Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

News round up and open thread

Community/Meta LGBT Legal Cases

– In the case of the Rowan County clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses, the plaintiffs oppose a stay, and the clerk has filed a reply. The stay request is fully briefed.

– The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has revealed its donors in the campaign to uphold Maine’s marriage ban.


  • 1. JayJonson  |  August 25, 2015 at 9:25 am

    Ken Paxton's assistant asks Judge Garcia to cancel September contempt hearing, claims that he and his office are in full compliance with Obergefell. Read more here:

    Wonderful how the threat of a contempt holding can clarify a public official's mind.

  • 2. sfbob  |  August 25, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Given how Paxton and his underlings had to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with Obergefell at all I doubt the courts will buy his arguments now.

    And the plaintiffs' response in Davis vs Miller essentially destroy all of Davis's pathetic arguments. I've been saying all along that government employees lose a measure of their free speech and free exercise rights when acting in an official capacity and the brief provides plenty of precedent to support that. There's also lots precedent to demolish Davis's claim that the plaintiffs are free to go to other counties to get married so they aren't being harmed. I like this one from a 1974 ruling:

    "[O]ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place."

    The basic principle is that if you have to go anywhere else other than the obvious place to exercise a basic right, your right is being infringed upon. Period. That's probably why the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative on both of the questions posed in Obergefell. If you have to go to a different state to get married, even if your home state will then recognize your marriage, that's simply not good enough.

  • 3. Fortguy  |  August 25, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    You're gonna love this:

    Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff: Poll suggests Republicans don’t support Paxton

  • 4. VIRick  |  August 25, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    In "Waters v. Ricketts" (8th Circuit Court appeal of Nebraska marriage case)

    Quite perversely, Nebraska is asking the full 8th Circuit Court to reconsider its appeal, i.e., they're asking for a reconsideration by all the judges of the 8th Circuit, not just the three-judge appeals panel, a process known as "rehearing en banc."

    "Nebraska seeks rehearing en banc of both the panel’s denial of Nebraska’s suggestion of mootness and of the panel’s affirmance of the district court’s preliminary injunction."

    Given that the 3-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court which denied Nebraska's suggestion of mootness, and which also affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, is about as conservative as one could hope for, it's incredibly difficult to imagine what different outcome the state expects from an en banc rehearing.

    Oh wait! I almost forgot! The Supreme Court has already ruled in this matter in "Obergefell v. Hodges." Case closed. Does Nebraska not understand that the Supreme Court's ruling equally applies to Nebraska? Or does Nebraska also consider itself "special," as in Alabama or Kansas??? They've already been told.

  • 5. Bruno71  |  August 25, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    It's all about money. They hope that if they can get the case declared moot and the injunction thrown out, the state won't have to pay the plaintiffs' court fees. They will not succeed.

  • 6. Zack12  |  August 25, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Indeed, this losing battle is all about the $$$$.

  • 7. VIRick  |  August 25, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    In "Taylor v. Brasuell," the federal case involving the Navy vet suing for the right to be buried with her wife in the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery, here's the plaintiffs' motion for $78,407.50 in attorney fees and expenses:

  • 8. VIRick  |  August 25, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    In "Miller v. Davis" (Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk who won't issue marriage licenses) there have been quite a few new developments:

    Much of the case in the district court has now been put on hold (but with the stay still expiring on 31 August 2015) until the 6th Circuit resolves Davis' appeal of the preliminary injunction. Briefing in that appeal will be complete by late November.

    The Court, on its own (i.e., without any party asking for it) has halted briefing on Davis' motion to dismiss and also on her motion for a preliminary injunction against the governor and state commissioner (as these are both extraneous matters conjured by Liberty Counsel as stalling tactics).

    Also entered on the docket, was Davis' request for an extension of the deadline to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Again, the court put this off until after the 6th Circuit Court appeal.

    "VIRTUAL ORDER: Plaintiffs having filed no opposition to the MOTION, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class 42 is GRANTED. Defendant Davis' response to said motion is due 30 days after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals renders its decision on the appeal of the Court's granting of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 8/25/15. "

    This appears to leave in place unchanged only the 31 August 2015 deadline for the third-party defendants (Governor and Commissioner) to respond to the complaint Davis filed against them.

    In any event, despite all the legal maneuvering, if the judges on the 6th Circuit Court's motions panel want to stay the preliminary injunction, they know they need to act before the current stay expires on 31 August 2015. However, they're under no deadline to act on the stay request at all. The appeal will move forward with or without a stay.

  • 9. Fortguy  |  August 25, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    HERO opponents have their first radio ad up on the Houston airwaves. Be forewarned that it is very vile and repulsive.

    Also read this:

    Dan Solomon, Texas Monthly: The First Anti-HERO Radio Ad Is Pretty Ugly

    And from the Houston-centric nonsequiteuse progressive political blog:

    The Bathroom Menace & Other Lies About Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance

    Although the blogpost is somewhat dated, it is still quite relevant.

  • 10. GregInTN  |  August 26, 2015 at 7:13 am

    NOM has just announced that only 4 of the 22 candidates for President have signed their marriage pledge (Carson, Cruz, Santorum, & Jindal) :

  • 11. Tony MinasTirith  |  August 26, 2015 at 7:34 am

    Julia Gillard, the former Labor President of Australia has finally evolved on Marriage Equality. In a couple of years, Maggie Gallagher, the former president of of NOM will evolve. It's inevitable

    Julia Gillard changes mind to support same-sex marriage.….

  • 12. RemC  |  August 26, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    I was a bit breathless with shock when I read the article this morning. Her stance directly impacted the happiness and lives of so many Australians. She stood in the way for equality and for what? Plus, no remorse, no apology, no offer to help.

  • 13. Tony MinasTirith  |  August 26, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    No Remorse, no apology. She's only changed her tune because she sees the handwriting on the wall. Gilliard just doesn't want to be stranded with her panties down around her ankles on the wrong side of history.

  • 14. jcmeiners  |  August 26, 2015 at 11:16 am

    NOM is on the fast track to irrelevancy.

  • 15. Tony MinasTirith  |  August 26, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    The NOM train ran off the track and skidded down the ravine a couple of years ago.

  • 16. guitaristbl  |  August 26, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    Where is Huckabee ? This is a totally unrepresentative sample of the lunacy of the gop candidates.

  • 17. AlexRixan  |  August 20, 2016 at 3:02 am

    for equality and for what

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