are right, to a degree, but the 9th had no jurisdiction at that point, either. SCOTUS ruled that they should not have heard the initial appeal. There was no standing in the 9th, either, at the end of the day.

    So maybe my memory is foggy or I was listening to the "wrong people".

  • 120. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    You weren't imaging things Dave. There were several reports/articles back in the day indicating that after the Prop 8/Hollingsworth case was remanded back to the 9th to vacate it's prior holding for lack of jurisdiction, that there was a 25 day period that the Proponent had to ask for a rehearing.

    The day after the Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, proponents of Proposition 8 filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to enforce the usual 25 day period in which the losing party may make a petition for rehearing;[177] Circuit Justice Kennedy, overseeing the Ninth Circuit, denied the request on June 30, 2013

  • 121. VIRick  |  July 13, 2015 at 1:07 am

    Dave, I found it. Here's where the current, falsely-derived 25-day "waiting period" thingie is coming from:

    On 29 June 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court published an ambiguously-worded order giving affected parties, including county probate judges, 25 days to file briefs and motions reacting to the US Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell." It seems many probate judges in Alabama, grasping at straws, have interpreted this as a 25-day moratorium on implementing new federal law within their own jurisdictions.

    A few additional county clerks in both Texas and Kentucky (and a few, very briefly, in Louisiana and Mississippi) have also been attempting to invoke some sort of 21-day or 25-day waiting period, but of course, Texas is NOT Alabama, nor is Kentucky.

  • 122. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:45 am

    A superb article on the meaning of civil rights and the 14th amendment. Slate has recently put up a paywall, but the first five articles are free, so hopefully those who are interested can read it.

    What the Same-Sex Marriage Opinion Should Have Said (and Almost Did) [Slate]

    "We begin, as is altogether fitting and proper, with the Constitution itself. The 14th Amendment opens with a promise of birth equality: “All persons born … in the United Sates … are citizens” and thus equal citizens. As full and equal citizens, all persons born in America are entitled to full and equal protection of all fundamental civil liberties, as expressly guaranteed by the very next sentence of the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    "The 14th Amendment’s opening words about birthright citizenship were a clear and conscious codification of Abraham Lincoln’s vision at Gettysburg: America is dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal—“born” equal, in the language of the amendment. Persons born black are equal in civil rights to those born white. Persons born male are equal in civil rights to those born female. Persons born out of wedlock are equal in civil rights to those born in wedlock. Those born into Irish American families are equal to Anglo Americans and Italian Americans. Those born into Jewish households are legally the same as those born into Catholic or Protestant households. Children born second or third or 10th in a family are in law no less than those born first—the amendment prohibits once-common primogeniture and entail laws favoring first-born children as such. And today we make clear that those born gay or lesbian are no less in civil rights than those born straight.

  • 123. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:59 am

    That was superb! Thanks!

    More of this type of info on EoT and less of that Polycrap.

  • 124. Sagesse  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Well, he did talk about polygamy for a paragraph or so…. :). I was even going to add a warning….

  • 125. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Now you tell me. Oy Vey…⊙︿⊙

  • 126. mu2  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:24 am

    Give 'em a fur coat and a Colt 45, they think they're King Kong.

  • 127. bayareajohn  |  July 12, 2015 at 10:06 am

    More race baiting.

  • 128. bayareajohn  |  July 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Or maybe just a racist loudmouth.

  • 129. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:30 am

    With no new thread until Monday…This is going to be a long and bumpy thread all weekend. Fasten your seat-belts.

  • 130. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 9:15 am

    A standard WEEKEND OPEN THREAD would be a great idea. Every week, like clockwork. We've always needed one.

    P.S. I tried to send email to the site to request this, but the form is broken, at least for me.
    Never used it before, so maybe that's just the way it is.

  • 131. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 9:12 am

    I second your motion.

  • 132. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 9:25 am

    OK, I got issues with KS,AL and other states trying to weasel out of responsibility for cases they should have lost, or actually did lose at some level. I just couldn't quite articulate it before because it all seemed so ludicrous.

    "The same situation is playing out in Kansas. The state says that because of its voluntary cessation of the conduct leading to the lawsuit (blocking recognition of marriages) the case is now moot."

    That's like some guys tossing a tear gas canister into a shopping mall causing everyone to evacuate. Then a week later claiming their crime is moot because the gas has all dispersed, everybody is safely back in their own home, there was no permanent damage to any structures, and we won't ever do it again because we've run out of tear gas now. So it's all good, right?

    No, I don't think so

  • 133. A_Jayne  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    It also seems to be their attempt to not be assigned costs for the plaintiffs' attorneys.


  • 134. 1grod  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:43 am

    An addition perspective on Chief Justice's 'rant'. Has he given upon on his views on his role expressed 10 years ago that the chief justice is the unifier on the court. Is John picking up bad habits from Scalia?

