Wisconsin couples continue to marry after judge denies stay

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb

Same-sex couples continue to marry in Wisconsin after a judge refused to stay her decision declaring the state’s marriage ban unconstitutional.

Clerks in 41 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties have begun issuing marriage licenses. Many have waived the state’s five-day waiting period to marry.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and the district court that issued the ruling to put a stay on its decision.

“A stay is necessary in this case to avoid confusion and to maintain the status quo,” he argued.

He didn’t say what was confusing about same-sex couples getting married in his state as they can in 19 other states.

Judge Barbara Crabb, who issued the ruling on Friday, refused to stay her decision today. Marriages will continue in Wisconsin at least until the attorney general asks the Seventh Circuit to stay the decision through its appeal process.

Despite Crabb’s announcement today that she would not stay her decision, Hollen said marriages licenses should not be issued because Crabb did not enjoin enforcement of the marriage law. Crabb said how clerks interpret marriage law is outside the realm of the lawsuit in her court and she would not issue instructions to them.

—  David Taffet

This week in marriage equality

Bondi_bio_photo

Pam Bondi, Florida’s oft-divorced attorney general

Marriage equality went statewide in Illinois this week. One Texas case advanced, and Colorado is having a wedding cake problem.

And Florida’s thrice-divorced attorney general, who travels abroad with a man she’s not married to, thinks same-sex marriage would harm The Sunshine State.

Illinois

Sunday marked the first day of statewide marriage equality in Illinois.

The Legislature passed a marriage equality law last fall that set June 1 as the start date. A Chicago couple sued for immediate implementation of the law because one partner had a terminal illness. A U.S. district court declared Illinois’ ban unconstitutional so Cook County, which includes Chicago, began issuing licenses in February. Since then, 16 Illinois counties have begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As of this week, couples can marry anywhere in the state.

Texas

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set July 9 as the day it will hear an appeal in DeLeon v. Perry, a Texas marriage equality case. One of the couples, Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes are from Plano.

In February, a federal judge in San Antonio who heard the case declared the Texas marriage ban unconstitutional.

This will be the first Texas case to reach the 5th Circuit. The Texas divorce case was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. No ruling has been issued in that case that was heard in November.

Florida

Unlike attorneys general in Oregon and Pennsylvania, Florida’s Attorney General Pam Bondi is defending that state’s marriage ban.

She said recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples would impose “significant public harm” by interfering with Florida’s current marriage laws.

Bondi, who has been divorced three times, was in Cayman over Memorial Day weekend, according to the Tampa Bay Times. The paper reported she was supposed to marry husband No. 4, but she returned to the U.S. unmarried and said the wedding was postponed a few weeks.

In her brief in the marriage equality suit, Bondi claims “the state’s assertion that the harms to same-sex married couples aren’t significant enough to warrant relief.”

Then why is it important for her to get married — for a fourth time? And why is it OK for her to travel abroad with a man she’s not married to but gays marrying once is bad for Florida?

Colorado

Those poor wedding photographers and cake bakers.

The latest complaint is against a Colorado cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a civil union.

On Friday, the Civil Rights Commission in Colorado ruled that religious objections do not trump the state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

The cake shop owner, Jack Phillips, said that the decision violates his First Amendment rights to “free speech and exercise of religion.”

The ruling doesn’t interfere with his religious beliefs and only affects his business practices. A store must serve anyone who comes in.

“I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down,” he told reporters after the ruling.

He said he’s been so overwhelmed by supporters buying cookies and brownies, he doesn’t make cakes anymore.

Yes, we know what goes into brownies in Colorado. I’m sure his business is booming.

—  David Taffet

One state left without marriage ban lawsuit after South Dakota challenge

Mount RushmoreSouth Dakota was one of only two states with marriage bans that had not been sued. That changed last week when six couples filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court on Thursday, according to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

The suit challenges the state’s 1996 marriage law and 2006 constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex couples as well as the state’s right not to recognize out-of-state marriages. Five of the six couples were married in marriage-equality states. The sixth couple would like to marry in South Dakota.

On Wednesday, a suit challenged Montana’s marriage laws. North Dakota is now the only remaining state whose marriage ban is not facing judicial review. A suit in that state may be filed as early as this week.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision striking down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act last June, marriage equality has won in every suit that has come before a court.

