Skip

one more down
June 25, 2014 9:42 AM   Subscribe


 
\o/
posted by drezdn at 9:43 AM on June 25 [7 favorites]


"Marion County Clerk Beth White said she is prepared to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her office at the City-County Building in Downtown Indianapolis."
posted by leotrotsky at 9:43 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Actually, that's not even the best news in SSM today.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:44 AM on June 25 [22 favorites]


Woo!
posted by sarcasticah at 9:45 AM on June 25


Oh, the Indiana GOP recently added new language to their platform that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Enjoy the dustbin of history, assholes.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:47 AM on June 25 [30 favorites]


Pat Benatar's "We Belong" is now inexplicably playing all over the country
posted by The Whelk at 9:47 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]


Zombieflanders beat me to it -- this is a day of good news for equality.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:48 AM on June 25


Is the 10th Circuit issuing a separate opinion on the Oklahoma case?
posted by MoonOrb at 9:49 AM on June 25


\o/

The Indiana news is spectacular (seriously, thought they would be last), but the 10th Circuit news is HUGE.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:52 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


True story: when I read the headline on a different site, my first thought was, "OMG, YAY!!" and my second thought was, "I wonder if Metafilter will have a post on this?" And my third thought was, "Probably, and then someone's gonna complain that SSM rulings are no longer FPP-worthy because there are so many of them now," and then my fourth thought was, "SO MANY! YAY!"

In conclusion: YAY!
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 9:52 AM on June 25 [46 favorites]


Maybe next year Jim Nabors can get hitched at the speedway after singing.
posted by jonmc at 9:52 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]


Is there a stay in Indiana?
posted by Area Man at 9:52 AM on June 25


No stay in Indiana. There is a stay in Utah, pending writ of cert to SCOTUS.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:53 AM on June 25


The 10th Circuit news is....daaaaaaaaaang. Massive. I've been waiting for this (or a ruling like it) for months.

Next stop: round two at the Supreme Court. Mark your calendars - cert petitions in 90 days.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:57 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]


10th Circuit states include my home state of Kansas, as well as Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. I'm floored. No immediate effect, of course, but it's a hugely good day.
posted by donnagirl at 9:57 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]




These news stories always catch me by surprise and brighten my day :)
posted by C'est la D.C. at 9:57 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Is the 10th Circuit issuing a separate opinion on the Oklahoma case?

"The decision affects all states within the 10th circuit: Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming."

Probably not, then.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:57 AM on June 25


AMAZING!

Here is the text of the ruling.
posted by ChrisHartley at 9:59 AM on June 25


Indiana decision [PDF]

Notably, Judge Young granted summary judgment on the case. From his decision:
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:00 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Disappointingly, Indiana does not mention gay rights hero Justice Scalia, but the 10th Circuit name checks him twice.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on June 25 [20 favorites]


leotrotsky: "Oh, the Indiana GOP recently added new language to their platform that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Enjoy the dustbin of history, assholes."

Before or after the announcement?
posted by boo_radley at 10:00 AM on June 25


It is worth noting, I think, that tomorrow, this thread turns one year old.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on June 25 [12 favorites]


Summary judgment is appropriate if the record "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

I'm pretty sure all these cases have been decided on summary judgment. There's no dispute about whether gay marriage bans exist or that under said bans gay couples are denied the legal rights and privileges given to opposite-sex married couples.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:04 AM on June 25


I'm a certified minister, so when SSM becomes legal in Louisiana, I'll conduct services for any MeFites who choose to get married in New Orleans. No charge.
posted by ColdChef at 10:05 AM on June 25 [49 favorites]


AFAIK, it was only a case in Michigan that was decided after a trial. All the rest of the cases have been on SJ motions.
posted by MoonOrb at 10:06 AM on June 25


Also, I suppose this may be revisited by the 10th Circuit en banc. This decision was just the 3 judge panel.
posted by MoonOrb at 10:09 AM on June 25


Congratulations, Indiana!

In Louisiana today U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman announced that he wants to decide on both issues involved in gay marriage lawsuits going on around the country; in other words, not just whether Louisiana must recognize legal marriages from elsewhere, but whether Louisiana must also allow same-sex couples to wed here. I'm nervous about this - I'm worried that somehow Louisiana will become the one to break a ... what is it now, a streak of 22 straight pro-marriage-equality rulings? It wouldn't be the first time that this state looked backward instead of forward.

