Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: New briefs filed in Kentucky and Alabama cases, and more

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Kentucky state seal– The plaintiffs in the Kim Davis case have filed their reply brief urging the court to enforce the extended injunction, so that all couples can get married in the county. This is the final brief on that motion.

– In Paul Hard’s Alabama marriage case, Pat Fancher, his mother in law who is appealing his win in the lower court, filed her reply brief on the merits.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. VIRick  |  November 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Scottie, I love that Seal for the great State of Kentucky, as it clearly illustrates Kentucky's first gay couple, complete with their motto, "United We Stand," with both of them standing there in an embrace, fondly staring into each other's eyes, while holding hands.

  • 2. sfbob  |  November 23, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    The evil mother's brief contains arguments that are, as usual, ludicrous. They involve a willful misconstruction of what it means when the Supreme Court declares a law to be unconstitutional.
    I suppose I'm going out on a limb here (not being an attorney) but my understanding is that, to put it simply, when a law–or a section of a state's constitution for that matter–is found to be unconstitutional, that does not create new law. The fact of the specified statute's unconstitutionality is as of the date when the constitution was ratified or, as here from the date when the pertinent amendments to the constitution were ratified. So it doesn't matter at all that when Fancher and Hard were married in Massachusetts the constitution of their home state of Alabama considered their marriage to be void since that provision of the state's constitution is now and always was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
    Lawrence v Texas contained some interesting language on this matter. In setting aside Bowers v Hardwick, the decision noted that Bowers was wrong when it was decided and was wrong [as of the date Lawrence was decided] so any decisions which presumed Bowers to be valid were themselves invalidated as a result of the Lawrence decision even though they may have taken place before Lawrence was handed down.

  • 3. RnL2008  |  November 24, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    It appears as if Ms Fancher is unfamiliar with how overturning of an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law works. Her son was legally married to Mr Hand and regardless of how Alabama viewed that marriage did NOT nullify it or make it voided…..all it did was make it NOT recognized by the State of Alabama, but their marriage was recognized as valid and legal in other states and the Federal Government.

    In my opinion this "C*NT is barking up the wrong tree, obviously has NO care for the son she claims to have loved and needs to be biotched slapped back into the dark ages….sorry folks but I'm truly tired of the BS by folks like this woman!!!

    By the way…..wishing EVERYONE a Very Happy Thanksgiving<3

  • 4. VIRick  |  November 24, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    Oh Rose, I love you, and will always cherish your "Happy Thanksgiving" message, especially the part about the C*NT needing to be biotch-slapped. LOL.

    Actually, Ms. Fancher is most likely dumber than a box of rocks. After all, she unnecessarily intervened as a third-party in the case, "Hard v. Bentley," because, according to her, God himself had personally come to tell her that she's supposed to get ALL the money to be awarded in the "wrongful death" suit. That's what she's still pissing about, because in the settlement, she has to share the proceeds 50/50 with Paul Hard, her late son's husband, who she still can not admit was her late son's husband. (Alabama law clearly states: 50% to spouse, and 50% to family, and she's the only "family," or she'd have to split her 50% with others.)

    Plus, for legal "counsel," she quite foolishly selected Roy Moore's "non-profit," an organization milking her for whatever they can get out of it, while providing her with a lot of very poor, unfounded legal advice, like appealing a hopeless case, a point about which she seems to be serenely unaware. Had she not intervened in the on-going suit originally filed by Paul Hard, she still would have been awarded 50% of the proceeds, but now, wouldn't be saddled with any legal expenses, legal expenses which continue to mount. However, I suspect, when God came to visit her, he forgot to tell her that her legal expenses would be coming out of her 50% share, and that if the case drags on long enough, with multiple hopeless appeals (as we're seeing), there might not be anything left.

  • 5. RnL2008  |  November 24, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    Love you Sweetie……..and I couldn't even finish reading her RIDICULOUS brief because it is obvious that neither her nor her legal team understands what it means to toss an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law.

