Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[Daniel2]

Another federal judge, this time in Oklahoma, rules that a 2004 voter-enacted state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, and issues a stay pending any appeal:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/199722739?width=640

With two federal rulings within the 10th circuit district in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples, things appear to be building rapid momentum for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule in it's favor, as well.

Arguments against civil marriage equality do not seem to be gaining traction in the court system. I'd be curious to hear Smac's thoughts on both rulings. Anyone heard from him lately...?

[Daniel2]

Federal Judge Rejects Oklahoma’s Gay Marriage Ban

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/federal-judge-rejects-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&referrer=

By ERIK ECKHOLM

January 14, 2014

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that the state’s constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage violated the federal Constitution, the latest in a string of legal victories for gay rights and one that occurred in the heart of the Bible Belt.

The state’s ban on marriage by gay and lesbian couples is “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit,” wrote Judge Terence C. Kern of United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, deciding a case that had languished for nine years. The amendment, he said, is based on “moral disapproval” and does not advance the state’s asserted interests in promoting heterosexual marriage or the welfare of children.

“We’re jubilant, we’re over the moon,” said one of the plaintiffs, Sharon Baldwin, 45, who has lived with her partner and co-plaintiff, Mary Bishop, 52, for 17 years.

The two both work as editors at The Tulsa World newspaper and had just arrived at work on Tuesday afternoon when the city editor told them of the decision. “We’re taking the day off,” Ms. Baldwin said.

The decision will not take effect immediately, and Oklahoma is almost certain to appeal, leaving prospects uncertain for gay couples in the state.

The ruling comes less than a month after a federal judge in Utah reached the same conclusion, declaring that state’s restrictive marriage amendment to be unconstitutional. Some 1,300 couples rushed to marry before the Utah obtained a temporary stay from the United States Supreme Court, blocking further marriages while the issue is considered by a federal appeals court.

Gay rights advocates in Oklahoma rejoiced at Tuesday’s decision, but they will not enjoy a similar window of marriage opportunity. In view of the Utah ruling, Judge Kern, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, stayed his decision in anticipation of an appeal by Oklahoma to the same appeals court where the Utah case is being heard, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver.

With so many marriages in legal limbo, the Utah appeal is on an expedited schedule, with written arguments due by late February. It is unclear whether an appeal by Oklahoma would proceed in tandem or on a slower schedule.

Over the past year, the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage, whether through legislative action or court order, has grown to 17, or 18 if Utah is included.

But Tuesday’s decision was only the third time that a federal court has acted to void a state constitutional amendment on marriage, following the Utah decision in December and a 2010 ruling in California that eventually overturned Proposition 8.

In New Mexico in December and New Jersey in October, state supreme courts ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, calling discrimination illegal under state constitutions. These followed similar state-level judicial decisions in Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts.

In 11 other states, most recently Hawaii and Illinois, same-sex marriage was approved by legislatures or by popular vote.

More than 30 states have passed amendments or laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman. Buoyed by a Supreme Court decision in June that declared parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, advocates have filed dozens of lawsuits in both state and federal courts to challenge the bans.

The Oklahoma amendment under question, stating that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,” was adopted by referendum in 2004 with 75 percent of the vote.

The challenge to the amendment was filed soon after by two lesbian couples. Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Bishop sought the right to marry, while Gay Phillips and Susan Barton, who were legally married in California, sought recognition of their status by the state, which is under the strong control of Republican conservatives.

Judge Kern found that his court did not have jurisdiction over the second question, whether Oklahoma must honor a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

But with his decision against the state’s own ban on such marriages, “Judge Kern has come to the conclusion that so many have before him — that the fundamental equality of lesbian and gay couples is guaranteed by the United States Constitution,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, in a statement issued late Tuesday.

[Stone holm]

I would not have expected the 10th Circuit to be the Circuit which generated the appeals headed for the SCOTUS, but surprises happen

[Daniel2]

Its looking less and less likely that the UT Attorney General's appeal to overturn Shelby's ruling will have any chance of success...

Utah tax officials allow joint filing for married same-sex couples

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57406343-90/tax-utah-state-2013.html.csp

By Dan Harrie

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published 46 minutes ago • Updated 4 minutes ago

Utah same-sex couples legally married in the Beehive State or any other state may file joint state income tax returns, the Utah State Tax Commission announced Thursday.

It is the latest — and apparently final — tax guideline on the issue, at least for 2013 returns.