I'm hoping that U.S. District Judge Richard Young's ruling in Indiana helps convince Judge Feldman of the correct path.
posted by komara at 10:09 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]


komara, if a Kitchen SCOTUS ruling is broad enough, it won't matter what the Louisiana judge thinks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


via Ben Winslow on the Twitter: @GovHerbert's office just told me they are reviewing the #10thCircuit decision and whether #Utah will appeal
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:13 AM on June 25


On which note, it'll be interesting to see whether SCOTUS puts Kitchen onto a conference agenda as soon as it's briefed, or waits for all the circuit courts to weigh in. There are cases pending in every circuit where gay marriage bans are a live issue (i.e. not the first, second or third), and if every circuit agrees the justices could just say there's no point in going through the kabuki theater to reach the same result as everyone else.

That would only happen if at least one of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito agrees, though (it takes four votes to grant cert), so maybe not.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:15 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Woo!

Is it wrong that I am going to celebrate extra hard about SSM in Utah?
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:19 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]


Just stopped over in the Marion County (Indianapolis) Clerk's office to watch the hubbub - about 20 couples in line for licenses and several marriages already completed. Lots of media, lots of spectators and everyone is happy.
posted by ChrisHartley at 10:19 AM on June 25 [28 favorites]


Oh, I am crying. I really thought my state would be last. They were still trying to add a marriage ban to the state constitution as recently as this year. I can't believe it. There are people getting married downtown today.
posted by headspace at 10:20 AM on June 25 [25 favorites]


On which note, it'll be interesting to see whether SCOTUS puts Kitchen onto a conference agenda as soon as it's briefed, or waits for all the circuit courts to weigh in. There are cases pending in every circuit where gay marriage bans are a live issue (i.e. not the first, second or third), and if every circuit agrees the justices could just say there's no point in going through the kabuki theater to reach the same result as everyone else.

Yep, and FWIW what I meant about the 10th Circuit decision being the biggest news wasn't so much geographic area, but rather that each decision at the Circuit level makes it that much more likely that SCOTUS takes action sooner rather than later.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:22 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Wait. What??? Is this really April 1?
Fantastic news! I honestly didn't know Indiana's ban was even being challenged in court.

The uproar is going to be fun to watch, considering Indiana conservatives' headlong crusade to make the state the reddest of the red.

Hope I get invited to a wedding!
posted by Thorzdad at 10:24 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]


ChrisHartley, you may have seen my friends who are getting married right now. Yay! I am so happy for them and everyone who will benefit from equality.
I love watching these stupid laws falling like dominoes!
posted by Duffington at 10:28 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]


Here are some men who are married in Indiana to each other.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:28 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]


\o/ Utah!
\o/ Indiana!
posted by Sophie1 at 10:29 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Of course, this is a bit unfair since this guy was wise enough to know he couldn't hold the tide back.
posted by Decani at 10:32 AM on June 25


Oh, roomthreeseventeen, the couple pictured are my friends!
posted by Duffington at 10:36 AM on June 25 [25 favorites]


Tearing down the wall brick by brick.


\o/
posted by blurker at 10:40 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Honest to goodness, Indiana!
posted by percolatrix at 10:42 AM on June 25


Maybe next year Jim Nabors can get hitched at the speedway after singing.

Sadly, this year was Jim's last performance at the speedway, due to his health. On a brighter note, he already married his partner of 38 years, back in January 2013 in Seattle.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:42 AM on June 25 [9 favorites]


I have several friends rushing to get married before the stay hits. I'm honestly shocked and in disbelief at how happy and exciting this is, even after it's happened in several states, to have it happen here.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:46 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]




Here are some men who are married in Indiana to each other.

Hey, those are my landlords! Huzzah! Feels like I don't get to say this often enough, but I'm so proud of my state today! Exclamation marks!
posted by Timmoy Daen at 10:51 AM on June 25 [21 favorites]


Such awesome news! Does anyone know of a map showing in which states SSM is legal?
posted by mlis at 11:14 AM on June 25


Never thought this would happen in my home state. This is awesome!
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 11:15 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]




The wikipedia map is quickly updated. Indiana's blue!
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 11:20 AM on June 25


Thank you!
posted by mlis at 11:23 AM on June 25


Utah AG says they will file a writ of cert, no decision yet on an en banc review request.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:31 AM on June 25


Requesting a mefi meetup in Bloomington, Indiana.