  • 135. JayJonson  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Roberts is and always has been as viciously anti-gay as Scalia, he just generally avoids some of Scalia's drama. Those who somehow convinced themselves that Roberts would join the Windsor 5 were engaging in wishful thinking of a very high order. There is absolutely nothing in Roberts's background to cause anyone to think that he has any empathy for gay people. Beyond that, he made it perfectly clear in his Windsor dissent that he thinks it is constitutional to deprive gay people of equal protection under the law.

  • 136. StraightDave  |  July 11, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    I am one of those guilty fools, and I won't get over it for a long time. Roberts is tainted forever in my eyes since I somehow hold a CJ to a higher standard. The thin reed I held onto was when Roberts, as Circuit Justice, denied a stay in the DC marriage case before all possible legal avenues had been exhausted. He was not a total asshole at a time when most everyone else was. Maybe he had a weak moment and decided to apply sound judicial principles. Maybe he got a nasty phone call afterwards. Who knows.

    But with his gratuitously-mean dissent in Obergefell he went all Sutton-esque on us. Damaged his legacy. He's placed his bets and now he's stuck with them. If he tries to change later, he'll be accused of hypocrisy. He's Scalia with a mask.

  • 137. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    I agree. While I was never fooled, I did hold out hope that Roberts could excercise some restraint and wisdom as did Judge Posner, and several other republican conservatives. I didn't expect him to ever find a right to SSM, but to perhaps follow up on his observation that the bans failed on a sex discrimination basis as in fact they do. I thought he could concur in judgment but not in reasoning, as Sandra Day O'Conner did in Lawrence.

    Roberts turns out to be very two faced. He upholds the AFA by reinterpreting the actual language, and then turns around and tries to de-legitimize the majority's Obergefell decision. I think in addition to his bigotry, he sided with the others to prop up his conservative creds and image to counter point his upholding Obama's AFA…TWICE!

    I guess we should remember this CJ was appointed by arguably the worst president in the history of this nation. By virtue of the Robert's Court's decisions in Citizens United and his lame attempt to de-legitimize a Supreme Court decision in Obergefell and Windsor, his tenure and "the Roberts Court" will go down as one of the worst in history. In the end, he disappoints conservatives by twice upholding Obamacare, and progressives by trying to de-legitimize the institution of the Supreme Court in Obergefell. Robertson is no blind justice…he's a partisan demagogue to the bone.

    In any future cases before "The Court" the jesters, Roberts, Alito and Scalia have made crystal clear their strong bias against LGBT Citizens…multiple times, they need to recuse themselves from any cases involving gay rights or be impeached and removed by the appropriate party…congress or their fellow justices.

  • 138. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:17 am

    So, I saw this yesterday and tried hard to re-size it to fit as my avatar, but had difficulty, so here ya go:

  • 139. davepCA  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:31 am

    Aw, that's adorable! : )

  • 140. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:37 am

    And it fits so well to the current idiots who feel handing a piece of paper with their name on it to Same-Sex couples somehow will give them cooties……lol!!!

  • 141. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:48 am

    Hopefully my new avatar is up:-)

  • 142. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 4:01 am

    I love it.

  • 143. Zack12  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Reading a couple of posts here, I know some people were holding out hope Roberts would be on our side but his dissent in Windsor made it clear how he felt about us.
    Anyone who thinks it's okay for the federal government to discriminate against his lesbian cousin and her wife along with other same sex couples isn't going to change his tune for state bans.
    The ruling was always going to be what it was, 5-4.

  • 144. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    Well, one can hope that Roberts would have wanted a better legacy than the one he will have, but all we EVER needed was a majority and how that happened was really never in question!!!

    I know some folks on another site keep trying to say it WASN'T unanimous like the Loving decision was, but I told them and will say now that it is NOT necessary for a unanimous ruling, NEVER has been, just a majority… day that may change, but it will NOT have any affect on this ruling!!!

  • 145. ebohlman  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:15 pm

    I have a hard time believing that Loving would have been unanimous if it had been decided this year.

  • 146. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    You may have a point, but for some….they are doing ANYTHING in their power to justify their displeasure with this ruling and it truly is IRRELEVANT what the Loving ruling would have been today as it's already done.

  • 147. RemC  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    I totally agree. I've tried to think my way around why such an issue was unanimous then given all the social parameters around it. I don't know enough about the big picture to provide an educated hypothesis, but can only assume it was because the Supreme Court was less political then.

  • 148. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    I also think that Chief Justice Warren had a way with pulling the Court together INSTEAD of allowing Justices Like Scalia and Thomas to pull the stunts they do…..just a thought on why several rulings were Unanimous back then.

  • 149. RemC  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    The other point I've made, Rose, is that the same folks that are hung up about it being a "divided court," didn't feel it necessary to make the same observations about the Voting Rights Act and the Hobby Lobby decision.