Previously, the Utah Tax Commission had issued a policy statement saying it would not allow joint filing of state returns by gay or lesbian couples married legally in any other state. That was before a federal judge struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage but after the Internal Revenue Service had announced it would allow joint filing by same-sex couples married legally anywhere, regardless of their state of residence.

The Utah tax agency did not immediately explain its reversal Thursday.

"Same-sex couples whose marriages were performed in Utah pursuant to the federal district court’s order between Dec. 20, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2013, or whose marriages were solemnized in other states before Dec. 31, 2013, may file individual State income returns as ‘married,’" said Charlie Roberts, spokesperson for the Tax Commission.

The policy applies only to 2013 taxes, the agency said, with possible changes depending on the outcome of pending court cases. Utah is appealing the Dec. 20 ruling of U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby. His ruling was stayed 18 days later by the U.S. Supreme Court pending appeal.

A notice addressing the filing status questions is found on the Tax Commission website at tax.utah.gov.

[Scott Lloyd]

Its looking less and less likely that the UT Attorney General's appeal to overturn Shelby's ruling will have any chance of success...

 

This was probably done to eliminate confusion between filing the federal return and filing the state return.

 

I don't see that it necessarily has any bearing on the chance of success on appeal.

[Daniel2]

This was probably done to eliminate confusion between filing the federal return and filing the state return.

 

I don't see that it necessarily has any bearing on the chance of success on appeal.

It's certainly possible that it may not have any bearing on it. It's more probable, imo, that the court will likely recognize the normalization of state agencies' recognition of same-sex couples as the legal status quo--a horse that's already out to pasture.

[Daniel2]

Judge Weighing Challenge To Ky. Gay Marriage Ban

http://www.lex18.com/news/judge-weighing-challenge-to-ky-gay-marriage-ban

LOUISVILLE (AP) - A federal judge in Louisville is weighing the fate of Kentucky's ban on same sex marriages as similar laws around the country have been overturned.

Two cases brought to try to force the state to recognize same sex marriages have been fully briefed and submitted to U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II. Among the filings were decisions by federal judges in Oklahoma and Utah striking down laws in those states.

While Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, isn't bound by decisions in other federal districts and hasn't indicated when he'll rule, attorneys for the two couples seeking to have their marriages recognized are hoping the logic behind those rulings will come into play in their own cases.

"Realistically, all the other judges are looking to see what's going on," said Shannon Fauver, who represents two men seeking to have their marriage in Canada recognized in Kentucky. "It is a sea change that all the states are going this way."

Judges in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah have all ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Gay marriages in Utah have been put on hold pending a decision from the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the Kentucky cases, Gregory Bourke and Michael De Leon sued in July to force the state to recognize their marriage as legal. In August, Kimberly Franklin and Tamera Boyd filed to have their marriage recognized as well.

Laura E. Landewich, a Louisville attorney handling the case of the two women, said the Oklahoma and Utah cases "have given us additional legal analysis and perspectives, which we hope will be persuasive and also serve as a guide for the ruling in our case."

Kentucky officials, in court filings, have said none of the four plaintiffs has standing to sue and that the state has an obligation to defend "traditional marriage" as outlined in the state's constitution.

While Kentucky judges have granted adoptions to same-sex couples, the state treats them differently than opposite-sex couples by not allowing both partners to be listed as parents, Barkley said. According to the 2010 Census, about 2,800 same-sex couples are raising children in Kentucky. De Leon is the father of an adopted 15-year-old boy and 14-year-old girl. Bourke has been designated a legal guardian for the children.

(Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

[Stone holm]

Judge Weighing Challenge To Ky. Gay Marriage Ban

http://www.lex18.com/news/judge-weighing-challenge-to-ky-gay-marriage-ban

LOUISVILLE (AP) - A federal judge in Louisville is weighing the fate of Kentucky's ban on same sex marriages as similar laws around the country have been overturned.

Two cases brought to try to force the state to recognize same sex marriages have been fully briefed and submitted to U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II. Among the filings were decisions by federal judges in Oklahoma and Utah striking down laws in those states.

While Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, isn't bound by decisions in other federal districts and hasn't indicated when he'll rule, attorneys for the two couples seeking to have their marriages recognized are hoping the logic behind those rulings will come into play in their own cases.

"Realistically, all the other judges are looking to see what's going on," said Shannon Fauver, who represents two men seeking to have their marriage in Canada recognized in Kentucky. "It is a sea change that all the states are going this way."