    The other thing that has ALWAYS bothered me is her claim that her and her son had a very close and personal relationship….what when he was like 5 years old, because since becoming an adult, it is obvious by how she feels regarding Homosexuality that it WASN'T a recent close and personal relationship……and idiots like this is why we still have States like Alabama pulling the shiet it's pulling!!!

  • 6. RnL2008  |  November 24, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    According to this umm, excuse for a human being is the clear misunderstanding of what the ruling actually was in Obergefell. Windsor was with regards to Section 3 of DOMA and Obergefell was basically in regards to Section 2 of DOMA….both were UNCONSTITUTIONAL and both have since been tossed……..all she is doing is showing the world what a greedy biotch she is who obviously DIDN'T love or respect her son.

  • 7. GregInTN  |  November 25, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    And just as most of us were thinking we had heard the last of Baker, she cites it again:

    Therefore, Windsor, having not been overturned by Obergefell, along with Baker v. Nelson, communicates that the rule announced in Obergefell is absolutely a new one.

  • 8. sfbob  |  November 25, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    She probably thinks Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson are still valid too.

  • 9. RnL2008  |  November 25, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    The woman is a class "A" idiot who is as CLUELESS as her legal team is…….hopefully she gets slapped hard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and won't bother wasting the time of SCOTUS!!!

    Have a Happy Thanksgiving Greg <3

  • 10. GregInTN  |  November 26, 2015 at 7:56 am

    Thank you, Rose.

    I imagine that, after losing at the 11th, she will request Cert at SCOTUS but I can't imagine that it would be granted.

    She needs to realize that the "new rule" is actually the 14th Amendment which was ratified almost 150 years ago. After Windsor, the IRS allowed couples who had been married prior to Windsor to file amended tax returns going back up to three years (if they had been married that long). The same principle applies to this case.

  • 11. RnL2008  |  November 26, 2015 at 8:12 am

    Exactly…..I know the Windsor ruling helped us FINALLY resolve our 2011 tax issues, which the IRS was giving my wife all sorts of issues regarding our marriage and claiming our grandchild……..but we got it resolved as well as our 2012 tax issue. The VA FINALLY added my wife as my OFFICIAL dependent just this last year……and then had to retroactive the difference in my pay……not a lot, but a nice little sum of money……, this is what Ms. Fancher seems NOT to be able to grasp and INSTEAD of embracing her son-in-law and enjoying the memories of her son……..she has opted to cause more harm to him, which I'm pretty certain her son would NOT appreciate!!!

    Karma will certainly come back and bite her hard in the azz (sorry, no pun intended…

    Hugs to you and yours on this wonderful Thanksgiving day……..we have so much to be truly thankful for 🙂

  • 12. sfbob  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    I like the way you think, Rose. 🙂

    Happy Thanksgiving, to you and to all.

  • 13. RnL2008  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Awwwww. blushing now………thank you Bob and please be safe and warm on your Thanksgiving weekend.

  • 14. sfbob  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    I'll do my best if you will Rose.

    You made a point which, if I hadn't been typing without really thinking, I should have made myself. One state may have been able to refuse to recognize another state's legal marriage (I think that in the future Obergefell may be employed to call that into question) but it cannot nullify or void another state's legal marriage. Nor can it nullify another state court's divorce decree or adoption agreement. From what I have been able to glean about the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the "public policy exception" does not apply at all to judicial decrees and even in other areas it's now on very shaky ground.

  • 15. RnL2008  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    I plan on it…….tomorrow we will finish the rest of the shopping for the holiday and have a light dinner and then rest at home for the remainder of the day. I have to travel a bit on Friday……but I'm not leaving the County….though driving in my County can be as dangerous as traveling long distances…….lol!!!

    As for Ms. Fancher and her legal team……..they truly need to educate themselves on the laws they claim they know about. There is a difference between NOT recognizing a legal, valid marriage from another State and a marriage that is nullified or void…….in the case of Mr Fancher and Mr Hard… DOESN'T matter when they got married or how long they were married before Mr. Fancher was killed…….the fact is that the couple were in fact married in the State of Massachusetts before Mr Fancher's untimely death and Mr. Hard SHOULDN'T have had to fight as hard as he is needing to do to prove he was legally married to Mr. Fancher.

