What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[scream4ever]

A state supreme court can't force a county to violate a federal court order.

It's clerical burocratic crap. I'm not worried about it one bit.

 

[scream4ever]

-Monday hearing scheduled for Kansas SC to resolve the Johnson County injunction.

-The 11/20 hearing in the Montana case has been vacated. Given that the judge used the term "vacate" instead of "stay", it's likely that he's ready to rule in our favor and opted to bypass a trial, likely due to the recent actions of the Supreme Court in the Kansas case.

 

[hotatlboi]

A state supreme court can't force a county to violate a federal court order.

Nor would they be stupid enough to try. I expect they will conclude that case shortly.

 

[Kulindahr]

-Monday hearing scheduled for Kansas SC to resolve the Johnson County injunction.

-The 11/20 hearing in the Montana case has been vacated. Given that the judge used the term "vacate" instead of "stay", it's likely that he's ready to rule in our favor and opted to bypass a trial, likely due to the recent actions of the Supreme Court in the Kansas case.

A hearing can be vacated? I've never heard the term used that way, and not sure what it means.

 

[palbert]

Is SCOTUS really 7-2?

Lyle Denniston, of SCOTUSblog, tweets:

"Intriguing comment by J. Thomas today implying Court has not been unanimous in denying review of same-sex marriages cases @SCOTUSblog"

His article:

Did two Justices vote to hear same-sex marriage cases?

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, gave a strong hint on Wednesday afternoon that they probably had cast votes to grant review of same-sex marriage cases in recent weeks, but could not persuade enough of their colleagues to do so.

In a separate opinion they issued in a case having nothing to do with the marriage controversy, Justice Thomas wrote that, “for reasons that escape me,” the Court had not agreed to review lower court decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage laws. He cited four denials of review that had occurred on October 6, and two refusals to postpone such lower-court rulings in other states. In none of those instances had the Court revealed how the Justices had voted, and there were no recorded dissents.

The focus of Justice Thomas’s opinion was an expression of his frustration that the Court does not more or less routinely agree to review lower court decisions that strike down state laws under the federal Constitution, as it does when the nullified law was a federal statute.

.....

Lyle Denniston, Did two Justices vote to hear same-sex marriage cases?, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 13, 2014, 6:01 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/did-two-justices-vote-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases/

Justice Thomas' comments are at http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arizona-Prop.-100-stay-denial2.pdf

An interesting development - for more than just court geeks.

 

[Alnitak]

A hearing can be vacated? I've never heard the term used that way, and not sure what it means.

Occasionally in medieval manuscripts you see a word crossed out with "vacat" next to it, which means disregard.

 

[palbert]

The Ohio Plaintiffs have file a cert petition with SCOTUS.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/246592054/Ohio-Plaintiffs-Supreme-Court-Cert-Petition

Petition also at Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/henry_oh_20141114_joint-petition-certoriari

 

[Kulindahr]

Occasionally in medieval manuscripts you see a word crossed out with "vacat" next to it, which means disregard.

I knew it -- lawyers are medieval!

 

[Alnitak]

The Ohio Plaintiffs have file a cert petition with SCOTUS.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/246592054/Ohio-Plaintiffs-Supreme-Court-Cert-Petition

Petition also at Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/henry_oh_20141114_joint-petition-certoriari

The Ohio plaintiffs are already married. We need Michigan's or Kentucky's case appealed.

 

[palbert]

The pertinent points in the Ohio filing (267 pp. in toto) - which are recognition matters rather than a marriage as of right matter:

Here, in summary, are the claimed errors that the petition recited:

First, the Supreme Court’s summary ruling in 1972 in Baker v. Nelson barred review of new challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.

Second, the fundamental right to marry that the Supreme Court has long recognized as guaranteed by the Constitution does not include same-sex couples.

Third, a state ban on same-sex marriage is to be judged only by the least demanding constitutional standard, “rational basis” review.

Fourth, a ban on same-sex marriage can be justified by a state policy of encouraging child-rearing by channeling opposite-sex couples, who can have children by natural means, into marriage to promote solid family formation.

Fifth, the issue of the rights and protections of same-sex couples should be left to the political processes, especially to the voters of the states acting in referendum elections.

On each of those points, the Ohio petition contended, the federal appeals courts are divided.

The petition also said that the Ohio ban on official recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states raised an issue of a state’s duty under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause to accept the official acts of other states — here, marriages of same-sex couples performed outside of Ohio. That is not an issue on the basic marriage question.

Lyle Denniston, First challenge to Sixth Circuit on same-sex marriage, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 14, 2014, 2:04 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/first-challenge-to-sixth-circuit-on-same-sex-marriage-2/

 

[Ninja108]

I'm hoping the MI plantiffs file for cert soon.
That is the case we want to go before SCOTUS.

 

[palbert]

The Ohio plaintiffs are already married. We need Michigan's or Kentucky's case appealed.

Per Reuters: Kentucky and Tennessee are set for filing today; Michigan on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...Z020141114?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

 

[Ninja108]

The Ohio plaintiffs are already married. We need Michigan's or Kentucky's case appealed.

I agree, otherwise they will simply punt on the full bans again.

 

[palbert]

Tennessee has been filed for review of its recognition cases.

Today, the three same-sex couples challenging the State of Tennessee’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage and refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriages asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that state marriage bans do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

http://equalityontrial.com/2014/11/14/breaking-supreme-court-asked-review-ohio-marriage-cases/

The petition https://www.scribd.com/doc/246621684/Tennessee-Plaintiffs-Cert-Petition

 

[Alnitak]

Tennessee has been filed for review of its recognition cases.



The petition https://www.scribd.com/doc/246621684/Tennessee-Plaintiffs-Cert-Petition

The Tanco case is also brought by married plaintiffs. Their posture is not to obtain the right to marry in Tennessee. It appears that the "right to marry" count beginning on p.12 is brought as a segue, mentioned tangentially.

 

[Kulindahr]

SO what if SCOTUS gets weird, and takes a case where it just rules that states have to recognize marriages performed in other states, but doesn't tackle the main question?

 

[Vitamin]

SO what if SCOTUS gets weird, and takes a case where it just rules that states have to recognize marriages performed in other states, but doesn't tackle the main question?

Then states with gay marriage laws would see an uptick in tourism. On the civil rights side, I don't know if it would end the legal battles.

 

[Ninja108]

Then states with gay marriage laws would see an uptick in tourism. On the civil rights side, I don't know if it would end the legal battles.

It wouldn't. People shouldn't have to go to other states to get a marriage license.

 

[Vitamin]

It wouldn't. People shouldn't have to go to other states to get a marriage license.

I agree with you 100 percent, except I'm not sure if it's worth the financing to try and get every state legislature to approve of gay marriage, something which probably won't happen for at least another generation. What about getting Congress to pass ENDA after this is over? Sure, Republicans control it now, but by 2016 I excpet it to be back in the control of the Democrats for another two years again.

 

[scream4ever]

Michigan plaintiffs to file appeal to the Supreme Court Monday:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/14/gay-marriage-michigan/19050667/

On the plus side it looks the Michigan AG isn't going to drag his feet in issuing the response and the appeal should be ready in time for the December 12th conference.