Judges in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah have all ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Gay marriages in Utah have been put on hold pending a decision from the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the Kentucky cases, Gregory Bourke and Michael De Leon sued in July to force the state to recognize their marriage as legal. In August, Kimberly Franklin and Tamera Boyd filed to have their marriage recognized as well.

Laura E. Landewich, a Louisville attorney handling the case of the two women, said the Oklahoma and Utah cases "have given us additional legal analysis and perspectives, which we hope will be persuasive and also serve as a guide for the ruling in our case."

Kentucky officials, in court filings, have said none of the four plaintiffs has standing to sue and that the state has an obligation to defend "traditional marriage" as outlined in the state's constitution.

While Kentucky judges have granted adoptions to same-sex couples, the state treats them differently than opposite-sex couples by not allowing both partners to be listed as parents, Barkley said. According to the 2010 Census, about 2,800 same-sex couples are raising children in Kentucky. De Leon is the father of an adopted 15-year-old boy and 14-year-old girl. Bourke has been designated a legal guardian for the children.

(Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

 

The case for the ban in Kentucky is slightly stronger than in the States where gay couples are allowed to adopt and both are shown as parents.  But this was the distinction that Obama's administration tried to make in the Prop 8 case which was basically rejected by both the pros and the cons, but we don't know for certain how the Supreme Court would have treated it because the case got dismissed on standing.  Some courts have ruled that the State can't make certain policy arguments which are contrary to the State's express policy as set forth in their statutes.  But there are States out there which still do discriminate and Obama's argument would have left the ban in place in those States.

[Daniel2]

The case for the ban in Kentucky is slightly stronger than in the States where gay couples are allowed to adopt and both are shown as parents.  But this was the distinction that Obama's administration tried to make in the Prop 8 case which was basically rejected by both the pros and the cons, but we don't know for certain how the Supreme Court would have treated it because the case got dismissed on standing.  Some courts have ruled that the State can't make certain policy arguments which are contrary to the State's express policy as set forth in their statutes.  But there are States out there which still do discriminate and Obama's argument would have left the ban in place in those States.

Interesting observations, Stoneholm.

Should that end up being true, it would be truly ironic that “cases for marriage bans are stronger” in states where couples share legal guardianship together of their own children—yet such parents would be prevented from strengthening and further safeguarding their children’s familial foundation because the state forbids such parents from actually being able marry each other.  

It brings to mind the prediction in 1 Timothy 4, that “in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.  For every creature of God is good, and nothing be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 

[Stone holm]

Interesting observations, Stoneholm.

Should that end up being true, it would be truly ironic that “cases for marriage bans are stronger” in states where couples share legal guardianship together of their own children—yet such parents would be prevented from strengthening and further safeguarding their children’s familial foundation because the state forbids such parents from actually being able marry each other.  

It brings to mind the prediction in 1 Timothy 4, that “in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.  For every creature of God is good, and nothing be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

The Administrations argument was rejected by those fighting Prop 8 because it would give greater flexibility to States which did in fact legally discriminate. In other words if a State wanted to prohibit SSM they would need to really get serious about discriminating against homosexuals, like denying them child custody, the right to adopt, etc. But the argument makes sense if you are trying to avoid the closed door argument, that you can't argue a policy which is contradicted by State legislation already on the books. That is what happened to VT in the original case which led to Civil Unions in VT the Court found that the State had already closed the doors with contradicting statutes and found that all that was left to bar such unions was religious belief and that was not cognizable in Court.

[Daniel2]

An email that the lawyer that the Utah Attorney General hired has been published:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5yvjP4vbjVw/UuBPesn9fTI/AAAAAAACuAI/rDxIbMItcNg/s1600/schaerr_email_012014.png

Utah Special Attorney General Cites “Religious Duty” in Decision to Take Anti-Marriage Equality Case

http://www.hrc.org/m/blog/utah-special-attorney-general-cites-religious-duty-in-decision-to-take-anti

P January 22, 2014 U Dan Rafter

Gene Schaerr, a Washington, D.C. partner at the law firm Winston & Strawn, is citing his personal religious beliefs as the rationale behind his decision to quit his job and become the lead counsel on the State of Utah’s case against marriage equality. In a copy of Schaerr’s departure email to colleagues at the firm, Schaerr writes that he’s taking the Utah case “so that I can fulfill what I have come to see as a religious and family duty: defending the constitutionality of traditional marriage in the state where my church is headquartered and where most of my family resides.”