  • 150. RnL2008  |  July 11, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Seems NO one was upset about those rulings or Citizen United, but ensuring that one's right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL has made a whole lot of folks get all religious…… my avatar says, Every Public Servant who resigns, a new Baby Unicorn is Born.

  • 151. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    The other side of the coin is that had Kennedy voted with the conservatives…it would have STILL been a "divided court" and a non unanimous decision.. All these people now bemoaning the way the vote did go down would instead now be cheering "The Court" has spoken and has ruled correctly as we always knew it would. Let me just say, Brian Brown and Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee would not be having hissy fits because their 5-4 victory was hollow and less than legitimate. These people also conveniently ignore the fact that the bans were put in place not by a united 100% public vote but by a divided plebiscite or a divided legislature. Not one ban was put in place by a 100% unanimous vote of the electorate or by any legislature. Our republic was never designed nor meant to work with 100% Unanimous votes by the people, the legislature or by the Judiciary. The only time unanimity of votes is required is in a jury trial. That's the way it is…like it or leave it.

    With this line of thinking, no ban on SSM marriage should have ever gone into effect because there was never a Unanimous consensus by the electorate nor by any legislature. These people's line of thinking is dis-ingenious. If ANYONE tries to tell you that Obergefell is illegitimate because it was not a unanimous ruling.. just remind them that if unanimity is the measure of legality and constitutionality, then the mini DOMAs and state statutes were illegitimate to begin with by virtue of the very same measure.

  • 152. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  July 11, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    Concur 100%. Once his opinion on Windsor was known, he had no path to voting with the majority in Obergefell. I stated such, like you, and said the only flip I could have seen is him voting with Windsor and flipping against Obergefell. Once the vote against Windsor was made, the deal was sealed.

  • 153. allan120102  |  July 11, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    Does same sex marriage is really legal in Quintana Roo without an amparo? I know the marriages that occur in 2012 were not by an amparo, but I have not seen new same sex marriages taking place in the state. I saw a while ago that only 5 same sex couples have married and I find it weird that no more same sex couples have married. Can someone verified or tell me if I am mistaken please.

  • 154. scream4ever  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    Have you checked the official registry to back this claim up?

  • 155. VIRick  |  July 11, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    Quintana Roo was/is a special situation, as their marriage code, as written, was/is gender neutral. It wasn't always interpreted that way, but once the gender-neutrality was pointed out, same-sex couples were then allowed to be married there.

    Amparos are only needed in Mexico to set aside a law or a portion of the code which has been deemed unconstitutional (or which one seeks to deem unconstitutional). Quintana Roo's marriage code was/is constitutional. Marriages between same-sex couples should be legal there. I'm not aware that they have stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but if they have, that discriminatory practice has already been ruled unconstitutional in Mexico and would, in fact, be in violation of Quintana Roo's own marriage code.

  • 156. allan120102  |  July 11, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    I have three articles in here and some are a little bit contradictory, supposedly they have been at least 14 same sex marriages. Which I still consider low on base that is one of Mexico's best beach resorts, but now I am counting QR as issuing.… .

  • 157. VIRick  |  July 11, 2015 at 11:46 pm

    According to the first article, dated 18 December 2014, at that time, in Quintana Roo, there had been 14 marriages between couples of the same sex, as stated by the general director of the Central Registry in the State, Adelaide Catalina Sánchez Silva.

    It was also pointed out that they will give legal recognition to couples who marry civilly, regardless as to whether it is done in-state, in-country, and even abroad, provided they comply with the requirements of the Municipal Registry Office officials.

    Jorge Carlos Aguilar Osorio, a member of the local legislature, said that according to the July 2013 amendments to the Civil Code for the State of Quintana Roo, "any person" who so desires can get married in any of the 10 municipalities of the state.

    Still, like you, I also would have expected more same-sex couples to have been married in Quintana Roo. However, besides some of the original obfuscation, which definitely slowed down the process, it might be important to note that there's a huge cost differential in the fees charged. Mexican citizens pay considerably less than foreign citizens, a point which may deter foreigners from actually marrying in Mexico, despite Quintana Roo being a major tourist destination.

    The second article further points out that the first same-sex couple to be married in Tulum were required to obtain an amparo before the civil registry would proceed with the marriage.

  • 158. bayareajohn  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    Note that your Intense Debate profile bio tagline about bringing marriage to… identifies your location. Then there's those two letters in front of Rick in your ID… Might want to clean that too…. not that I understand how your location bears on the cowardly bigot liar at hand… I don't see him coming after you…

    And the mods appear all away, ignoring reports for weeks. Brandon's last post was 2 weeks ago.

  • 159. bayareajohn  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    Your choice, of course, but I can't figure out how your reputation could be marred by the rants of one clearly off-balance jerk simply by proximity in a blog page… when you aren't even discussing the same topic. And the jerk is so very clearly trolling as deeply as possible for maximum effect and attention.

