osodecanela: (cam capture)
Mildred and Richard Loving helped pave the way for what happened in Washington last Friday. Their case made it to the Supreme Court back in 1967, taking interracial marriage bans off the books nationwide. Now no one has been able to break into any gay person's home to find and arrest them while in bed with someone of the same gender since Lawrence was handed down 10 years ago (also written by Justice Kennedy and also rendered on 6-26). That seems like a nightmare of an experience to me. AND it happened to the Lovings in 1963. They were arrested and jailed.

They fought it all the way to SCOTUS and they won and now their story will be coming to HBO.

Mildred Loving on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia spoke simply and eloquently about everyone's right to marry the person they love, including us as gay people. Her quote opened the opinion rendered by the district Federal Court in Norfolk overturning Virginia's ban on marriage equality, in February of last year. I'm amazed that it was only 16 months ago. Somehow it feels longer ago than that, but the ruling was just into for Valentine's Day

"When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom. When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

"Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: ""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

"We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love. Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the
Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," a "basic civil right."

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Thank you Mildred and Richard. Thank you for your courage, your fearlessness. Thank you for making it clear to the world the truth that getting married is what you do, not when you find someone you can live with, but rather what you do when you find someone you cannot live without. Your forthrightness, along with Edie Windsor, Jim Obergefell and countless others who have continue to stand up and struggle for our right to live and love as we must. I will awaken tomorrow morning next to my husband, grateful to each of you who helped to ensure his right to place the ring on my finger.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
"[W]hile Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty."

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

-Anthony Kennedy

Bless you, Justice Kennedy. Bless you.

I read these words and became misty once again. When I heard the announcement on the idiot box Friday morning, I wept. Couldn’t stop myself. I know this isn’t the end of our struggle for equal rights, of equal protection under the law, but wow, what a milestone.

Almost 34 years I have known and loved my husband, who sleeps only feet away as I write. 20 years ago he asked me to marry him and I said no. I had no need for a religious ceremony. And more I told him, “If we’re first getting married now, what were the last 14 years?” A few years later, he asked again and my reply was the same. He truly does love me, because he stayed despite that reply. It was important to him and in my pseudo-radical, queer personal identity, I didn’t understand his need and desire to make that commitment. I saw it at best, as playing at being wedded. Moreover, why would I want to ape that portion of the heterosexual lifestyle?

Then I grew up.

Sixteen years ago, he had a heart attack. Had he not insisted we do things like a durable power of attorney for health care, I would have had no ability to speak for him when he could not speak for himself. Without it I was a legal stranger, not the man he had made his life with for 17 years.
Those of you who have followed this blog know how important this equality is to me. You also know what a roller coaster the experience of Prop 8 and its ultimate nullification have been for me. I thank all of you for your thoughtful and kind words over the years.

I sit now on the deck of our home here in the northern California woods, overlooking this narrow river valley. I cannot help but feel this vista is just a little bit more beautiful than it was on Thursday and that he and I have just a bit more right to sit back and enjoy this view together.
There is more work to be done, other civil liberties left to be protected. When Prop 8 succeeded at the polls said to me, “get your butt out of that seat and get to the back of the bus.” Then I realized it was worse than that. It was a command to get off the bus altogether.

This morning as I sit in the glory of this early summer morning here in the woods and thousands march in Pride in dozens of cities across this country and across the globe, thanks to the insight of Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor into the intent of our federal constitution, our right to be on the bus is assured.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
It's a wee bit past 0100 here in the Northern California woods, which makes it just after 9 in the morning in the Republic of Ireland. Voting got underway 2 hours ago. The main question on the ballot, marriage equality.

We'll know sometime on Saturday if the electorate gave this the thumbs up or not.

I'm torn.

Common wisdom is yes, the Irish people are ready to accept and even celebrate same sex unions, & polls suggest to vote will be in our favor. However, I'm still ill at ease that a majority will vote on the civil rights of any minority. The potential tyranny of the majority scars me.

The tyranny of the majority thought that it was ok to intern the Japanese in this country. The tyranny of the majority enacted Jim Crow laws across the American South. The tyranny of the majority sent millions of Jews, Roma, Gypsies, Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, lesbians & gay men to their deaths during WWII.

You all will forgive me if I remain both skeptical & anxious until the vote is reported on Saturday. I'll have my fingers tightly crossed until then.