I'll buy everyone a god damn drink at Uncle Elizabeth's, and then we'll dance up a storm in the dimly lit but always fun Bullwinkle's.

Its times like this (and the 2008 turning of Indiana into a blue state) that I feel freaking proud to call myself a "Hoosier".
posted by hal_c_on at 11:39 AM on June 25 [10 favorites]


Yessssss!

Made my day.
posted by BlueHorse at 11:40 AM on June 25


I'll buy everyone a god damn drink at Uncle Elizabeth's, and then we'll dance up a storm in the dimly lit but always fun Bullwinkle's.

I have to think the Mark III, up here in Muncie, is going to be rocking tonight.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:42 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


If I didn't have to work tonight, I'd totally swing by Uncle E's.

I have to think the Mark III, up here in Muncie, is going to be rocking tonight.

Hell, the Heorot's going to be busy as hell I'd bet.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:46 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Area Man: "Is there a stay in Indiana?"

I'm sure there are many great places to stay in Indiana. For your honeymoon. After your same-sex wedding.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:53 AM on June 25 [14 favorites]


Yay, home state!
posted by minsies at 11:54 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Hell, the Heorot's going to be busy as hell I'd bet.
Oh, the Heorot. About the one place in Muncie I still have nostalgia for.

Celebratory rally and party in Indy tonight for those so inclined, put on by Hoosiers Unite for Marriage.

I'm working, but my husband took our two small boys downtown to blow bubbles and cheer.
posted by percolatrix at 12:02 PM on June 25 [5 favorites]


Yayayay!
posted by WidgetAlley at 12:03 PM on June 25


Disappointingly, Indiana does not mention gay rights hero Justice Scalia, but the 10th Circuit name checks him twice.

So, any word on concrete plans to build the Scalia Statue (hopefully to be placed in the Castro district)? I think it'd be fitting if he was wearing assless chaps.

(cough, kickstarter, cough)
posted by el io at 12:13 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


I love how people cling to their Indiana heritage WHEN Indiana does something awesome.

Are you listening, legislators and voters? This is how you make a state strong.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:16 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


Homophobia wasn't the main reason I left Indiana, but it's probably somewhere in the top 10. Hard to differentiate it between general bigotry and extreme religiosity.

At times impostor syndrome kicks in and I begin to worry that I'll be forced to move back there. Changes like this make that seem a little less awful. (And you could get SO MUCH damn house for your money - if only I could find someone to pay me what I make as an expat.)
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:25 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Here's the map page on wikipedia
posted by Sophie1 at 12:28 PM on June 25


Every time I use my smartphone GPS to watch myself walk through the neighborhood as though I'm holding the Marauder's map I feel like I'm living in the future. This too. Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:29 PM on June 25 [4 favorites]


*Starts a slow clap*
posted by drezdn at 12:30 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

I don't think so. I'm closing in on 35, and the first gay people that I knew of on TV were Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres. And I was in high school by then.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:34 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


These Premises Are Alarmed: I would probably make more money back in Indiana than I do as an expat, but even so: nope nope nope.

I usually spend the first few minutes of any introduction to people over here (UK) explaining where I'm from, which usually involves me describing the states surrounding Indiana, because everyone usually says, "uh, somewhere in the middle...ish? Maybe? How far is it from Chicago?" I think I'll start adding a "not the last state to allow SSM!" in my general description.
posted by minsies at 12:34 PM on June 25


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

As a teenager growing up in rural Indiana: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Hell, even as a 37 year old man in Indiana yesterday, I would have had a hard time imagining it! (Still in exclamation mode because I'm so giddy and proud!)
posted by Timmoy Daen at 12:38 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


So, any word on concrete plans to build the Scalia Statue (hopefully to be placed in the Castro district)? I think it'd be fitting if he was wearing assless chaps.

I wonder if one can be 3d printed in time for the Pride parade....
posted by asra at 12:39 PM on June 25 [4 favorites]


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

No way. I really thought I would bury all my friends, I never had any thought that I'd be attending all of their weddings.

It's pretty awesome.
posted by Sophie1 at 12:41 PM on June 25 [6 favorites]


When I said 'expat' I just meant 'ex-Hoosier' - still live in the USA, just in a higher-paying part of it!
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:41 PM on June 25


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

Nope. Hell, I couldn't have imagined this ten years ago, when we got hitched during the San Francisco Winter of Love. It's amazing to see.
posted by rtha at 12:44 PM on June 25 [4 favorites]


I wonder if one can be 3d printed in time for the Pride parade....