“It’s alarming that the reason Gene Schaerr gives for  taking this position has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or the legal issues at play,” said Fred Sainz, HRC Vice President of Communications. “Schaerr’s entire motivation for taking this anti-equality case is to impose a certain religious viewpoint on all Utahns – and that’s wrong. When you become an attorney, you take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not any particular religious doctrine.”

Same-sex couples in Utah were legally empowered to marry between December 20th and Monday, January 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a lower court’s decision pending appeal. On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that full federal recognition will extend to the more than 1,300 gay and lesbian couples who have legally married in the state. The action by the Department of Justice came after HRC President Chad Griffin wrote to Attorney General Holder  urging full recognition for the Utah couples. 

Schaerr’s language in his departure e-mail places a heavy emphasis on religion, which is out-of-step with many of the arguments against marriage equality that have come out of the Utah Attorney General’s office.

“It’s interesting that his stated motivation for the new position is not one of the arguments made by the State of Utah,” added Sainz.  “It’s fair to question whether all of the arguments they have made are just an elaborate front for some other agenda.”

Schaerr’s departure from Winston & Strawn also indicates the growing momentum for equality in that it is no longer acceptable for a major law firm to take a patently anti-gay case. In 2011, King & Spaulding, the law firm hired by House Speaker John Boehner to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), dropped their involvement in the case following an HRC campaign. In a move similar to Schaerr’s, one of the firm’s partners, Paul Clement, resigned from the firm and continued to defend DOMA.

[Stone holm]

An email that the lawyer that the Utah Attorney General hired has been published:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5yvjP4vbjVw/UuBPesn9fTI/AAAAAAACuAI/rDxIbMItcNg/s1600/schaerr_email_012014.png

Utah Special Attorney General Cites “Religious Duty” in Decision to Take Anti-Marriage Equality Casehttp://www.hrc.org/m/blog/utah-special-attorney-general-cites-religious-duty-in-decision-to-take-anti

P January 22, 2014 U Dan Rafter

Gene Schaerr, a Washington, D.C. partner at the law firm Winston & Strawn, is citing his personal religious beliefs as the rationale behind his decision to quit his job and become the lead counsel on the State of Utah’s case against marriage equality. In a copy of Schaerr’s departure email to colleagues at the firm, Schaerr writes that he’s taking the Utah case “so that I can fulfill what I have come to see as a religious and family duty: defending the constitutionality of traditional marriage in the state where my church is headquartered and where most of my family resides.”

“It’s alarming that the reason Gene Schaerr gives for  taking this position has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or the legal issues at play,” said Fred Sainz, HRC Vice President of Communications. “Schaerr’s entire motivation for taking this anti-equality case is to impose a certain religious viewpoint on all Utahns – and that’s wrong. When you become an attorney, you take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not any particular religious doctrine.”

Same-sex couples in Utah were legally empowered to marry between December 20th and Monday, January 6th, when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a lower court’s decision pending appeal. On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that full federal recognition will extend to the more than 1,300 gay and lesbian couples who have legally married in the state. The action by the Department of Justice came after HRC President Chad Griffin wrote to Attorney General Holder  urging full recognition for the Utah couples. 

Schaerr’s language in his departure e-mail places a heavy emphasis on religion, which is out-of-step with many of the arguments against marriage equality that have come out of the Utah Attorney General’s office.

“It’s interesting that his stated motivation for the new position is not one of the arguments made by the State of Utah,” added Sainz.  “It’s fair to question whether all of the arguments they have made are just an elaborate front for some other agenda.”

Schaerr’s departure from Winston & Strawn also indicates the growing momentum for equality in that it is no longer acceptable for a major law firm to take a patently anti-gay case. In 2011, King & Spaulding, the law firm hired by House Speaker John Boehner to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), dropped their involvement in the case following an HRC campaign. In a move similar to Schaerr’s, one of the firm’s partners, Paul Clement, resigned from the firm and continued to defend DOMA.

That was a really stupid thing to say publicly even if it was true, it just gives more credence that the ban was a religiously motivated establishment of religion. If he doesn't even understand the need to keep the fight on secular grounds, it does not bode well for Utah's chances.