Apr. 17th, 2015 07:19 pm
osodecanela: (cam capture)
Sometimes I cry way too easily...

A few minutes ago I heard someone say, "You don't get married because you find someone you can live with - you get married when you find someone you cannot live without."

With that thought, I'm leaving to go home to my husband. Yeah, sometimes I do cry way too easily, but this moment would not be one of them.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
There's a part of me that's horrified at the thought of anyone's civil rights being put to a popular vote. That's exactly what's happening in the Republic of Ireland this May - Marriage equality is being put to a national vote.

Ads I've been seeing on the net have left me on the edge of tears. One features an elderly married some 50 years urging everyone to do the right thing and vote for marriage equality. "What will you tell a grandchild, or great-grandchild who comes out," they ask? "Will you be on the right side of history?" There have been a fair number of others, many of straight married couples surrounded by their children all of them pledging to do the right thing and vote YES.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
One word - Alabama.

Their Supreme court has attempted to overturn the federal court decision that overturned their marriage ban for same sex couples. Ugh.

Don't they realize a flush trumps two pair?

Forgive the poker analogies. This time their Chief Justice actually recused himself from this decision; so the man, while rather radically anti-gay has some modicum of sense, when he should not be ruling on something he cannot be impartial about. However, that still leaves the remainder of their court, a majority of whom saw fit to countermand a higher court ruling on federal law. (state court vs federal)

This just ticks me off big time, particularly when it's affecting people's lives.

There's a lesbian couple who got a court order to allow them to marry in Texas. The ruling applied to them and them alone. One of them is 'medically fragile' (ie - recently diagnosed and now undergoing treatment for ovarian cancer, which is more often then not, fatal), and so given their 30 plus year partnership, and the two children they've raised together one should not be fully able to manage the affairs of the other, should the worst come to pass. Having been the worried spouse who found himself pacing for hours in a surgical waiting room, while his husband underwent cardiac surgery, I'm clear on how crucial our marital rights are. 17 years ago, the durable power of attorney for health care was the only thing that enforced my rights to make decisions for him when he could not. Gratefully, I've always been on good terms with his family.

How many of us in our community are not? Think about that Alabaman widower who lost his husband (they'd been married out of state) in a trucking accident two years ago, who is not embroiled in a lawsuit with his mother-in-law over this husband's estate and the settlement over his wrongful death.

This is such a cold and callous disregard for our community's civil rights, it just leaves me angrier than I can express, other than to say I'd dearly love to see the 10 plagues delivered unto the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, as they seem just so keen on enforcing the law as they see it, according to the teaching of the bible as they interpret it, rather than the US Constitution.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
So once again, hell has frozen over. A federal district court judge has overturned that state's marriage inequality. As of today there is a temporary 14 day stay, which grants the state enough time to go thru their legal motions to request a stay from the 11th circuit court of appeals, which declined a stay when Florida requested one. Further SCOTUS declined issuing a stay as well.

So the handwriting is on the wall in Alabama. We will hear wedding bells for same sex couples that have chosen (for what ever reason) to live there, almost without question, by the 10th of next month.


Nov. 7th, 2014 02:04 pm
osodecanela: (cam capture)
Life is too busy - I have too much on my plate. Just not sure what to try scraping off.

Yesterday's ruling out of the 6th is really disturbing me, although it may not be the horrendous thing it felt to be when I read the news. For those that have not yet heard, the 3 judge panel at the 6th circuit upheld the bans on marriage for same sex couples in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. It reverses the Federal district court rulings in all four of those states.

Why is this not necessarily a bad thing? It will likely get the issue in front of SCOTUS sooner rather than later, as in potentially this session, rather than next year (June of '15, instead of '16). We were bound to have a split in the circuits sooner or later, though I had expected that to come from the 5th circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana & Texas) sometime early in the new year. I'm anxious about the health of Ginsburg and to a lesser extent, Bryer, and I have no desire for this to come before the court without them on the panel. Further the dissent written by Daughtrey in the 6th is blistering. She really took aim at the opinion being penned by Sutton and signed onto by Cook, and what she says is really directed at Kennedy to intervene when it comes to SCOTUS.

And I quote: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."

On the up side, Missouri ruled today; a federal district judge ruled the whole state honor marriage equality, although the ruling is stayed, pending appeal. A State court judge did the same thing 2 days ago, but his ruling only grants the right in ST Louis and that was not stayed. Folks are already marrying in St Louis, and if reports are correct Kansas City as well, at least for the moment. Also today, West Virginia's ban was formally overturned by federal district court judge, though marriages there started a couple of weeks ago after SCOTUS denied Cert in the Virgina case.

