Alabama Song

Update I

***According to his Twitter Feed, Judge Steven Reed of Montgomery County will issue marriage licenses unless a stay is put into place. Super cool!***

Update II

*** Judge Callie V. Granade (awesome judge name) has issued a 14 day stay that also clarifies the original order. Particularly this section:  

3.Granting a Stay Will Irreparably Harm the Plaintiffs and Other Same-Sex Couples

As indicated above and in its order granting the injunction, the court has already found that same-sex couples face harm by not having their marriages recognized and not being allowed to marry. The harms entailed in having their constitutional rights violated are irreparable and far outweigh any potential harm to the Attorney General and the State of Alabama. As long as a stay is in place, same-sex couples and their families remain in a state of limbo with respect to adoption, child care and custody, medical decisions, employment and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance and many other rights associated with marriage. The court concludes that these circumstance constitute irreparable harm.

Ausgezeichnet!***

On Friday Judge Callie V. Granade (greatest judge's name since Learned Hand) from the Federal Southern District of Alabama ruled that the State's Marriage Amendment and Statutes are unconstitutional under federal law. As of this moment no stay has been issued.

However because some people just want to be sued,  Alabama Probate Judges Association (which is a non-binding, but contains Probate Judges) had to weigh in. According to this report by Crystal Carr from ABC 33 in Birmingham, the dumb fucks Probate Judges have decided not to issue marriage licences:

"Judge Granade's ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter," Al Agricola, attorney for the Alabama Probate Judges Association, explained. "The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same-sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner's child. There is nothing in the judge's order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples." 

Hmm... I did not know that in the South the word "Attorney" is defined as "one who is dumber than a sun-baked jar of mayonnaise," but much is explained.

Ok let me 'splain this to you... Attorney General was named on behalf of State... you know that thing you belong to... the nice judge lady say laws stopping certain couples from marring are no longer there... if you don't marry people when they ask, you get sued.

Ughh. Is there a fucking See 'n Say that can explain this to the fucking knuckle dragging mouth breathers? The judge says "unconstitutional."

Ok,you do not need to be named for the decision have an effect on you! So yes, the Judge didn't order you to do anything; however it would behoove you to follow the law!!!!!!! 

Don't believe me; here is the Conclusion from Searcy v. Strange, No.14-0208-CG-N (S.D.Ala. Jan. 23, 2015):

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc.21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they [sic.] Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing those laws. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.

In summary, the Plaintiff won. The following section of the Alabama Constitution is no longer governing:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage. 

The following statute is no longer governing:

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Alabama Marriage Protection Act."
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), failure to issue marriage licenses can allow aggrieved parties to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and which will allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

Done. So here is a little Brecht:




Liam '15

Florida

It looks like marriage is coming to all Floridians after all.  Despite a ruling from an US District Court, a denial of stay request from both a Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court, most of Florida's County Clerks didn't seem to understand basic civics.

So Judge Robert L. Hinkle, issued a Federal Order:

In this consolidated case, the plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes banning same-sex marriage. Two plaintiffs are unmarried; they seek issuance of a Florida marriage license. The other plaintiffs are individuals (and an association representing individuals) who were married in other jurisdictions and seek recognition of their marriages in Florida. The defendants, all in their official capacities, are the Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services, the Florida Surgeon General, and the Clerk of Court of Washington County, where the two unmarried plaintiffs reside. 

A preliminary injunction is in place and has been for more than four months. It holds unconstitutional the Florida ban on same-sex marriage. Now the Clerk has filed an emergency motion to clarify the preliminary injunction. She asks whether the injunction requires her to issue marriage licenses to all qualified same-sex applicants or only to the two unmarried plaintiffs. The founders of this republic adopted a Constitution and a system for its enforcement. When there are disagreements about what the Constitution requires, those who are affected may seek a definitive ruling in court. These plaintiffs did that in this case.

The Secretary and Surgeon General—as duly empowered officials of the State of Florida, represented by the Attorney General—joined issue. So did the Clerk. The result was an explicit ruling that Florida’s same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals had stayed similar rulings in other cases. I stayed the ruling in this case while those stays were in effect and for 91 more days—long enough to allow the defendants to seek a further stay in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and, if unsuccessful there, in the United States Supreme Court. The defendants did that. They lost.

The United States Supreme Court allowed the ruling in this case to take effect. History records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds. There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case.