    I think our obligation is to make our positions clear, not to hide them because some hateful idiot is trying to get attention.

  • 160. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 11, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    Right. Perhaps he should change his name to Rick…"Of The Southern Isles".

  • 161. VIRick  |  July 11, 2015 at 6:29 pm

    Nebraska's Lone Renegade County Clerk Has Backed Down.

    Sioux County Clerk Michelle Zimmerman was on vacation and unavailable for comment, but Deputy Clerk JoElla Norman said Friday, 10 July 2015, that somebody in the office will issue a license to a same-sex couple if requested. Zimmerman was the only one out of 93 county clerks in Nebraska who said she would not issue a license in light of a ruling last month from the US Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Her stance prompted a threat of legal action from the ACLU of Nebraska. It also prompted State Sen. Ernie Chambers to also send a letter Friday to Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, urging the governor to "instruct" all the state's county clerks to abide by the high court's ruling.

  • 162. ianbirmingham  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    Gay marriage a first for Khon Kaen (Thailand)

  • 163. RemC  |  July 11, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    In his memoir, Barney Frank said that the staunchest, most reliable legislators in favor of equal rights for our community were the members of the Black Caucus.

    That said, I don't if you are seriously unhinged, or if you find some perverted humor in being deliberately offensive. I've read a lot of hateful, ignorant rants about gays and marriage equality in many, many online postings across the country. None were as vile as yours.

    Incidentally, I've never forgotten a sweeping, degrading comment you made about Cubans from the homophobic ones you once knew in Tampa. I could say that the only person on the planet you like and approve of is yourself, but I'm not sure even that would be true.

  • 164. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 1:40 am

    Guerrero Legalizes Marriage Between Same-Sex Couples

    Guerrero, notorious for doing things its own unique way, legalizes marriage for same-sex couples all at once in one massive ceremony,– no amparos, no step-by-step,– just do it. Done.

    After Mexico's SCJN's ruling went into effect on 22 June 2015, officials in the state of Guerrero, including the state's civil registrar, began announcing plans for a collective group marriage ceremony for same-sex couples, and planned for it to occur on 10 July 2015. In the interim, the governor, Rogelio Ortega, submitted a same-sex marriage bill to the Guerrero Congress on 7 July 2015. State legislators lamented they would have preferred to have the bill passed before the marriages took place, but given the compressed time-line presented, that outcome was unlikely.

    Thus, on 10 July, 2015, right on schedule, and without further ado, twenty same-sex couples were married in one mass ceremony officiated by Governor Rogelio Ortega in Acapulco.

    Marriage between same-sex couples is now legal in the Mexican state of Guerrero without an amparo or any legislative change, as per the decision of the chief executive of Guerrero who personally officiated over the marriages himself.

  • 165. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 1:48 am

    This is really great news. I'm so pleased that Mexico seems to be following suit….or in some ways lead the US to ME. Once Mexico is all BLUE, the entire continent of North America will be a fair(er) and just(er) society. Sure there's still a lot of room for us humans to improve. Fairness and Equality, and especially marriage equality are a good stepping stone. I wonder if there are any Australian's on board here… I wish there were some way we could get push the momentum for full ME in Australia…and then the next country… Perhaps Germany or Switzerland…and eventually all of Western Europe.

  • 166. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 2:01 am

    Guerrero now shows the way for the rest of the states in Mexico to quickly legalize marriage between same-sex couples, and thus be in constitutional accord with Mexico's Supreme Court decision.

    In a codified system of law, having the governor issue an executive order short-circuits what could otherwise be a long, drawn-out process (as was done in Chihuahua). Having the governor personally preside over and officiate at the mass ceremony REALLY short-circuits the process (as was just done in Guerrero)!

  • 167. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 2:10 am

    Now THIS is the kind of news I love to read.

    In the months ahead, if EoT is still here… I'll look forward to the fight for ME in Australia.
    I wonder when it'll feel like the fighting is all done, and we're all just members of society…not an Us and them.

  • 168. ebohlman  |  July 12, 2015 at 4:04 am

    If Mexico becomes the next country to fully implement ME, it will be the one that pushed the number of people living in ME jurisdictions over the one billion mark. There appears to be quite a bit of grumbling in Australia over that prospect.

  • 169. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Mexico will probably be the next country to fully implement marriage equality, given that they are under Supreme Court orders to do so. Last month, the governor of Chihuahua issued his executive decree, literally bringing marriage equality to that state overnight (the decree was issued on 11 June, to be effective from 12 June 2015).

    And now, the governor of Guerrero has done the same, but with the additional cachet that he personally officiated at the mass ceremony himself, right in Acapulco, without question, Mexico's longest-established premier tourist vacation destination.

    This move will put pressure on other Pacific coast states that are geared as vacation destinations to keep up. In particular, I foresee the possibility that BCS (Baja California Sur), home to La Paz and Cabo San Lucas, could well be next. And Sinaloa, too, home to Mazatlán.