Need to keep thinking positively.......
osodecanela: (cam capture)
Marriage Equality has come/is coming to another 3 states officially.

The stay in Alaska expired at noon and was not re-instated. Arizona's ban was found unconstitutional this morning and Wyoming's this afternoon. The Governor's office, which tweeted last week that the decision in the 10th circuit, (which is where the state IS) was not going to effect them, has said today that the state is not going to appeal the federal court's ruling from this morning, SO marriages should be starting there as early as Monday. Marriage licenses were given in Alaska and Arizona today.

There are 3 more states that have not come over yet that are covered by the rulings made at the circuit courts of appeals, namely South Carolina (4th), Kansas (10th) and Montana (9th), but I would not be surprised for them to come over in the course of next week.

We await a decision in the 6th on Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, but the closer we get to election day, the more I suspect we'll not get a ruling prior.

Next month the 5th will hear the appeals of DeLeon (Texas), as well as an appeal of Feldman's ruling in Louisiana. Arkansas is moving ahead in the state Supreme Court and there is an appeal brewing in Florida in the 11th. There's a part of me that's finally starting to wonder, with the speed of how things are going, if this will ever wind up back in front of SCOTUS. Don't want to give it the evil eye, but will we get a split in the circuits?
osodecanela: (cam capture)
A marriage equality court decision on a Sunday? Ayup.

Alaska no less. A federal district court rendered it's ruling today. No stay has been ordered. Tomorrow is a federal holiday so I'm not sure if this will go into effect tomorrow or Tuesday or what will happen with the Supreme Court or the ninth. I understand SCOTUS ended the stay in Idaho on Friday, so I guess Monday or Tuesday should see folks headed to get licenses there.

Bloody amazing. Just bloody amazing.

On a person note, I'm better in the last 24 hours. The effects of the 'wheat incident' on Thursday are fading into memory. My joints are calming down, amen. If I needed proof I can't do wheat, was this ever it. My gut was in knots for 18 hours. Both ankles flared, as did a knee, but all those symptoms are fading with each passing hour. I hope to have none tomorrow, but we shall see.

Off to bed. I start the day early with a trip to the dentist.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
I was tempted to title this post "Hell freezes over yet again!".

Yesterday the news out of the 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits and today the 9th. Six states have started granting marriage licenses (WI, OK, UT, VA, IN, & CO) and tomorrow at noon the Clark County Clerk in Nevada will start issuing them as well. The mandate is also affecting Idaho, and there is no stay as yet, and after the events of yesterday, I strongly expect there not to be one. This should also clear the way for marriage bans to fall in Arizona, Alaska and Montana in the weeks to come. My head is spinning. We should have marriage equality in 35 of the 50 states by X-mas, if not by Thanksgiving.

So now we wait for the shoe to fall in the Sixth. I somehow don't think we will be waiting much longer to hear, but who knows. I kinda suspected we would hear from the 9th today, although given the 95 page opinion that was handed down (and is VERY MUCH WORTH READING!!!) the timing of the rendering of this ruling today may just be happenstance. Reading the opinion of Posner when he wrote for the unanimous panel from the 7th and Reinhart, who today did the same for the 9th is a joy as well as an affirmation.

"When Virginia told Virginians that they were not free to marry the one they loved if that person was of a different race, it so grievously constrained their “freedom of choice to marry” that it violated the constitutional rights even of those citizens who did not themselves wish to enter interracial marriages or who were already married to a person of the same race. Id. When Idaho tells Idahoans or Nevada tells Nevadans that they are not free to marry the one they love if that person is of the same sex, it interferes with the universal right of all the State’s citizens—whatever their sexual orientation—to “control their destiny.""

"Fundamental rights defined with respect to the subset of people who hold them are fundamental rights mis-defined. The question before us is not whether lesbians and gays have a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex; it is whether a person has a fundamental right to marry, to enter into “the most important relation in life,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888), with the one he or she loves. Once the question is properly defined, the answer follows ineluctably: yes."