—  David Taffet

Gallup poll: Same-sex marriage support at new high

10402506_501490293284126_5257312347839643206_nA majority of Americans across the nation continue to support same-sex marriage, but sharp regional differences remain, according to a poll released Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The current Gallup poll,  shows that 55 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, a percentage that has continued to rise since 2011, when support passed the majority point. In 1996, when Gallup first asked about the issue, just 27 percent of Americans surveyed said they believed that gay marriage should be legal.

The poll comes as federal courts this week in Oregon and Pennsylvania struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, meaning that 19 states and the District of Columbia now give gays the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to matrimonial issues. The issue is pending in courts in almost every state and has been argued in two federal appeals districts involving cases from Utah and Virginia.

Most people expect the final decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court, which often waits for a variety of rulings from around the country before taking on an issue. While the court tries to insulate itself from polls, justices are aware of changing social mores and many think that it becomes a factor when deciding to tackle an issue. For example, the court acted when popular sentiment changed on race relations and abortion, among other issues.

According to the poll, 42 percent of those surveyed this year said gay marriage should not be valid, a number that has been falling from its high in 2011, when 47 percent opposed same-sex marriage.

The current poll is based on telephone interviews conducted May 8 to May 11 with a random sample of 1,028 adults living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

All age groups have shown an increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage, but the greatest gains have been among the younger group. In 1996, 41 percent of those aged 18 to 29 years said that gay marriage should be legal. But that figure jumped to 78 percent this year.

By comparison, those 50 years and older remained below the majority level, even though their support increased.

Those 50 to 64 years old jumped from 15 percent saying they support gay marriage to 48 percent. Those older than 65 increased from 14 percent to 42 percent.

Regional differences remain a major consideration with the South, often referred to as the Bible Belt, as the only area below majority acceptance of same-sex marriage. According to the poll, 48 percent of those surveyed in the South accept gay marriage.

In the East, 67 percent voiced support; the West stood at 59 percent in support and the Midwest at 53 percent.

Southern states have a variety of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, from Louisiana in 2004 through North Carolina in 2012. Bans in Arkansas and Kentucky have been challenged in court. One of the key cases on state bans is in Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Virginia was also the state where the Supreme Court in 1967 struck down the ban on people of different races marrying each other. That case, Loving vs. Virginia, has frequently been cited in the current federal rulings supporting gay marriage.

—  Steve Ramos

Same-sex marriage battle spreads to Montana

MontanaFlagFringeMontana on Wednesday joined 28 other states with legal battles over gay marriage, while same-sex couples in Pennsylvania spent their first full day applying for marriage licenses knowing the governor wouldn’t stand in their way.

The Associated Press reported that a federal lawsuit filed by four gay couples in Montana leaves just two states — North Dakota and South Dakota — with gay marriage bans and no legal challenges aiming to overturn them. But that’s likely to change as same-sex marriage advocates there gear up for a legal fight.

State marriage bans have been falling around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Gay and lesbian couples can wed in 19 states and the District of Columbia, with Oregon and Pennsylvania becoming the latest to join the list this week when federal judges struck down their bans and officials decided not to appeal.

The Montana couples say their state’s constitutional ban denies gay couples the freedom and dignity afforded to other Montanans and robs them of the legal protections and benefits that come with marriage. Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock released a statement supporting their cause, while the state’s Republican attorney general said he would vigorously defend the ban.

Meanwhile, a lesbian couple from Rapid City, South Dakota, said they also plan to challenge their state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the coming days, along with a provision in federal law that lets states avoid recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere. Their attorney said he’s contemplating filing a lawsuit in North Dakota, too.

Here’s a look at where things stand with other legal challenges across the country:

Arkansas

A state judge in Arkansas’ largest county earlier this month struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, saying the state has “no rational reason” for preventing gay couples from marrying. The state Supreme Court brought the marriages to a halt and is weighing state officials’ appeal.

Idaho

State officials announced this week they will appeal last week’s decision from a federal judge overturning the state’s same-sex marriage ban. The appeal goes to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Indiana

State attorneys have asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to review a federal judge’s recent order requiring Indiana to recognize the out-of-state marriage of a lesbian couple in which one woman is terminally ill. That ruling applies just to one couple — not to others who were legally wed elsewhere and are seeking to have Indiana recognize their marriages.

