Kansas couple Phillip W. Unruh and Sandra L. Unruh have filed a motion to intervene in the ACLU’s marriage equality case in Kansas.
If I understand this correctly, the Unruhs say that should same-sex marriage be legalized in Kansas, they would “experience a taking of their property rights in marriage without due process of law.”
Apparently, “marriage” is “property” that belongs to the Unruhs by virtue of the Fifth Amendment.
Seriously, folks, you can’t make this up.
I can’t do better justice than Joe Jervis at JoeMyGod:
“Apparently, once them gays steal a chunk of their marriage, well, it’s all downhill for the Uhruhs from there. Next thing you know they’ll be cooking meth with hobos under a Kansas overpass. The rest of their brief is similarly cracktastic, complete with quotes from Genesis and the usual “they can’t even make a baby” crapola.”
Buzzfeed’s legal eagle Chris Geidner tweets the news that Mississippi has gotten court dates for the recently filed same-sex marriage suit challenging the state’s ban.
Note the tight timeline.
WHOA: MS marriage case judge means business. State response to PI motion due 11/10; reply, 11/11; hearing, 11/12. pic.twitter.com/ix6F7E7tcC — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 22, 2014
In other words, a federal judge could issue a preliminary injunction ordering marriage equality in Mississippi as soon as November 12. — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 22, 2014
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez ruled that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage should stand based on a 42 year old ruling by the Supreme Court (Baker V Nelson) saying the lawsuit “fails to present a substantial federal question.”
The judge based his decision on the absence of any guarantee of same-sex marriage present in the US Constitution, defaulting to the 42 year old ruling which said there is no inherent right to marriage without regard to gender.
Acknowledging the long list of federal court rulings since Windsor striking down state same-sex marriage bans, Judge Perez-Gimenez simply disagreed, attributing those rulings to the “ingenuity and imagination” of the judges involved.
From the ruling:
Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.
Lambda Legal issued this statement via press release:
“The court’s ruling directly conflicts with the wave of recent decisions finding these marriage bans unconstitutional and perpetuates the discrimination and harm done to same-sex Puerto Rican couples and their families,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal.
“It defies the unmistakable import of the Windsor decision and flies in the face of the blizzard of rulings of the last year, the reasoned rulings of the Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits, and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to let stand the rulings striking down five bans similar to Puerto Rico’s.
“One struggles to understand how this judge came to a different conclusion. We will, of course, appeal this ruling to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals,” Gonzalez-Pagan said. “All families in Puerto Rico need the protections of marriage.”
An appeal of the ruling sends the case to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals where every state has adopted marriage equality as the law of the land.
Interestingly, the court is located in Massachusetts – the first state to adopt the freedom to marry.
The extreme right-wing, anti-gay folks like Bryan Fischer are promoting Idaho’s The Hitching Post as a “victim” of pro-gay policies with the arrival of same-sex marriage to the state.
Coeur D’Alene is one of the few cities in Idaho which include sexual orientation in it’s nondiscrimination laws regarding public accommodation. In other words, if you are a public business, you can’t refuse service to gays and lesbians based on their sexual orientation.
Churches and religious organizations operating as 501(C)3s are exempt from the law. The Hitching Post is not one of those organizations.
The story the haters would like you to buy is that the wedding venue has been “threatened” with jail time and fines for refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
The FACTS are:
• No one has asked the venue to perform a same-sex marriage • No one has filed a complaint against the venue • The Hitching Post is not a church; it is a FOR-PROFIT wedding business • The “ministers” of the venue are ordained for the purpose of performing weddings; they do have “minister” to any congregation or flock • No one has ordered anyone at the venue to do anything
But if you listen to the Bryan Fischers and Tony Perkins of the world, the two “ministers” of The Hitching Post are about to be drawn and quartered. Take a look at this recent tweet from Bryan Fischer:
Let’s not forget: Couer D’Alene is STILL determined to lock up politically incorrect pastors for 180 days. — Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) October 22, 2014
Coeur D’Alene City Spokesman Keith Erickson has publicly stated, “We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind.”
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (do you love that name or what?) announced today that he’s filing a petition with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for an en banc re-hearing of Idaho’s same-sex marriage case.
“I will continue defending Idahoans’ self-determination and the will of Idaho voters who decided that traditional marriage is a core principle of our society,” Otter said in a statement. He said his office will file the petition later today.
An en banc review at the 9th Circuit, because the circuit is so large, would mean that a larger 11-judge panel would re-hear the case, after a three-judge panel made the decision earlier. In smaller circuits, an en banc review is a rehearing by the full court. Otter and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden earlier requested that 9th Circuit assign a full 11-judge panel to hear Idaho’s case in the first place, rather than a three-judge panel; that request was denied.