    If a number of additional state governors continue this process of issuing executive orders legalizing marriage between same-sex couples, the entire compliance question could be resolved rather quickly.

  • 170. allan120102  |  July 12, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    I actually think that Colombia will be the next country to fully legalize same sex marriage. Its supreme court most of the time have advance gay rights. Imo it will be faster than waiting for all Mexican states to comply.

  • 171. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Allan, we've been waiting since June 2013 for Colombia's Supreme Court to drop the other shoe. That was their own original deadline date (originally issued in their decision rendered in June 2011) for Colombia's legislature to comply with marriage equality,– or else.

    In the interim, since Colombia's legislature has thus far failed to act on legalizing same-sex marriage (with 2 years grace thus becoming 4 years), Colombia's Supreme Court could and should render that "or else" decision, and could do so at any moment. However, that same "at any moment" time-frame has already been out there dangling now for over 2 years. Even the President of Colombia himself recently publicly urged the courts to act swiftly and complete the process, and do it now.

  • 172. allan120102  |  July 12, 2015 at 9:09 pm… maybe this will finally resolve the issue.

  • 173. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    On 30 July 2015, la Corte Constitucional de Colombia Will Hold a Hearing on "Marriage Between Same-Sex Couples"

    According to Radio Caracol, the public hearing will be held at the request of the NGO, Colombia Diversa. The plenary session of the Constitutional Court, set for 30 July 2015, is a public hearing where all parties will be heard in the debate in front of this High Court related to the subject of marriage between same-sex couples.

    The decision to hold the open-door session was adopted after the court accepted a request submitted by the NGO, Colombia Diversa, in which it was argued that because it was so important for the LGBTI community, it was necessary that all voices be heard. In this case, the Court is studying a presentation by Judge Jorge Ignacio Pretelt that says it is not possible for "marriages" to occur between same-sex couples, but that they must continue to be simply solemn unions.

  • 174. 1grod  |  July 12, 2015 at 2:00 am

    51 AL counties, including Blount Co 'in' [representing 92% of the citizen of the state], 3 taking applications, 1: Autauga was in, now en suspense because on July1 the issuing person resigned; and 12 are 'out' including Houston Co, where rally against the dozen 'out' probate judges is planed for 12:30 pm Monday, July13 at the Dothan County Court House : 98 person attending.

  • 175. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 3:20 am

    Across the Americas, a new century is dawning. The old guard that held back freedom and hope has begun to reliably and undeniably crumble… like time worn sand castles holding ancient tyranny, ancient history, dissolving away against the continuous waves of new and brighter generations. Spring returns with a new hope while the dying weeds of hate and oppression begin to fade away. The love that once dared not speak it's name now marvelously blossoms in all the colors of the rainbow, bringing the sweet fresh fragrance of freedom across the land, as Courage, Hope and Love begin to take root. And so it goes…

  • 176. 1grod  |  July 12, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    103 persons attending tomorrow's 12:30 pm rally. To be clear the probate office is located at 462 N Oates St, Dothan. A rally asserts a duty to offer licenses to all citizens in all counties .

  • 177. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 2:03 am

    And moving on…
    It's now just over two weeks that all of America has gained the freedom to Marry. I know that some of you have been waiting for June 26th since the early 70s. I've literally been waiting for June 26th 2015 since that terrible horrible no good very bad dark day on June 30th 1986 when the Burger Court made it's horribly flawed Bowers decision. The day finally came and now two weeks later…it still seems a bit surreal. Does it feel final or surreal to you? It's like I've spent 3/5s of my life marching on towards a promised land and now we're finally here. I don't know what to do. I am so grateful though even though this change came late in my life that younger generations of LGBT people will be able to have hope and dream of having love and a family (not that we didn't before, but you know what I mean…most of society told us we were outcasts and should be marginalized). Maybe it's time to just sit back with a glass of mint julep Iced Tea and watch all the new "marriage" videos (of SS couples)…and the gay proposals on Youtube. I wonder when this feeling of sureallness will wear off and this (Legal ME) will feel done, irreversible and complete. I guess I keep coming back here to EoT to watch the finishing touches and final pieces of the puzzle fall in place. And with each new county falling in line…it just feels like the finishing touches going on a cake.

  • 178. JayJonson  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:04 am

    Good question, Tony. I have also been waiting at least since the Bowers decision for SCOTUS to do the right thing. I joined a demonstration in front of the Detroit federal courthouse to protest the decision.

    I had expected the 5-4 decision we got in Obergefell, but I am not sure that it has really set in. It does seem a little unreal to me right now. But I am reassured because the people who hate us and who are bewailing the decision are actually an increasingly shrinking minority.