"We, as judges, deal so often with laws that confine and constrain. Yet our core legal instrument comprehends the rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to love and to marry the individuals they choose. It demands not merely toleration; when a state is in the business of marriage, it must affirm the love and commitment of same-sex couples in equal measure. Recognizing that right dignifies them; in so doing, we dignify our constitution."

and this footnote:

"He also states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs,and rock-and-roll."
osodecanela: (cam capture)
Perhaps its the events of yesterday, perhaps not. Six states coming over to Marriage Equality in one fell swoop with 5 (if not 10, once the 9th circuit rules) to follow in short order is pretty momentous. The new reality that we will likely be at 35 states by X-mas, if not Thanksgiving is pretty damned remarkable. I'm grateful, I'm happy I'm thrilled I'm ecstatic!

In looking on the net to see if there was anything yet from either the 9th or the 6th, instead I saw a short blurb about a Canadian Cheerios ad featuring 2 Quebecois gentlemen and their adopted toddler. It's a short ad, part of a series of spots pushing connections of the people in them to one another. There's an American counterpart to their campaign featuring a man working the night shift, whose young son meets him at the late night 'breakfast' table, to have a meal with him before he leaves for work. I saw that ad this morning just before leaving for work and the Canadian ad just now. Both are heart stealers and both left me with moist eyes. Yeah, I know that it's an adman's pitch to sell a product, but like Cheerio's ads last year featuring the inter-racial family, it's good to see us recognized as demographic they need to appeal to.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
Most of you who follow my blog have likely already heard; SCOTUS denied cert this morning, on the cases out of the Fourth Circuit (Virginia), Seventh circuit (Indiana & Wisconsin)& 10th circuit (Utah & Oklahoma)! As of now those 5 states have had their stays lifted. I heard on the news that Milwaukee County is already granting marriage licenses.

However, this also will affect the six remaining states in those three circuits, So within the next month we should see marriage coming to West Virginia, the Carolinas, Colorado, Kansas & Wyoming. By SCOTUS refusing to hear the appeals for the first five states, we have now gotten marriage in eleven.

Further, the Ninth Circuit is due to rule any day now and with the Supreme Court signaling that they are unwilling to hear appeals as long as we do not have a circuit split, perhaps officials in Idaho will be able to read the handwriting on the wall and decline to appeal. I don't think it's presumptuous on my part to read the tea leaves and feel there is no way that the Ninth Circuit will side with the state of Idaho and uphold that state's marriage ban. Since a ruling in the Ninth Circuit will be an appellate court ruling, that should affect the remainder of the Ninth as well, which would give us not only Idaho and Nevada, but Arizona, Alaska, & Montana as well.(Not to mention the territories under the Ninth, such as Guam.)

All this should shake out within the next month, I suspect. It will leave us at 35 states allowing for full marriage equality. Well, we were at 34 states at the time of the Loving decision.

What does that leave us? By my calculations, the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and 11th circuits. With regard to the Sixth, I cannot help but think the Supreme Court's action today won't affect Judge Sutton pending decision in the Sixth. We're waiting on his ruling any day now, in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

With regard to territories, I imagine that a circuit ruling in the ninth will apply to both Guam and the Marianas protectorate. I suspect it's going to take a longer period of time for both Puerto Rico, which is in the First Circuit and the US Virgin Islands, which are in the Third. In both those circuits all the states have gone for marriage equality and that happens without it going in front of their respective Federal Courts of Appeals, so there are no circuit rulings from either of those two territories.

All in all, today is a banner day. I cannot express just how much joy I'm feeling this morning!
osodecanela: (cam capture)
This from Freedom to Marry:

Please remind those who you know, value you as an individual; don't support candidates that will vote against our rights as a community.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
I'm sitting here, attempting to compose myself, tears silently streaming down my face. Richard Blanco is the poet read at the President's second inauguration. He is gifted. He is eloquent. This video is the story of our lives, of my life. It is my husband's and my story, and that of every long-term same-sex couple we know.

Watch this video. Forward it's URL to everyone you know. It speaks for us and for our equality.

osodecanela: (cam capture)
To Judge Posner!

I'll make this brief as I'm away for a continuing education conference. If you haven't yet heard, the 7th circuit federal court of appeals handed down their ruling upholding the district federal courts in Wisconsin and Indiana that overturned marriage bans for same sex couples in those respective states. It was a unanimous decision from this 3 judge panel.