    This woman is NOTHING more than a HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT who is eventually going to get EXACTLY all she so richly deserves and it won't be nice. She has told lies against her deceased child and that is just pathetic.

    My wife and I were discussing the reply by this woman and if what she believes is true……EVERY Same-Sex couple married in another state and now living in one of these supposed 39 states that she mentions would need to remarry in order for them to have legal marriages because NONE of their previous marriages would be legal, which we know is NOT correct.

    I think she will lose in front of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and I seriously doubt, if she appeals that lost, that SCOTUS would grant her cert. By the time she has exhausted all of her appeals, she will more than likely be broke, while Mr Hard will be living comfortably knowing that his husband is watching over him.

  • 16. Mike_Baltimore  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    From history, the ONLY President or Congress to defy SCOTUS that I can remember was Andrew Jackson, who left the office of President in 1837, when he told SCOTUS he would continue the 'Trail of Tears' to empty Florida of American Natives.

    His words were something to the effect that he had the troops, not SCOTUS.

    Some members of Congress were angry at one or more of SCOTUS' rulings, but only Jackson directly defied (and won) SCOTUS.

  • 17. sfbob  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    I can't think of any other examples either, though my memory is hardly perfect (you remember Andrew Jackson? And here I thought *I* was old! <snark>).

    The only example I can think of where some other elected official considered defying a Supreme Court ruling was Orval Faubus' attempt to defy Brown vs Board of Education. Fortunately in that case the President agreed with the Court and HE had the troops.

  • 18. allan120102  |  November 24, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Breaking. San Luis potosi to be the next Mexican state where same sex couples might marry as a vote is expected on December 15. The senate in this state is suppose to be very liberal on this topic so the law is expected to pass without trouble.
    Meanwhile in sadder news Couples in Oaxaca will still need to get amparos to get married if they want to marry as civil registers are not going to marry same sex couples because they say the law need to be change as what the supreme court order in June.

  • 19. VIRick  |  November 24, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    "The senate in this state …."

    Just a point on terminology. Mexico, of course, is a federal republic. The state legislatures are unicameral, and are called state Congresses (Congressos). Their members are called Deputies (Diputados).

    The Federal legislature is bicameral, with a Senate (el Senado de la República) (128 members, 4 for each state and Federal district, elected by 3 different methods), and a Chamber of Deputies (Cámara de Diputados) (500 members, elected based on population, and selected by 2 different methods).

    In the article, there was a reference to the fact that the federal Senate has issued a directive to the state congresses to ratify the state Code changes to allow same-sex marriage.

  • 20. allan120102  |  November 24, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    I really wish that all states in Mexico just change their marriage laws to reflect their high court decision. In this kind of moments is when I wish the Mexican supreme court have the power like the US Supreme court so all laws banning ssm could be put aside even when the state constitution does not reflect it.

  • 21. allan120102  |  November 24, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    Kinda like Honduras our Congress is unicameral made by 128 deputies. I hope our supreme court one day strike down the ban on gay marriage, adoptions, and civil unions ,that is on the constitution, because I doubt our deputies are going to change them.

  • 22. Christian0811  |  November 25, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Unfortunately sounds like you're going to have to wait til public opinion turns :/ the human rights court might side with you, but even then the legislature will have to vote to amend the constitution. The court might help to add pressure tho

  • 23. allan120102  |  November 25, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    Well if we go by public opinion then marriage equality will not come until the 2050s as only 13-15% of the population support marriage equality. I mean if the supreme court could strike the reelection prohibition without deputies voting on it, then my hope is that they struck the ban that was approved by the deputies on 2005, as they not only ban same sex marriage and adoption they ban any other kind of civil unions or partnership between sscouples and if you marry in other country the ban also let Honduras not to recognized those unions. If the supreme court in here one day strike down the ban then marriages might start inmediately unless Honduras appeals. Even though I am pretty sure if that happen thousands of Hondurans will take out to the street and march as they are very homophobic and the catholic and protestant church have a lot of power in here.