    SCOTUS did the right thing in part at least because they knew they could–the country would be behind them. Despite the demagogic statements of Republican politicians (and the Republican-appointed SCOTUS dissenters), in most places in this country, the decision was greeted with either a shrug or with great celebration. I expect that in the general election, even the Republican nominee will mute his or her criticism of the ruling, while the Democratic nominee will trumpet her or his support for marriage equality. The country has changed on this issue.

  • 179. RemC  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:52 am

    Jay's comment about the decision being greeted with a shrug resonated. I was surprised that the only person who made a comment to me on June 26th was one of a few gay colleagues. I'm known for being an activist on gay issues.

    Tony, you've given me permission to confess that I took on a glass-half-full attitude about the 26th. The one thing I was curious about was the scrutiny issue, and I was disappointed that it wasn't addressed. And I anticipated the entirely pointless backlash we've seen from officials, although the Ohio judge who refused to marry a couple managed to shock me. I've collected newspapers from the weekend of the 26th and have bought all kinds of memorabilia to commemorate the event. We traveled to Michigan that weekend and missed the celebrations—although I was quite conscious that our marriage status didn't dissolve that Friday when we crossed state lines.

    When my husband and I got legally married on Father's Day last year, that's when the marriage equality thing became utterly surreal and real to me. Since then, the issue has been more of an angry political issue in terms of all those other folks who were denied that right. That anger continues, over the silly people who hide their distaste behind religion, and the other issues we still face. The religious liberty fight looms large.

  • 180. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 8:23 am

    First of all..congratulations on your marriage. I hope you have many more years of happy wedded bliss.

    But now, two weeks on, I'm you still see the Court's decision/ruling as a glass only half full? In truth, I have to agree, that I would have liked for Kennedy to announce that Gays and Lesbians are a protected class, it only makes sense. But in actuality, an innate sense has told me for a long time that Kennedy was just not ready to go that far…yet. But perhaps in subtle ways, in his Obergefell opinion, he's laid the bread crumbs, for lower courts to find and follow for themselves..exactly as he did in his Windsor decision. Sometimes it just works smoother if you speak softly and carry a big stick (or a bic pen), than forcing an idea on the reluctant. Scalia pronounced on the day of Windsor what was to come. He even predicted it 12 years ago in his Lawrence dissent.

    I was more surprised and disappointed in John Roberts…not that he joined the other side…to me that was always 80/20 against/for…but that he so strongly crafted an opinion that doesn't just criticize the Court's decision but does everything possible and pulls out every little trick in his repertoire to try to de-legitimize the Court's decision. He is clearly laying the ground work for a future more conservative court to turn around Obergefell in the same way Lawrence overturned Bowers. It's crystal clear. After all, he had the opportunity in October of last year to join with the other RATS to grant cert to Utah and others, stop ME in it's tracks, keep the stays in place and stop an additional 17 states from being required to abandon their bans. Why did the four not stop the judiciary in it's tracks last October. At least Scalia and Thomas exhibit their true (and vile) colors like coral snakes. John Roberts on the other hand was completely dis-ingenuous with his dissent. He is the truest of partisan demagogues of the Lowest sort….with only George W. Bush in his class. If any justice should be removed from office…he should be the first..even before Scalia, or Thomas.

  • 181. StraightDave  |  July 12, 2015 at 10:52 am

    Why did Roberts not grant cert to Utah?
    IMO he knew (or strongly suspected) he had lost Kennedy. So no reason to hurry that vote along any time soon.

    His best hope was to delay the final day of reckoning, maybe get a new justice appointed next year. Stall for time. He sacrificed a few states in exchange for maybe pulling the whole country back from the brink later. Just cynical. Bad gamble, bad logic, bad attitude… the whole lot. Sutton gave him a breath of hope in the 6th. Then he got pissed and irrational when he got his ass handed to him. It was really a very undignified dissent.

  • 182. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 11:55 am


    That was pretty much my speculation too. As I've said in previous posts, I knew we had won after the Oct 6th denial of cert because they (the court) obviously didn't have the votes to grant cert or win on the merits. I think Kennedy deliberately obfuscated during oral arguments to avoid criticism…and perhaps maintain the annual June Cliffhanger. I truly believe that Kennedy came to this conclusion as early as June 2003…perhaps even before he was appointed to SCOTUS, back when the unjust Bowers decision was handed down. Libertarians knew it was wrong then. They also know that the majority granting a right to themselves and withholding it from a minority with no semblence of any true just cause is inherently unjust.

    As far as your assessment of Roberts though, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps though, he at least stole Scalia's thunder… as if that's worth anything.

  • 183. SteveThomas1  |  July 13, 2015 at 9:06 am

    I think that Justice Kennedy's opinion laid down more than bread crumbs. Two of the primary criteria often given for deciding whether a class is a "suspect class" are a history of discrimination and having a defining trait that is immutable. Both of these are there in the Obergefell decision. The 9th Circuit concluded that the Windsor opinion should be read as making sexual orientation as suspect classification, subject to heightened scrutiny. Judge Posner said essentially the same thing in his marriage equality opinion. I think heightened scrutiny is soon going to become the law in most of the circuits. Certainly the Obergefell opinion can support an argument to that effect.