Meanwhile, county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on October 15th. By the time any appeal reaches any court, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples will be married. Can I see a show of hands of the folks who want to tell those couple’s children they won’t be a legal family anymore?
Interestingly, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden is not a party to Otter’s petition. But in a statement from his spokesman, Todd Dvorak, Wasden stated that he does plan to file an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.
Evan Wolfson of Freedom To Marry tweeted that yesterday noting that only Kansas, Montana and South Carolina have not moved to honor the recent rulings in three federal appellate courts concerning the freedom to marry:
• Kansas has a court date this Friday, October 24th, in Kansas City at 10AM where LGBT activists will request a temporary injunction that would bring Kansas in line with the rest of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Montana gets a hearing on November 20th in Great Falls where the ACLU has requested a summary judgement on the issue of same-sex marriage in light of the recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Montana.
• South Carolina is moving at a slower pace with written briefs due by October 23rd in a lawsuit filed which would bring the state in line with the ruling from the 4th Circuit Court. Both sides will then have 14 days to reply to briefs, and then a hearing will be scheduled within 21 days after that.
Additionally, Arkansas will also address same-sex marriage on November 20th when Federal Judge Kristine Baker will hear plaintiffs asking for a summary judgement for marriage equality while the state has filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether.
Via Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist and commentator David Horsey
After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, gay and lesbian couples have been legally allowed to marry in the state.
But according to a recent news investigation, some Las Vegas wedding chapels are refusing to perform the nuptials based on religious beliefs.
After making calls to about 15 wedding chapels, 8 News NOW found that several of them refused to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
The Elvis Wedding Chapel, which welcomes traditional and Elvis-themed weddings, said they wouldn’t marry same-sex couples. However, when the 8 News Now cameras were rolling as we tried to get their stance on camera, they refused to open the door.
“I’m not going to tell you,” David with the Elvis Wedding Chapel said, “It just — there is no story here.”
Dolly Deleon, the owner of the Vegas Wed Chapel, said she’s a born-again believer in Jesus.
“My faith won’t allow me,” Deleon said.
She did not know that a couple who is turned away based on race, sex, or sexual orientation could file charges against her. That could then lead to a misdemeanor arrest.
“I would be a hypocrite if I said I’m a Bible-believing person and yet I would perform marriage that believe is solely against God’s law,” Deleon said.
Because nothing says “sanctity of marriage” like being married by an Elvis impersonator, right?
The problem for businesses like Vegas Wed Chapel is that in 2011, sexual orientation was added to the state’s public accommodation law making it a misdemeanor offense for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
“The difference between a church and a place of worship and a wedding chapel, is that a wedding chapel is a business so that is covered under the Public Accommodations Law of Nevada,” said Tod Story, ACLU.
“Any Las Vegas wedding chapel that operates as a business is covered under Nevada’s public accommodations law and is not allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking a wedding ceremony, or any other couple for that matter,” says Tod Story, executive director for the ACLU of Nevada. “Currently, the way the law is written, it’s a misdemeanor crime. Any couple refused service has to file a complaint with the state. … [Vegas Wed] has turned away couples. I don’t know if [those couples] even knew there was a law that protected them.”
The news isn’t all bad though. Gay partners Jamie Richards and Ron DeCar own and operate the Viva Las Vegas chapel in Las Vegas, and have in the business of same-sex ceremony packages since 1999, even though they were not legally binding.
“From Day One we were doing commitment ceremonies,” Richards told the Daily Beast. “I worked at the MGM (Grand) years ago when you literally went to board meetings and stuff, and nobody could know you were gay. And now all the hotels embrace the gay population, and they embrace the gay dollar. It’s got to help the economy.”
The Campaign For Southern Equality has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two same-sex couples challenging the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on marriage equality.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.
Kaplan was also lead counsel in United States v. Windsor, the landmark case that struck down sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June 2013.
Statement from Roberta Kaplan:
“As the lawyers who represented Edie Windsor, we are so honored to be able to file this case today on behalf of Rebecca Bickett, Andrea Sanders, Jocelyn Pritchett, Carla Webb, and the Campaign for Southern Equality. “The Supreme Court took a gigantic step forward last year in Windsor, and since then, dozens of courts around the country have followed suit so that today, gay people in thirty-two states have the right to marry. “It is now time to take the next big step by making sure that gay families in Mississippi are accorded these same protections. The Supreme Court has made it clear that no matter where a gay person lives —whether it is in Maine, Minnesota, or Mississippi—our Constitution requires that they be treated with the same dignity and respect under the law as everyone else.”
Mississippi is covered under the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is still weighing a challenge from Texas for the freedom to marry.
Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael says the state will notify a federal court at 10 .m. Tuesday that it won’t appeal last Friday’s ruling that struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage.
With no waiting period for marriage in Wyoming, same-sex couples should be able to marry immediately following the notification of no appeal.