I am sort of looking forward to the SCOTUS opinion legalizing same-sex marriage in every state, authored by our friend Antonin.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:45 PM on June 25


I'm 38. I lived in Indiana from 1988-1990, and then we moved back to Iowa. I would never have imagined that EITHER place would allow same-sex marriage. Hell, my high school wouldn't even allow an HIV/AIDS group to come speak the year after I graduated from COLLEGE. I just emailed my mom some links and said that I wished my radical, awesome, Indiana-native grandmother were here to see this. I'm sitting in my office almost in tears.
posted by newrambler at 12:53 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

In my teen years, this sort of thing wasn't even on the radar. I was in my early twenties when Hawaii became the first state to even consider it, and the thought blew me away. I remember thinking at the time: that'll never work. Getting middle America to accept gay people as completely equal will be a more incremental thing. Clinton's failure to integrate the military was still heavily on everyone's mind so something like marriage seemed highly unlikely anytime soon.

Glad that I was, in some ways, wrong.

The first thing in the 90's which gave me a clue that marriage equality would one day be a mainstream thing was a great sci-fi show: Babylon 5. There was a story arc where two men were going to hide out and infiltrate something in Earth's government. Their cover story was that they were going to Mars on their honeymoon and they had to act like newlyweds in love. The show played it up for laughs in a way, not homophobic jokes but more in the romantic comedy tropes of two incompatible people finding themselves together, but otherwise the cover was used because this sort of thing was so common and everyday that no one would pay any attention to these two at all.

Made a huge impression on me at the time and gay marriage developments afterwards just seemed like a natural progression, and not the big shock that was Hawaii.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:01 PM on June 25 [4 favorites]


I'm 29 and I never imagined this particular domino-chain would happen in my lifetime.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:13 PM on June 25


justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow: "Every time I use my smartphone GPS to watch myself walk through the neighborhood as though I'm holding the Marauder's map I feel like I'm living in the future. This too. Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?"

I'm 43. I've lived in Indiana since I was 12. When I was a teenager, I was unaware that there was such a thing as same sex marriage. It would have been a completely alien idea.

The state legislature has been working on a constitutional amendment ban for over a year. There was some contention among the Republicans that the wording of the current draft wasn't draconian enough. As recently as this morning, I firmly believed that Indiana would be the very last state where gay people would be able to exercise their rights. The same right that I've enjoyed for over 20 years.

I'm ashamed but not surprised that Indiana had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Today is a good day. Let the celebrations begin!
posted by double block and bleed at 1:23 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Congrats Indiana!

we beat you to it
posted by desjardins at 1:33 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I live in southern Indiana. Does this mean my Elvis based marriage is now less sacrosanct?
posted by DigDoug at 1:37 PM on June 25


we beat you to it

A federal judge ordered your state government to do the right thing before a federal judge ordered Indiana's state government to do the right thing. It isn't even like Vermont, Iowa or Massachusetts which can at least point with pride to the quality of their state judges. Someone from an entirely different level of government had to step in and make things right.
posted by Area Man at 1:38 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


*ahem* MN got it through the legislature *ahem*
posted by Think_Long at 2:16 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Pennsylvania: We know when to quit!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:17 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I live in the relatively sane northwest corner of Indiana, where it may actually be safe to come out of the closet... I doubt the same is true for the rest of the state. I strongly suspect the bible-thumping redneck rest of the state will rapidly come up with something to try to reverse this. 8(
posted by MikeWarot at 2:17 PM on June 25


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

See...Here's the frustrating thing about Indiana. Yeah, it's never been a bastion of wild-eyed liberalism. That said...I'm 56 years old, and that makes me old enough to remember an Indiana that had strong progressive tendencies. We regularly sent forward-thinking representatives to Washington. On top of that, it was long a rock-solid, pro-labor state. So, back then, yeah, I absolutely could have imagined this happening. Hell, I could have imagined it happening without a federal judge intervening.

Then, the 80's arrived and everything went to hell.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:30 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


Aren't going to have a lot of luck unless the Supreme Court does something unexpected. They can whine and throw fits, but their only option would be a constitutional amendment and that ain't going to happen.
posted by tavella at 2:30 PM on June 25


MikeWarot: "I live in the relatively sane northwest corner of Indiana, where it may actually be safe to come out of the closet... I doubt the same is true for the rest of the state. I strongly suspect the bible-thumping redneck rest of the state will rapidly come up with something to try to reverse this. 8("

I grew up in Da Region. The safety of coming out was emphatically not true when I was young. I hope it is today.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:31 PM on June 25


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

Absolutely not. (I mean, I can vaguely remember seeing gay marriage in a few science fiction books, but it was more like teleportation, not a realistic depiction of the US in twenty years.)