  • 184. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 2:23 am

    Up-Date on Colima, Mexico

    Following the SCJN's ruling against Colima's "separate-but-equal" civil unions for same-sex couples, the Colima state government has since announced that all civil unions in that state will cease. Any still remaining will be converted to marriages, as has been the on-going process. In addition, on 10 July 2015, PRD submitted a same-sex marriage bill to the Colima Congress.

  • 185. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 4:16 am

    The Game's a foot in Germany!

    President Gauck appeals for gay marriage debate in Germany
    Joachim Gauck has called for an open debate about same-sex marriage in Germany. His plea comes ahead of an official visit to Ireland, which this year became the first country to approve marriage equality by a referendum.

    For..The Rest of The Story:

    Perhaps the Tri-Fecta of ME coming Nationwide to Ireland, The US, and Mexico all within literally weeks of one another, will be what cracks and breaks the dam holding back ME from most of the western world….maybe in 5 years in parts of asia.
    …just sayin

  • 186. brchaz  |  July 12, 2015 at 6:35 am

    Kansas seeks to dismiss gay marriage tax lawsuit
    By – Associated Press – Saturday, July 11, 2015

    TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) – The Kansas Department of Revenue has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit over the tax filing status of same-sex married couples, saying the issue is now moot, according to a lawyer in the case.

    David Brown, who represents two Kansas couples who filed a lawsuit against the department, told The Lawrence Journal-World the motion was filed late Thursday in Shawnee County District Court. The motion follows the decision last month by the U.S. Supreme Court making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

    The Revenue Department's motion Wednesday also came the day after Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt's office filed similar documents in a federal lawsuit in Kansas City, Kan.

    "Practically speaking, the state's filing (Thursday) puts an end to my clients' nearly two-year fight for marriage equality," Brown said in an email. "I am happy that they now receive the recognition as married persons that other married couples have enjoyed."

    In 2013, the department issued a notice that limited the ability to file joint tax returns only to married couples of the opposite sex, even if a same-sex couple had been legally married in another state. That was based on a Kansas constitutional amendment, adopted in 2005, that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.

    The Department of Revenue said in its filing Wednesday that it rescinded that 2013 notice, which is now marked on the department's website as, "Removed – no longer valid."

    As of Friday afternoon, Judge Frank Theis, who is hearing the case, had not issued an order of dismissal. But Brown said he expected one to be issued soon.

  • 187. Sagesse  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:39 am

    A longish article about the 'New South'. There are ramifications for how LGBT rights will unfold in the newest ME states. I've always been a firm believer in demographics as a predictor of the future.

    The Dream World of the Southern Republicans [New York Times]

  • 188. Tony MinasTirith  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:40 am

    Joe Biden and Gay Rights sliding door moment.

    Here's a fascinating Sunday read about a Senator that changed the tide of history for LGBTs by keeping Robert Bork off the U.S. Supreme Court and Ushering in Kennedy in his stead. This is a part of history which I was not aware.

    While I'm a humanist and don't beleive in dieties … This article makes me consider if some sort of providence or universal intelligence is at work behind the scenes and guiding the path of the Gay Liberation movement. Joe Biden is up there in my book with Windsor, Wolfson, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Bonauto, Kaplan, Obergefell, Perry, Walker, and many others. While the seeds for marriage equality were sown in 1971 by Baker and McConnel… The War on the oppression and tyranny against Gay Marriage began in earnest in 1993 as Evan Wofson shot the first arrow over the bow of Hawaii. The fight for marriage equality then was won from start to finish in 22 years. This could not have happened if Biden had not faught to keep Robert Bork, Reagan's initial nominee off the Court.

  • 189. Sagesse  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:50 am

    Very astute observation. One of those things we all 'know' on some level, but the significance is truly astonishing.

  • 190. bayareajohn  |  July 12, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Yep. He's essentially admitted it in some replies. The evidence is clear, MU2 arrived when Hop was banned, his phrasing, attitude, politic, racism, and profanity are a 1-1 match with Hop.

    I see the administrators finally got off their whatever they were on and deleted this worst of the MU2 collection, so I deleted my repost too. Which they should have done, I even said that in my post. I see that at least at the moment, all of MU2's previous abusive and race baiting posts are still public.