[thesometimesaint]

That was a really stupid thing to say publicly even if it was true, it just gives more credence that the ban was a religiously motivated establishment of religion. If he doesn't even understand the need to keep the fight on secular grounds, it does not bode well for Utah's chances.

 

Agreed.

[Daniel2]

Some of the more interesting comments I've read from the gay blogosphere:

Of course this is a front--for the Mormon church. A Mormon attorney general (Reyes) hires a Mormon lawyer (Schaerr) with a long history of anti-marriage equality to build a case against gay marriage in Utah. Anybody think this is a coincidence? The Mormon church is involved up to its neck--but behind the scenes. Does anybody think that the Mormon church won't funnel money to Schaerr and that the $300,000 in public money Schaerr will be paid by Utah isn't merely a diversion to deflect attention from the real, secret funding that will support him in this case? Does anybody doubt that the Mormon church will fight against marriage equality by any and every means necessary and will do anything to keep it out of the home state of Mormonism?

If he sticks to the law and follows the law, or at least makes arguments reasonably related to law, then his motivation is irrelevant. Most of the attorneys fighting glbt rights, abortion rights, womens' rights etc etc do so from a religious motivation.

Considering mormon history, which involved being successively driven out of New England, Ohio, and Illinois before they found their Zion in [utah], you'd think they'd be more on the side of religious freedom.

But given that the LDS is governed by a gerontocracy, I guess they're like other old white men: stuck in the past.

I see nothing wrong with this. OF COURSE I don't agree with any part of his letter. I've been out, proud, loud and active since I came out at 18 in 1972.

However, I cannot fault a man for taking a legal case for a cause that he feels a moral responsibility to argue. In fact, most of our victories in the courts are from people with a moral imperative to work for their cause (sometimes based upon religious beliefs). I am not going to take the man to task for his motivations. I WILL judge him upon his legal arguments and behavior in court.

Likewise, although his biblical quotes and references may seem alien and bizarre, realize that this is an internal email to his partners. Yeah, it's an old-school LDS Salt Lake City law firm. OF COURSE the partners all wear funny underwear. Their biblical quotations and references are as offputting to me as I'm sure some of my conversations with gay friends, or lefty friends, are to him. That's OK. He can quote the bible all he wants in emails to partners, It's not OK if he includes those quotes in any filings or arguments. (It's also not OK for him to do it to employees at the firm, but that doesn't seem to be the context).

is could pose a huge problem for the state's case. You have one of the people leading the charge admitting they are going by the Bible instead of the Constitution. So not only could he be disbarred, he might be dropped from the case immediately. Saying something like this makes it extremely likely that the lawsuit wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. You have an official of the state arguing in court due to his religious beliefs. That's a big no-no.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

 

"is could pose a huge problem for the state's case. You have one of the people leading the charge admitting they are going by the Bible instead of the Constitution. So not only could he be disbarred, he might be dropped from the case immediately. Saying something like this makes it extremely likely that the lawsuit wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. You have an official of the state arguing in court due to his religious beliefs. That's a big no-no".

 

His motivation(s) are irrelevant. It is his legal arguments that should determine the case in either direction. So far the courts have rejected those legal arguments.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

 

"is could pose a huge problem for the state's case. You have one of the people leading the charge admitting they are going by the Bible instead of the Constitution. So not only could he be disbarred, he might be dropped from the case immediately. Saying something like this makes it extremely likely that the lawsuit wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. You have an official of the state arguing in court due to his religious beliefs. That's a big no-no".

 

His motivation(s) are irrelevant. It is his legal arguments that should determine the case in either direction. So far the courts have rejected those legal arguments.

I agree, SS

[Stone holm]

Daniel2:

 

"is could pose a huge problem for the state's case. You have one of the people leading the charge admitting they are going by the Bible instead of the Constitution. So not only could he be disbarred, he might be dropped from the case immediately. Saying something like this makes it extremely likely that the lawsuit wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. You have an official of the state arguing in court due to his religious beliefs. That's a big no-no".

 

His motivation(s) are irrelevant. It is his legal arguments that should determine the case in either direction. So far the courts have rejected those legal arguments.

They would have been better off with a notoriously atheist lawyer defending the ban so as to keep the religious taint as far from the scene as possible. It also would have been in the Church's best interest that the attorney not be even remotely associated with the Church. Utah is going to have a tough enough time coming up with a valid secular basis for the ban without it being blatantly obvious that the attorney is religiously motivated. The key target here is obviously Justice Kennedy so it needs to be some kind of Federalism argument coupled with a rational secular basis, not some grandstanding for religious reasons.