Kentucky

After a federal judge ordered Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, attorney general Jack Conway said he would not defend the state’s law. But, the state has hired outside attorneys to handle the case and is appealing to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which has not yet scheduled a hearing.

Michigan

The 6th Circuit is reviewing Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that was overturned by a federal judge in March following a rare trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. Arguments have not been scheduled.

Nevada

Eight gay couples are challenging Nevada’s voter-approved 2002 ban that was upheld by a federal judge in 2012. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco hasn’t scheduled arguments yet. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is refusing to defend the ban.

Ohio

The 6th Circuit appeals court is reviewing two gay marriage cases from Ohio. The first involves recognizing gay marriages on death certificates, and the second involves an order for Ohio to recognize all out-of-state marriages. Arguments have not been scheduled in either case.

Tennessee

A federal judge ordered the state to recognize three same-sex couples’ marriages while their lawsuit against the state works through the courts. Tennessee officials are appealing the preliminary injunction to the 6th Circuit.

Texas

A federal judge declared the state’s ban unconstitutional, issuing a preliminary injunction. The state is appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans.

Utah and Oklahoma

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is reviewing same-sex marriage bans that were overturned by federal court judges in these two states. The appeals court heard arguments on both cases in April, and a ruling is expected soon. Utah and Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly passed the bans in 2004.

Virginia

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond heard arguments this month about Virginia’s overturned ban and is expected to rule soon. Virginia’s attorney general, Mark Herring, is one of seven in the country who has refused to defend a state gay marriage ban. A county clerk who was sued in Virginia is defending the ban.

Other states with court cases demanding recognition of gay marriage are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Most lawsuits challenge same-sex marriage bans or ask states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

—  Steve Ramos

UPDATE: Judge rules Pennsylvania ban unconstitutional

Oregon marriage

Oregon couples began marrying immediately after yesterday’s court ruling. (Picture courtesy Oregon United for Marriage)

UPDATE: A Pennsylvania judge ruled the state’s marriage ban is unconstitutional. No word yet on when marriage begins or if the ruling will be stayed until it can be appealed. The attorney general said she would not defend the ban. The governor has not said if he would appeal.

“We are better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them onto the ash heap of history,” Judge John E. Jones III said in his ruling. Jones was appointed by President George W. Bush and was recommended to Bush by then-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

ORIGINAL POST: This week is heating up as an active marriage-equality week.

Monday’s decision in Oregon which legalized same-sex marriage was expected. Also expected was an Arkansas state Supreme Court stay that stopped marriage equality in that state after about 500 couples married.

A ruling is expected at 2 p.m. (1 p.m. Central Time) Tuesday in a marriage case in Pennsylvania. Should the judge strike down the state’s marriage law, as every judge who has heard a marriage case since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA last June, marriage could begin in Pennsylvania this week. Rallies are planned across the state this afternoon.

In Utah, Judge Dale Kimball ruled Monday the state must recognize the marriages of the 1,300 couples who married during a two-week period when it was legal in December. He said it was unfair to put those couples into limbo, affecting everything from adoption to taxes to benefits. The decision doesn’t take effect for 21 days to give the state time to appeal.

—  David Taffet

UPDATE: Will gay Oregon judge legalize marriage today?

Judge Michael McShane

Judge Michael McShane

UPDATE 1: Judge Michael McShane declared Oregon’s marriage ban unconstitutional. The ruling was expect and couples lined up for licenses even before the ruling was released, according to Associated Press. The state is not expected to appeal, but there was no announcement of when marriage equality begins.

In his 26-page opinion, Shane wrote, “At the core of the Equal Protection Clause … there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.”

UPDATE 2: The first marriages have already taken place in Oregon, according to The Oregonian.

ORIGINAL POST:

Judge Michael McShane will rule on Oregon’s marriage ban at noon (2 p.m. Central time) today.

McShane and his husband are raising a child together.

Oregon’s attorney general said she would not appeal if the marriage ban is overturned and declined to defend the law when the case was heard in McShane’s court on Wednesday.