Like probably most people my age who didn't have LGBT immediate family members, I encountered gay activism through the AIDS crisis. I can remember reading When the Band Played On in 1988 as a 15 year old, for example; I can also remember the open homophobia of the Reagan administration and other prominent political figures of the time. The hostility was totally open and unhidden.

To go from that to seeing headlines like this honestly makes me tear up when I really think about it. I certainly didn't have the foresight see it coming, but it's one of the most positive political developments of my lifetime.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:53 PM on June 25 [4 favorites]


Not about SSM, but nonetheless a hopeful sign for the future: the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider a decision they made back in January, which banned the exclusion of potential jurors because of their sexual orientation --- an undisclosed majority of the full 29-judge court said that banning gays from jury pools was pretty much the same thing as banning people based on race or gender, and has refused to rehear the case.
posted by easily confused at 2:56 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


\o/
posted by ChrisR at 3:05 PM on June 25


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

Nope. When I was a teenager, my gay male friends were dying in droves and marriage equality wasn't really on the radar.
posted by desjardins at 3:09 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


I can also remember the open homophobia of the Reagan administration and other prominent political figures of the time. The hostility was totally open and unhidden.

Open homophobia during Reagan was one thing. But several years later the kinder gentler party passed DOMA. The speed with which Prop 8 has fallen has shocked me. It's as if suddenly every zealot and bigot has finally ended up in the corner, and reasonable adults are letting them rant, but ignoring them.
posted by DigDoug at 3:13 PM on June 25 [5 favorites]


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

I was born in 1968 and I grew up with queers. My mom was part of a local community theater group, who happened to have a number of people in it that she also tutored in English at the local community college, and a number of those people also happened to be queer as a three dollar bill. I knew all these people and it was acknowledged that they were gay/lesbian (no 'queer' back then, unless as an insult). My parents were happy to leave my sister and me in their care on any number of occasions. They were friends and they were family. And they were the *best* babysitters ever!

But more importantly - and anecdotally - and earlier than when I was hanging with these theater peeps-

I remember going to Disney World in, what, 1975? I remember many things. But the thing I remember most clearly was walking back to the car in the parking lot after a day of Disney adventure, and seeing two men walking ahead of us, arms draped around each other. One was black, one was white, and both were dressed in bright tank tops and short (very short) denim shorts.

They paused for a moment, and the black guy nuzzled his face into the white guy's neck, and they embraced and, then, kissed, briefly, and then kept walking.

And I pointed and said "What are they doing?"

And my mom looked up and saw them - and for a moment, just a moment, the barest trace of *something* passed across her face - and then she said, "They're in love. Stop staring."

I have never forgotten that.

And so, yes, my teenage self could imagine this. I am not much for marriage, but equal rights is not negotiable. You don't get to deny my family and friends their rights and not expect a fight.
posted by jammy at 3:43 PM on June 25 [15 favorites]


\o/

Huzzah!

I lived in Indiana for a while as a young teenager, awkward in my own ways.

I have family in the Hoosier state to this day. A little slice of home for me exists there.

Now if Florida where not such a fustercluck...
posted by PROD_TPSL at 3:45 PM on June 25


So apparently the clerks in Boulder, CO haven't gotten the message about the stay at the 10th circuit, because they're handing out marriage licenses (can't link right now, I'm on my phone, but they're all like "uh, what stay?"
posted by Sophie1 at 4:01 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


So apparently the clerks in Boulder, CO haven't gotten the message about the stay at the 10th circuit
"I am relying on the 10th Circuit's statement that marriage is a fundamental right. Because the Court stayed its mandate, officials in Utah will not have to implement the decision immediately. Even so, I believe the opinion is clear and it is important to act immediately. Colorado's prohibition on same sex marriage has treated our family, friends and co-workers have been treated as second class citizens for long enough. Unless a Court in Colorado or the U.S. Supreme Court tells me otherwise, I plan to begin issuing licenses." (via)
Sounds like they heard about the stay and they don't care!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:14 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


Looks like some counties in Indiana are refusing to issue licenses because their forms only say male and female. At least one county is refusing because they say the ruling only applies to the counties that the couples who brought suit are from.
posted by futz at 5:16 PM on June 25


That's not how precedent works, geniuses.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:24 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Love marches on!
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:06 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


This is awesome! Congrats Indiana !!