[Daniel2]

http://youtu.be/cImh-nKkeRE

Interesting to contrast Utah's attorney general's approach with Virginia's Attorney General's recently announced decision (video link above) to join his state's plaintiffs ' team to overturn their same-sex marriage ban.

[mtomm]

The Virginia attorney general used to support a ban on gay marriage but has since changed his mind.  He had a very interesting interview today on NPR.  I don't think he came about the change of mind lightly.

[Stone holm]

http://youtu.be/cImh-nKkeRE

Interesting to contrast Utah's attorney general's approach with Virginia's Attorney General's recently announced decision (video link above) to join his state's plaintiffs ' team to overturn their same-sex marriage ban.

Interesting that Virginia AG came to same conclusion as California AG.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Scrap Schaeer.  Go with three VERY seasoned attorneys:

 

One is a JD from the University of Chicago.  Also has experience as a judge on a state supreme court and was considered to the US Supreme Court by two presidents.

 

Another is a JD from Duke University.  Was general counsel for an important financial organization.

 

Another is a graduate from Stanford Law.  Was a corporate attorney for 27 years and volunteered as a city attorney for 14 years.

 

Even better, they could work the case pro bono not costing Utah a dime.

 

And then America might REALLY be in trouble for rejecting prophetic counsel...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Virginia attorney general used to support a ban on gay marriage but has since changed his mind.  He had a very interesting interview today on NPR.  I don't think he came about the change of mind lightly.

Simple.....

[california boy]

An update on all of the gay marriage cases proceeding through the courts for those that are interested.  So far every one of the rulings have been in support of gay marriage.  

 

Gay Marriage Updates

[Stone holm]

The Virginia attorney general used to support a ban on gay marriage but has since changed his mind.  He had a very interesting interview today on NPR.  I don't think he came about the change of mind lightly.

There have been a lot of moderates who have changed their minds in the wake of Prop 8. Prop 8 was the best thing that ever happened for lesbian gay movement. Same thing happened in VT as a result first in the oppositional arguments made before the legislative panel considering Civil Unions and then Prop 8. Not sure we would have moved from Civil Unions to SSM except for what happened with Prop 8.

[Daniel2]

Virginia appears to be next, and on the verge.

First, AFER issued a statement on Friday:

VIRGINIA: Olson & Boies Tell Court To Immediately Rule In Favor Of Marriage

Via press release from AFER:

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsor of Bostic v. Rainey, the federal constitutional challenge to Virginia’s discriminatory Marriage Amendment, issued the following statement regarding U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s order seeking Status Reports from all parties in the case regarding whether oral argument on the issues presented is warranted or whether the Court should rule promptly on the briefs without a hearing: “Every day these discriminatory laws remain in effect is another day gay and lesbian Virginians and their families are harmed and treated as second-class citizens,” said AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer. “ The Judge’s order was issued following the compelling Notice from the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia that the Attorney General concluded that Virginia's laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If a hearing is deemed necessary, oral argument will be heard at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at 9 a.m. ET on Thursday, January 30, 2014.

The court responded today, giving the opposing parties the opportunity to add their voice, before issuing a ruling:

Judge Ready to Rule in Virginia Marriage Equality

http://gaycitynews.com/judge-ready-rule-virginia-marriage-equality-case/

BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD | Responding to the January 23 announcement that the Commonwealth of Virginia will no longer defend that state’s constitutional and statutory ban on marriage equality, the federal district court judge presiding over one of two pending challenges there has indicated she is prepared to rule based on written briefs that have been submitted in the case.

Following Attorney General Mark Herring’s announcement that his office has concluded the state’s policy on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment rights of same-sex couples, District Judge Arenda Allen, citing “the compelling Notice from the Office of the Attorney General,” notified parties that she now longer sees a need for oral arguments scheduled for January 30.

She directed all parties to respond as to whether they believe oral arguments are necessary or “whether the Court should instead rule promptly on the briefs without a hearing.” The clear suggestion is that argument would be appropriate only to articulate points not already made in the written briefs.

Since the AG’s office withdrew from defending the state’s marriage law and related constitutional amendment, only two county clerks –– one originally named as a defendant and the other that has been allowed intervenor status –– are engaged in defending the ban on gay marriage.

Responses to Allen’s notice are due on January 27, suggesting a ruling could come quickly.