Should McShane not overturn the marriage ban making Oregon marriage-equality state No. 19, Oregon United for Marriage has enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November.

So the real question is whether marriage equality comes to Oregon this afternoon or will couples have to wait until later in the week. Also, how embarrassed is everyone in Oregon that Arkansas couples were able to marry in marriage-equality state No. 18 first? I mean Arkansas. Sheesh.

—  David Taffet

NOM loses, Idaho governor loses and Ark. attorney general loses, so all appeal

Rosenblum.Ellen

Oregon Atty. Gen. Ellen Rosenblum

Judges in Idaho, Oregon and Arkansas just didn’t seem to be in the mood to listen to state officials today who didn’t care for their rulings. Virginia rolled out the same old, tired arguments that have been struck down across the country in its appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter seems desperate to prevent his state’s same-sex couples from marrying beginning Friday. The trial judge refused to put a stay on her decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

Otter said he would ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay pointing to the “unmitigated disaster” that occurred in Utah after that state’s marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional.

Although he didn’t explain the disaster, he probably meant that about 1,300 couples married in Utah between Dec. 20 and Jan. 6, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay. Those couples’ marriages are recognized by the federal government for tax and benefit purposes. Utah announced that it would allow those couples to file joint state taxes as well.

So you can see what a disaster marriage has been in Utah, but with the Supreme Court stay, Otter is exaggerating by calling the disaster unmitigated. The court mitigated the horror of couples filing their taxes jointly and, in most cases, paying more.

The 9th Circuit is not expected to grant a stay to Idaho. That circuit includes marriage-equality states Washington, California and Hawaii and has ruled in favor of marriage equality in the past. However, the Supreme Court is likely to stay the decision until appeals are exhausted. That may take several weeks.

Speaking of 9th Circuit states, Oregon is the latest state whose marriage law challenge has begun. Last week, the National Organization for Marriage filed papers to defend the marriage laws because the state attorney general declined to defend it.

Today, a federal judge declined to allow NOM to participate in the case.

“This is an Oregon case. It will remain an Oregon case,” U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane said.

NOM plans to appeal the judge’s decision to the 9th Circuit as well. The judge cited Hollingsworth v. Perry, better known as the Prop 8 case. That Supreme Court decision last year said interveners had to have standing. An organization can’t intervene just because they don’t like the interpretation of government officials.

Oregon Atty. Gen. Ellen Rosenblum is representing the state in the case, but she called the law indefensible.

In Arkansas, the attorney general continues to ask for a stay because of confusion over the ruling. The ruling said the state’s marriage law was unconstitutional. Some county clerks have begun issuing licenses while others have not.

The confusion seems to be among county clerks who don’t seem to want to comply with the ruling, not with the couples who read the ruling and went to the county clerks’ offices and asked for licenses. About 400 couples have married in Arkansas already.

Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee called for the judge’s impeachment.

In Virginia, the state argued that 1.3 million voters passed an amendment. That argument was knocked down earlier this week in Idaho. Virginia also argued the plaintiffs do not have the right to redefine marriage, and they can’t give children a mother and a father.

—  David Taffet

UPDATE: Idaho becomes marriage equality state No. 19 on Friday

Gov Butch Otter

Gov. Butch Otter

UPDATE: On Wednesday, Judge Candy Dale denied Gov. Butch Otter’s request for a stay to delay marriage equality until after all appeals are exhausted. Marriage will begin on Friday.

ORIGINAL STORY: Expecting to lose in U.S. District Court, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter filed a motion for a stay of the court’s expected marriage-equality ruling before it was handed down, according to the Idaho Statesman.

The case was heard on May 5. On Tuesday, Judge Candy Dale handed down a 57-page ruling. If the court doesn’t stay its decision, Idaho becomes marriage-equality state No. 19. Last week, Arkansas became equality-state No. 18.

In court, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden couldn’t come up with any real reasons to deny same-sex couples to marry. The state’s main argument was that Idaho voters decided the issue in 2006, and the defendants misread the case if they thought that vote was driven by animus.

Judge Candy Dale wrote, “Because Idaho’s Marriage Laws impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry, the Laws are subject to strict due process and equal protection scrutiny.”