And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees. The Clerk has acknowledged that the preliminary injunction requires her to issue a marriage license to the two unmarried plaintiffs.

The Clerk has said she will do so. In the absence of any request by any other plaintiff for a license, and in the absence of a certified class, no plaintiff now in this case has standing to seek a preliminary injunction requiring the Clerk to issue other licenses.

The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk’s obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the preliminary injunction.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: The motion to clarify, ECF No. 99, is granted. The preliminary injunction is clarified as set out in this order. SO ORDERED on January 1, 2015.

Excoriated! Now to the Clerks, do your fucking jobs and issue marriage licenses to consenting adults who just want to manage their families and affairs.

On a related note, according to this article by Tia Mitchell of the Savannah Morning News:

Couples who wanted to skip the pomp and circumstance of a wedding and get married at the Duval, Clay or Baker county courthouses will no longer have that option in the new year.

These counties’ decision to end the long-standing tradition of courthouse weddings is due, at least in part, to the continued debate over same-sex marriage in Florida against the backdrop of conservative Christianity. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle could rule any day and make gay marriage legal across the state. [I covered this in the above.]

 Furthermore:

There were 1,911 wedding ceremonies performed at the Duval County Courthouse in 2013, compared to 6,342 marriage licenses issued. About 330 Clay County couples are married at its courthouse each year, and Baker averages about 30.

Please read the rest of the article as it illuminates the douchiness of the situation.

People should be ashamed of themselves. Nearly a third of the Duval County weddings took place at the courthouse and now that is over because a gay couple might want to get married.

So if you're a gaythiest couple looking to get hitched, find a notary in Jacksonville and make it legit. Just review what you need and get it done.


Liam '15

History of Marriage Equality

UPDATE:

***Due to the inexplicable intervention of the Supreme Court late last night, marriage equality has been delayed in Kansas. I have updated .gif to reflect the accuracy of the history.***

I put together this .gif file based on the date when marriage equality reached some sort of res judicata, and people were able to actually get married in those states.

A brief history of marriage 2004-2014

Miles to go and all that Jizz Jazz. Texas and Arkansas are due soon, and Montana and South Carolina have no excuse to deny marriage equality a single day longer.

All that is left of interest is what the Supreme Court will do with the 6th Circuit, since they clearly did done fuck up. Remand it to the 6th en banc, reverse without comment? I dont know.

I probably won't go through the decision because of the possibility of an anger seizure from the stupidity.


Liam '14

Ugh Damn You Idaho...

... because now I have to update the marriage map to include Alaska and Idaho.

Bastards making me do work.


Liam '14

"Virginia is for Buttfuckers" Probably Won't be Their New Slogan

On October 6, the Supreme Court denied cert. to the 490 kagillion 7 marriage cases before the Court. 

I celebrate the fact that on Monday morning, 58.92 percent of the country will have full access to consensual marriage based off of 2013 population projections.

Prior to last week’s non-decision-decision, I listed several reasons as to why this will be a historically significant failure of the Court. In around two years it appears that every jurisdiction in the United States will acknowledge marriage equality, without the Supreme Court acting.

In the upcoming months after Texas and Florida (and a few other stragglers) recognize marriage equality, around 89.90 percent will be able to, with consent, marry whomever they choose. 

But that still means that tomorrow, around 40 percent of gay people will have fewer rights than heterosexuals on death row. It also means that due to the timing, there will be no decision like Loving v. Virginia for gays. The Roberts Court will not be viewed by kindly by history over their non-decision, like the Warren Court. There is no apology for 230 years of legal discrimination.

I am reposting this graphic created by Randall Munroe at xkcd.com, who created a graphic that explains my feelings better than what words can express.

http://xkcd.com/1431/

Go to xkcd.com for more fabulous cartoons.

Liam ‘14

456

According to the AP via this ABC News Report, 456 couples were legally married in the 5 counties out of 70 that participated during the last week in Arkansas.[1]  456, holy shit that's a lot of people just sitting around waiting to get married in one state.

Congratulations to all. Congrats to the beautiful who got hitched last Saturday. You looked absolutely amazing for having slept all night in your car. Congrats to the attorneys and the legal staff who made this possible. Congrats to the 5 County Clerks who issued the licences like professionals. 456 couples were granted basic legal benefits that other adult couples are able to enjoy.