The opinion written by Posner, a more conservative Reagan appointee, is absolutely blistering of the positions taken by attorneys general of the two states in the defense of those overturned bans. I understand most of you reading this are not legal eagles. IANAL (I am not a lawyer!) either, but in reading Posner's ruling for the court, it's both an understandable and, dare I say, entertaining read. Further, the speed with which this opinion was rendered after the trial just a few weeks ago, is nothing short of amazing.

This was certainly sweet, given the first loss at the federal level our community had since Windsor in New Orleans the beginning of the week. Hopefully, Posner's opinion will have some influence on Judge Sutton, et al., who're still working on the rulings in the 4 ME cases heard this summer in the 6th circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky & Tennessee).

So, keep your eyes on the 9th next Monday. Idaho and finally, Nevada are coming up on appeal. Remember, the 9th, post their decision in Smith Kline French is already working at a higher level of scrutiny, which gives us a leg up over circuits that are still holding to rational basis (like Feldman held in Louisiana the beginning of the week).
osodecanela: (cam capture)
So the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Federal Court in Kitchen, and as expected the state of Utah is appealing it to the SCOTUS. The governor and the attorney general of the state will take this one to the bitter end, and until SCOTUS either denies cert or actually hears the case and renders an opinion, a stay will remain in effect.

Meanwhile in Virginia, the 4th Circuit upheld the lower District Court decision in Bostic and that too is being appealed. The governor and AG in Virginia are both in support of the lower court and both have said publicly that they believed the Virginia ban was federally unconstitutional. However, apparently a conservative county clerk in the state believes she has standing to appeal and had announced that she will do so, although I don't believe the papers have yet been filed. SCOTUS will have to decide if she has standing or not. The AG has announced that he will also ask for a writ of certori (or cert) and that he will specifically ask that the stay on marriages going forward immediately be vacated as he believes that the likelihood the clerk will prevail in overturning the rulings of the district and appellate courts is low.

So, by the time the next session of SCOTUS begins on the first Monday of October, there will be at least 2 Circuits that have ruled at the Appellate level, if not more, that'll be sitting on their doorstep.

The question remains; will SCOTUS grant cert or not?

Annually, some 7000 cases are appealed to the Supreme Court. They hear roughly 1% of those. Will they hear either of these, or will they wait until there is a conflict between the Circuits? There's been a long string of victories in favor of marriage equality that began with Windsor. We have not yet lost a major decision, at the Federal level since, and that may be the functional word here - YET. At some point, marriage equality will lose one. I'm putting my money on the 5th Circuit which has the appeal of Texas' Leon v. Perry before it to be the one most likely to not go our way, that's just an educated guess on my part.

So the game could be afoot. Or not. June 2015 may prove to be our banner month, but we shall see.


Jun. 25th, 2014 11:30 am
osodecanela: (cam capture)

Craig Bowen and Jake Miller were the first couple to get their marriage license and be married in Indianapolis. They've been together for 8 years and when the decision came down this morning, they went down to the county clerk and got married.

I sat here at my desk this morning watching the video of their vows, the tears streaming down my face. We waited 27 years for the right to do this. They had to wait 8.

I'm sure a stay is likely soon, but the handwriting is on the wall. We will not be denied that much longer. Our families will be recognized and we will be given equal status and that is as much what is behind my tears of joy. It's for all of us who have been waiting for this.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
Yet another state constitutional ban on marriage equality fell today, so for the moment until a stay is ordered, same-sex couples are getting married in Wisconsin.

A Federal District Court judge based in Madison overturned the ban that was enshrined by voters into the state constitution back in 2006. Marriages started happening immediately in Madison and Milwaukee, within hours of the ruling's announcement.

Unlike Oregon and Pennsylvania, where the elected powers that be have opted not to challenge and appeal rulings there, Wisconsin's Atty. Gen. has made it clear that he will do everything in his power to appeal this ruling.
osodecanela: (cam capture)
NOM (the nat'l organization for marriage) tried to step in at the last minute, without any standing, to intervene in the hearing in front of Judge Michael McShane and were turned down for lack of standing. They have requested stays all the way to the supreme court on the decision to grant marriage equality and have been turned down at every step. They brought their request to Anthony Kennedy who turned the question of a stay over the whole court. Today, SCOTUS turned them down for a stay, unanimously.

With nobody who has standing left to appeal the district court's decision now willing to do so, the die is cast and marriage equality in Oregon is now firmly and permanently secure.


osodecanela: (Default)

September 2017

3 456789
1718192021 2223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 01:30 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios