Oklahoma/Utah 10th Circuit May Lean To State Choice On Gay Marriage

[PaintMyHouse]

You read where I answered.

Not that I remember. How about a simple yes or no?

Sil, is XX female and XY male, always?

 

[Silhouette]

You've been answered. Stick to the topic.

THE COLORADO INDEPENDENT
Tenth Circuit judges have what they need in gay-marriage cases

The hearings are over. A decision may come by June.

The plaintiffs, two longtime lesbian couples from Tulsa — Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin and Susan Barton and Gay Phillips — have sued Tulsa County Clerk Sally Smith. Jim Campbell, arguing on defense of Clerk Smith, said the couples have to find someone else to sue partly because Smith has no power to address their complaint. He said Smith can’t change the law and that no couples are looking to her to recognize their out-of-state marriages.

The judges — Jerome Holmes, Paul Kelly and Carlos Lucero — took turns peppering Campbell with questions.

“But don’t we need a concrete problem to consider?” asked Judge Kelly, suggesting that a clerk who issues marriage licenses and who in 2009 denied the plaintiffs a marriage license would be the right person to sue.
Campbell cited an earlier district court ruling that said the plaintiffs should look to target some other state official. Judge Holmes’ eyes grew wide.

“Why wouldn’t the clerk be the face of the judiciary for the purpose of the case?” he asked. “This is us. The Tenth Circuit made this decision. Shouldn’t our decision [telling the plaintiffs] to sue the clerk overtake any [lower] district court’s ruling?” ...

...When the couples originally filed their suit in 2004, weeks after Oklahomans voted for a state ban on gay marriage, they targeted the governor and the state attorney general. After years of legal back and forth, the case in 2009 came to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where an earlier three-judge panel told them, in effect, they couldn’t sue the state executives, that the governor and the attorney general had only tangential jurisdiction on marriage. They had to sue a clerk...

...Court watchers expect the Tenth Circuit panel to issue a ruling on the Utah and Oklahoma cases this summer. The circuit hears cases from a conservative middle- and mountain-west region that includes, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

If the panel decides in favor of the plaintiffs and against gay-marriage bans, Colorado’s 2006 ban also would be invalidated. States attorneys in Colorado as well as in the rest of the states of the Tenth Circuit would likely appeal such a decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up a final legal showdown.

Tenth Circuit judges have what they need in gay-marriage cases | The Colorado Independent

Now this gets interesting...

When the ambiguity surrounding Prop 8 Decision happened last Summer in 2013, a clerk from San Diego, CA sued for clarity on the law, stating that he needed guidance from his superiors on whether or not the lawfully binding initiative Prop 8, written still as law to this day, should guide his issuance or denial of marriage licenses.

That clerk was shut down, legally. They just simply denied him the ability to have clarity in his job. I would argue on his behalf that this means he is the official fall-guy for the Prop 8 ambiguity...as are all clerks who find themselves wanting to follow the Will of the People in Law in their state, but being told to defy that will in practice and go ahead and issue marriage licenses that, by the definition handed down from the DOMA decision, WERE AND ARE ILLEGAL!

This catch-22 for county clerks is going to be interesting to watch. They are being held out as "OK to sue" but at the same time are being denied their rights to sue to save themselves from being sued!! ...or worse, sued by the People for dereliction of duty and defiance of their Oath.

If the clerk from San Diego is denied the ability to sue his superiors for clarity on the law, based on all this conflicting legal haze, then nobody should be able to sue a clerk for simply carrying out their legally mandated duty to uphold the Law of their state that was duly enacted a la Windsor 2013.

WTF?

The San Diego County Clerk, Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., has filed what is now the third lawsuit attempting to reinstate California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. Apparently he will be joined by suits from 19 more of the 58 county clerks, who are asking the California Supreme Court to take a very narrow reading of the federal injunction against the measure left in place after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June.

Dronenburg is represented by Chuck LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is also defending ex-gay therapy in New Jersey. One of the claims made in the petition is that Dronenburg is personally injured by having to marry same-sex couples:

Petitioner is suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury and damage unless this Court requires Respondents to execute their supervisory duties, which do not include control over county clerks issuing marriage licenses, consistent with state law limitations.

Petitioner is suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury and damage unless this Court issues an immediate temporary stay during the pendency of these writ proceedings (1) that orders Respondents not to enforce the State Registrar’s directive commanding county clerks to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and (2) that direct Petitioner to refrain from issuing marriage licenses contrary to state law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman until this Court settles the important issues raised in this Petition. California County Clerk Sues To Reinstate Proposition 8 | ThinkProgress

 

[Jarlaxle]

More filibabble from Silly The Human Spambot...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Notice Paintmyhouse below is trying to change the subject because he feels threatened by it. Hey Paintmyhouse, is it "always" the case that a person who "doctors" take the knife to in order to complete their mental delusion that they're another gender, that they are some genetic anomoly other than XX Xy? Hint: the answer is "no". In fact, the vast majority of sex butcherings are done to completely otherwise normal XX Xy individuals, females and males respectively.

So how do we tell what the real gender of someone is? Is XX female and XY male?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Both. Both are pursuits of mentally ill people trying to be some icon of some stereotype they fancy themselves but are not.

It's idiocy to get upset about either.

It is beyond idiocy and into the realm of crime to hold out to generations of impressionable youngsters that old mistakes have now become "healthy" with the passage of time..

What is un-Constitutional is to perpetuate the hateful, ignorant notion that gay Americans may be subject to discriminatory measures by the state predicated solely on that hate and ignorance.

What is reprehensible is the demagoguery you employ by making false, unsubstantiated claims that acknowledging the civil rights of gay Americans will somehow be ‘harmful’ to children.

You hate and fear gay Americans, that’s clear and obvious, and you’re at liberty to express that hate and fear; but you are not at liberty to seek to codify your hate and fear.

 

[Silhouette]

It's idiocy to get upset about either.

It is beyond idiocy and into the realm of crime to hold out to generations of impressionable youngsters that old mistakes have now become "healthy" with the passage of time..

What is un-Constitutional is to perpetuate the hateful, ignorant notion that gay Americans may be subject to discriminatory measures by the state predicated solely on that hate and ignorance.

What is reprehensible is the demagoguery you employ by making false, unsubstantiated claims that acknowledging the civil rights of gay Americans will somehow be ‘harmful’ to children.

You hate and fear gay Americans, that’s clear and obvious, and you’re at liberty to express that hate and fear; but you are not at liberty to seek to codify your hate and fear.

To be clear, "a man and a woman" means you're talking about minors, polygamists and LGBTs, right? And as to the blood relations bans, adult parent/child, brother/sister pairs as well?

When you say you're against discrimination, be specific who you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

The church of LGBT likes to leave out its other members. It finds that, for now, it is more politically expedient.. They'll open the door for their friends and leave it to them to kick it down using legal precedent..and "anti-discrimination" lawsuits...

 

[Silhouette]

Posted 7:10 pm, May 26, 2014...

...SALT LAKE CITY — A federal appeals court could rule any day now on the fate of same-sex marriage in Utah in a case that could either continue a nationwide momentum of gay and lesbian nuptials, or reverse it altogether....

...“This is really kind of where things start to count, because the district courts are just the first round and the appeals courts are supposed to give supervision,” said Bill Duncan, the director of the Center for Family and Society with the conservative Sutherland Institute....

...Troy Booher, an attorney specializing in appeals with the firm Zimmerman Jones Booher, told FOX 13 that many judges ruling the same way may signal something to the appeals courts.

“It’s difficult to ignore,” he said. “It’s also difficult to know what effect it has. It’s clear that the tidal wave has an effect on judges, because every district court judge seems to be ruling the same way.”

Clifford Rosky, the board chairman of the gay rights group Equality Utah, said it’s hard to ignore all those judges.

“I cannot imagine that any federal judge would ignore the fact that 11 colleagues have unanimously agreed on a position of law,” he told FOX 13.

Opponents of same-sex marriage note that the U.S. Supreme Court has the final word.

“It could be that the Supreme Court’s going to say, ‘Hey! Wait a second. You’re going much further than we intended. We need to be the adult in the room and sort of pull you back,’” said Duncan. The 10th Circuit Court could rule any day now on same-sex marriage in Utah | FOX13Now.com - News for Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo and beyond

The "adult in the room" is going to be Windsor; of which Utah's advocates cited liberally in their appeal.

Might want to read pages 14-22 of the Windsor Opinion to see how the 10th is bound to rule on states' sovereignty on the question of gay marriage: United States v. Windsor