Dale said the state’s marriage laws “unambiguously expresses a singular purpose — to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage in Idaho” and found the laws unconstitutional under due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judge debunked the state’s argument voters weren’t motivated by animus.

“But ‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples,” Dale wrote.

Just how many people does this affect? The U.S. Census Bureau reported 3,245 same-sex households in Idaho in the 2010 census.

In Arkansas, where the marriage laws were declared unconstitutional on Friday, 400 couples have married since the state began issuing licenses on Saturday.

—  David Taffet

A week of the worst reasons to deny marriage equality ever

Steve Brashear

Gov. Steve Brashear

Last week proved to be a week of stupidity for those arguing for discrimination against same-sex couples. The excuses are becoming both more inane and ridiculous and more hateful than ever.

In Kentucky, Gov. Steve Brashear will defend the marriage ban because equality threatens “long-term economic stability through stable birth rates.”

He didn’t explain what that means. Only straight couples who are married have children? If Kentucky continues to ban same-sex marriage, gay people will marry people of the opposite sex and procreate? If gay people marry, straight people will no longer be able to have sex?

The governor’s office said it had no comment. In the original ruling overturning the state’s marriage ban, the judge ruled that using procreation as an argument for discrimination against same-sex couples “makes just as little sense as excluding post-menopausal (heterosexual) couples or infertile couples.”

In Oregon, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has ordered new marriage license documents to reflect the expected change in the state’s marriage laws, should that occur. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that covers Oregon has already expressed how it feels about marriage discrimination in its Proposition 8 ruling, which upheld a lower court ruling that overturned California’s marriage ban. In that circuit, Hawaii, California and Washington are marriage equality states.

So what Rosenblum did was prepare the state for a smooth transition to equality, if that occurs.

The National Organization for Marriage chimed in last week asking to defend the law. They charge Rosenblum with “dereliction of duty” for not finding arguments to support discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s Prop 8 decision that plaintiffs must have standing and be directly affected should preclude NOM from replacing Rosenblum as the defendant.

Oral arguments in the Oregon marriage case will be heard in U.S. district court on Wednesday. Rosenblum is not defending the state’s marriage ban, and the state is not expected to appeal should it be ordered to issue marriage licenses this week.

While Kentucky and Oregon defenders of discrimination displayed how stupid the arguments can get, Indiana showed just how contemptible a state can be.

Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, an Indiana couple, sued to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized by their home state. Quasney has terminal stage 4 ovarian cancer. They have young children, and they want to make sure their kids get the death benefits they’d be entitled to if the parents were straight.

“The current rule of law does not allow for a hardship exception from the statute for one person or two people, as that would create inconsistency for all other citizens of Indiana,” the state attorney general wrote in a statement.

Wait, it gets worse.

The state argued gay people can get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. In other words, you can marry whomever the state tells you to marry.

But the most disgusting statement was this one. In court documents, the attorney general said recognizing this marriage could raise false hopes for others because courts might eventually uphold the state’s gay marriage ban.

Since the Windsor decision last June that overturned parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, no court has upheld a state’s marriage ban. That’s the naive part. But that statement is truly one of the most hateful things said in this debate about the LGBT community.

The basis for refusing to recognize the marriage of one couple with a dying partner who want to protect their children is that gays and lesbians are narcissistic, greedy, selfish pigs. We only care about ourselves, and if we can’t have something personally for ourselves, no one else should, either.

Personally, I can’t imagine going through multiple surgeries followed by chemotherapy and having to deal with courts and attorneys and an attorney general spewing hate at me. But that’s exactly what Quasney did. Not because she’s selfish, but because she wants to make sure her two children are taken care of after she dies. She’s guilty of being a mom who loves her kids and wants to make sure they get what every other kid is entitled to.

I can’t imagine anyone in the LGBT community not sending her our love and prayers or good thoughts. I can’t imagine any gay or lesbian being as hateful and hurtful as Indiana’s attorney general paints us.

How did he come up with such a scenario? The only thing I can imagine is that he’s describing himself. He wouldn’t allow anyone to have something he can’t have.

On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that Indiana will comply with his order to list Sandler as Quasney’s spouse on her death certificate when the time comes.

On Friday, the state announced it will appeal.

—  David Taffet