  • 191. ianbirmingham  |  July 12, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Taiwan – Hundreds of people took to Taipei's streets to call for the legalisation of same-sex marriage Saturday, throwing water balloons at the headquarters of the ruling party they believe is blocking a proposed amendment to the law. … Surveys show Taiwan is deeply divided over the legalisation of gay marriage. According to a poll of 1,377 people by the cable news channel TVBS in 2013, 45 percent oppose same-sex union while 40 percent are in favour. …

  • 192. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    The Case Against the Rowan County KY Clerk

    The first test in "Miller v. Davis," is set to begin Monday, 13 July 2015, in a Kentucky courtroom. The ACLU filed a federal punitive class-action lawsuit on 2 July 2015 against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, both individually and in her official capacity, who cited her Christian faith on 30 June 2015, as she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight. The suit is also seeking damages from Rowan County KY itself. A handful of other county clerks have rallied around her, demanding the government protect "christians" from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Kentucky's Governor Beshear has told Davis, and all county clerks statewide, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or resign.

    At Monday’s hearing, the federal judge could very likely order Davis to issue marriage licenses. If she declines, the judge could then hold her in contempt of court, and either fine or jail her. But she cannot be removed from office because she is an elected official.

    Thus, it is wisest if other county clerks who might have some kind of objection either stow their objection or resign their positions so that they can be replaced by whatever legal process is applicable in their respective state.

  • 193. ianbirmingham  |  July 12, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Anti-gay legislation in Kyrgyzstan prompts fear of Russian influence
    The former ‘Switzerland of Central Asia’ grapples with issues of identity and values

    … The movement against gay rights and Western NGOs has been led by a small group of nationalist organizations, and while persistent rumors among Bishkek's liberals tie them to Russian influence, though the evidence is only circumstantial. “Now they call everyone who opposed the Customs Union ‘gay activists, gay propagandists,’” said Aliya Moldaliyeva, the media coordinator for a group of NGOs, the Coalition for Justice and Non-Discrimination. “It's become a way to discredit any dissidence.”

    “Russia is trying to create this culture war to mobilize people against the U.S.,” said Edil Baisalov, a pro-Western liberal who served as a senior adviser to former president Roza Otunbayeva. “They do it to generate Western criticism of us, and then we go closer into the Russian orbit with this anti-Western attitude.”

    Others, however, chalk up the anti-gay and anti-NGO laws to Russian inspiration, not pressure. And some place the blame on the Western NGOs, saying emphasis on gay rights may have been a bridge too far for conservative Central Asians. The focus on gay rights “has had the opposite reaction,” said Marat Mamadshoyev, a Bishkek-based Tajikistani journalist. “Now we see a very strong conservative wave; even people who are potential supporters of the West, are pretty liberal — they're still very against this. …

  • 194. ianbirmingham  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    Alabama – Chief Justice Roy Moore Is Confident Obergefell Will Be Overturned

  • 195. davepCA  |  July 12, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    That guy will believe all sorts of idiotic things. I should try to sell him my bridge…

  • 196. RobW303  |  July 13, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Is he also confident that Loving will be overturned, and that Elvis will come out of hiding?

  • 197. VIRick  |  July 12, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    Taiwan: Thousands Rally for Same-Sex Marriage

    Supporters flooded the streets of Taiwan in a bid to urge the government to change the country’s stance on same-sex marriage. On 11 July 2015, thousands of gay rights supporters marched through central Taipei, Taiwan’s capital city. Marchers rallied between parliament buildings and the headquarters of Taiwan’s two leading political parties, months ahead of the country’s elections, during which marriage equality is set to be a deciding factor for many Taiwanese voters. Protesters waved rainbow flags, lit candles and shouted “gay votes are still votes”.

    Same-sex marriage is fast becoming a “bigger electoral cause for voters,” rally organiser Victoria Hsu told Reuters. “Young people in particular are fed up with politicians’ silence,” she said.

    Polls show a majority of Taiwanese are in favor of same-sex marriage and are supported by a recent study commissioned by the Ministry of Justice that advocated legalization. A survey conducted in Taiwan in November 2014 revealed that 68% of the country are in favor of same-sex marriage.

    A change in the law would make Taiwan the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage, and many hope this would cause other nations to review their own stance on the issue. “Taiwan society has reached the point of acceptance of gay marriage,” said protester Rafael Tsai. “It’s a shame our politicians don’t seem to be on the same level as the people.”

    Although Taiwan is one of Asia’s most gay-friendly places, there is still no formal recognition of same-sex relationships, with many blaming China’s influence on the island. The rally has not yet garnered a response from the mainland – which views the island as little more than a rebellious province – but has warned it will use force to bring Taiwan under control, if necessary.

    Chinese cities have a vibrant gay culture and the LGBT communities there face little overt discrimination, but the government has detained activists as part of a broader crackdown on civil society, and many fear the is little chance of legalising gay marriage anytime soon.

    The marriage equality bill – which would legalise same-sex marriage and allow married gay couples to adopt children – was reviewed for the first time at the Judiciary Committee in December last year, after the main opposition – the Democratic Progressive Party – described current laws as discriminatory and unfair. However, the discussion was put on hold, due to opposition from conservative Christian groups who have formed a network to organise rallies and petition signature collections to lobby against marriage equality.

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