  • 24. allan120102  |  November 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    More Mexican news, we might get two more States in Mexico with marriage equality before the year ends, SLP already give the link and now the most populous, Mexico state(Edomex by Mexican people). Deputies of the PRD are proposing a law that would give all benefits to ssc including adoption.!/noticias/prd-en-edo

  • 25. VIRick  |  November 24, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    PRD-Edomex Presentará Inciativa para Legalizar Matrimonio Gay en la Entidad

    La bancada del Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) en el congreso mexiquense presentará una iniciativa de ley para legalizar los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo, además de permitir la adopción por parte de esas parejas.

    En conferencia de prensa, el vice coordinador de los legisladores perredistas, Javier Salinas Narváez, señaló que la iniciativa a presentarse en los próximos días, busca garantizar los derechos de las parejas del mismo sexo que deseen contraer matrimonio con todos sus derechos y obligaciones.

    La propuesta de los legisladores reforma tres artículos del Código Civil del Estado de México, el 4.195, 4.403 y 4.179, e incluye que los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo puedan adoptar.

    PRD-Edomex Presents an Initiative to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage in State of Mexico

    The bench of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) in the State of Mexico state congress will present a bill to legalize same-sex marriages, and additionally permit adoption by these couples.

    At a press conference, the vice coordinator of the PRD legislators, Javier Salinas Narváez, said the initiative, to be presented in the coming days, seeks to guarantee the rights of same-sex couples wishing to marry with all attendant rights and obligations.

    The legislative proposal will reform three articles of the Civil Code of the State of Mexico, 4.195, 4.403 and 4.179, and includes allowing married same-sex couples to adopt.

    I love the Spanish acronyms, turned into words, in this article:

    Edomex = Estado de Mexico (State of Mexico)
    Mexiquense = pertaining to State of Mexico, as opposed to "Mexicano," pertaining to the entire nation
    Perredista = a member of the political party, PRD

    Of Mexico's 32 entities, 14 either already have marriage equality in place, or have hit or exceeded the 5 amparo limit, thus forcing the change judicially. Only 18 entities remain with 4 or fewer amparos granted, with many of the remainder close to the magic 5. We're quickly approaching the half-way tipping point, after which opposition will soon fade, as few politicians, sensing that the number of hold-outs are now diminishing around them, will want to see their state be "last in line" to make the obligatory changes.

    Except, perhaps, Chiapas, which is perversely proud to be the Alabama of Mexico.

  • 26. allan120102  |  November 25, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Hahaha why do you say Chiapas is the most conservative,I mean like Alabama? I am pretty sure more than one state in Mexico would take a similar stance like Alabama if they could.

  • 27. VIRick  |  November 25, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    Two points:

    1. Chiapas, true to form, has been particularly intransigent, and bitterly nasty in that intransigence, on the subject of same-sex marriage.

    2. All the other states of Mexico (including Coahuila y Tejas) have always been part of Mexico, so they have no excuse. But not Chiapas. Throughout the entire colonial period of history, Chiapas was always part of Guatemala. Immediately post-independence, all of Central America joined Mexico. However, when la República Federal de Centroamérica then turned around and split from Mexico, they forgot to take Chiapas with them. As a result, because Mexico has been stuck with Chiapas ever since, it's fair-game throughout Mexico to make hyper-conservative Chiapas the standing joke, resistant to any/all change, regardless of subject.

  • 28. allan120102  |  November 25, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    Hahahah you know many don´t know this not even in CA but there was a six country that gain independece at the same time of the five up to date central American countries when the federal republic in 1938 was dissolved ,and that was los Altos.Sadly it was absorbed by Mexico and Guatemala. Here is more info.,_Central_

  • 29. Olivia_Jordan  |  December 1, 2015 at 4:17 am

    I need to tell you that I relished my visit to your web site enormously and will definitely be calling back to look at it yet again some time soon, thank you once again Anne Trees.I want to say that I savored my visit to your web site tremendously and will definitely be calling back to check it yet again some time soon, thank you very much!

    Shooting games
    Action games
    funny games
    Sports games
    Shooting games

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