Also congrats to the bigots who got a stay put in place. Your pathetically small universe only grew by 456. Congratulations to the 70 County Clerks who stalled long enough not needing to issue marriage licenses to couple who are absolutely desperate. You must feel so big in such a small world and having so much power in your job knowing that you can deny people basic human dignity with a smile.

Congratulations to all 753,770 voters who enacted the constitutional ban that is still in place. You only have to deal with 456 same-sex marriages. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Liam '14


[1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arkansas-ag-seeks-court-stay-gay-marriage-23714855

Heart of Glass Rhymes With... Gov. Beshear

It's Kentucky's turn to make headlines. Although Arkansas surly would beg to differ. 

I was reading a article on Kentucky Governor, Steve Beshear, and his role in defending Kentucky's ban on gay certain marriages.

In an article in The Courier-Journal by Andrew Wolfson published on May 10th, all is explained on what Kentucky has been up to since losing in District Court:

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II in February struck down Kentucky's law and constitutional amendment banning the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying Kentucky had offered no rational basis for treating gay and lesbian couples differently.

Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office had been defending the ban, declined to appeal Heyburn's ruling, saying at the time that he thought the ban was unconstitutional. Beshear's office then hired an Ashland law firm to handle the appeal, which was filed Monday at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Go read the full article. Seriously. I will quiz later on the material.

There is defiantly a lesson to be learned for governors, here. When your AG drops a case like this, perhaps you should likewise.By hiring outside legal representation, you are wasting government money that could be spent on education, improving infrastructure, or hell, even dildos for the poor would be a better use of the money.

If Jack Conway is running as a Democrat for Governor and you lose this case, he looks intelligent, a good leader, and fiscally prudent, while your party looks incompetent.... Wait Beshear's a Democrat... ummm. uhhh.... but... but. at least Conway looks good and smart... and at least now perhaps I will look a little less partisan... shit.

To see what Governor Beshear's odds are of success, I took a look at the Brief they filed with the 6th Circuit Court.

What scares me the most is that the Brief for the Defendant Appellant is very well written. The Brief  is grammatically flowing and avoids choppy sentences and general errors. I obviously disagree with the logic and the jurisprudence presented; however, well written briefs have a tendency of succeeding, particularly when they defend the status quo.

But let's take a look at their argumentation:

Kentucky, like 33 other states, has exercised its broad authority to regulate domestic relations by adopting a traditional man-woman definition of marriage.

That is not a definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by the statutes that promulgate the rights and responsibilities of marriage. States define marriage by whether or not they adopt the Communal Property Regime or if they use Common Law Property. Beyond that you are defining who gets married, and a state needs a damn good reason to do that (literally. Abridging the 14th Amendment requires strict scrutiny.)

So what's Kentucky's damn good reason for not recognizing same-sex marriages:

Even if Baker were not preclusive, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims fail. Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate. Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model. Thus, same-sex couples are not similarly situated to man woman couples, and the distinction drawn by Kentucky’s statutes is rationally related to a legitimate interest of Kentucky.

So economic collapse will ensue if Kentucky.. umm.. huh!? Gay people don't stop gaying it up when denied marriage. Yes, men and women make more men and women, and people see that as being somehow good for society. But straight people will continue popping little people out of their baby cannons, even if the gayz are allowed equal benefits. This doesn't even meet rational basis. 

Furthermore the examples used by Kentucky to demonstrate their hypothesis are Japan and Germany, neither of which allow same-sex marriage. So we can't allow gay certain types of marriages, because there are problems in places where those gay certain types of marriages aren't performed. You do realize that's an argument for gay marriage, right? 

But hold up, what's this about Baker v. Nelson:

Additionally, Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed by 409 U.S. 810 (1972), affirmatively rejected the notion that state law same-sex marriage prohibitions violate the Equal Protection Clause. Baker remains valid binding precedent upon the lower federal courts.

When nearly every federal jurisdiction in America is hearing the same type of case, perhaps this isn't the best argument. Baker provides no rational as it simply declined Certiorari. So after Perry, courts could adopt the 10th Circuits ruling as a primary persuasive authority. I explained it more in detail on the write up over Kitchen v. Herbert. Baker was over a statutory ban, while Kentucky has a constitutional ban. Thanks bigots! 

Liam '14

The Reader Quiz

By what day must the Plaintiffs file their response to the appeal?

A. May 30th

B. June 9th

C. July 4th

D.Butt-Sex 

The answer is D. Butt-Sex... good job reading the Courier-Journal article.