(and I just have to add that \o/ is my most favorite emoticon ever.)

Did I believe this would happen when I was a teenager? Probably not. I don't think I thought about it much one way or another back then. (born in 1956.)

But by March 1984, I became aware of just how badly something like this needed to happen as soon as possible. (because Sharon and Karen lived in Minnesota, I was aware of their case from the time it first hit the local paper which I read daily back then.)

I'm so happy that marriage equality is finally arriving, but I can never forget how many people have needlessly suffered because this didn't happen much sooner.
posted by marsha56 at 6:54 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]




From NPR:
Utah claimed that the ban on same-sex marriage serves state interests in "fostering a child-centric marriage culture," ensuring that children are "raised by their biological mothers and fathers" or a married opposite-sex couple, promoting "adequate reproduction" and "accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife."

But all of these reasons, Lucero wrote, are based on a flawed underlying claim — that marriage and procreation are linked. This claim is evidently false, he noted, because other Utahans can marry anyone of the opposite sex, regardless of "reproductive capacity."
Thank you, Judge Carlos Lucero.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:20 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


Yeah, Utah has done a real bang-up job in helping to ensure that children are raised by their biological mothers and fathers. Encouraging procreation is definitely done here--good outcomes for children? Not quite as much. There is a better use for the money we're spending on this court case, but yay for the outcome so far!
posted by freejinn at 10:31 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


In New Orleans this morning, US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Feldman said after oral arguments that he wants to rule on both the question before him in Robicheaux et al. v Caldwell (only about having Louisiana recognize marriages performed elsewhere) and Louisiana's own constitutional ban on performing these marriages. I tried to get to the courtroom to listen but I suck at downtown driving and couldn't find a parking spot in time.

Also, you can read about how Buck Angel's wife is trying not just to simply divorce him (they married in New Orleans in 2003), but have the state rule that he isn't a man despite the fact that he jumped through all the hoops and changed all his documentation years ago. Her zeal could very well set other trans people in Louisiana back decades not only through such a ruling, but also by shedding light on the fact that state law as written does not technically require the expensive bottom surgery to update certain identification as it may have intended. Trans people here (including me!) have been quietly taking advantage of this for years, but when our Republican legislature hears about a way they aren't being sufficiently backwards, they usually can't help themselves.
posted by Corinth at 12:53 AM on June 26 [6 favorites]


I'm delighted at these developments, especially as the proposal to put a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage here in Indiana wound up going nowhere.
posted by Gelatin at 3:23 AM on June 26


...especially as the proposal to put a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage here in Indiana wound up going nowhere.

I wouldn't say it went nowhere, exactly. It failed to appear on this year's ballot on a procedural technicality. In Indiana, constitutional amendments must be approved by two successive legislatures before it can appear on the ballot for voters. The gay-marriage amendment proposal was approved by a previous legislature.

In 2014, the proposal was working its way through the process once again, when legislators stripped language from the bill that seemed to also make common-law marriages invalid. In doing so, legislators ran afoul of Indiana law that says the amendment proposals put before the two legislatures must be identical. Stripping the language from the second proposal made it substantially different from the first version. Thus, the constitutional amendment could not appear on the 2014 ballot.

However, the Indiana House voted 57-40 to approve the new version of the amendment. The Senate followed with a 32-17 vote in favor. The bill will undoubtedly be put before the next legislature and, if approved, will appear before the voters in 2016. Unless SCOTUS chimes-in on the gay marriage question before then, of course.

So, it's not a done-deal in Indiana yet. But, it's definitely getting much better after yesterday's decision.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:52 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]


ChrisHartley: The IndyStar has a really sweet photo gallery of people getting married.

For fuck's sake I'm crying like a baby at my desk here now.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:12 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]


186 couples married on yesterday, the line started forming this morning here in Indianapolis at 6:30am. I'll head back over after lunch to see how things are going.

Another good story in the IndyStar.
posted by ChrisHartley at 8:14 AM on June 26


ChrisHartley: The IndyStar has a really sweet photo gallery of people getting married.

I find it insufferably ironic that a Hobby Lobby coupon showed up between every three photos of same sex couples getting married.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:20 AM on June 26 [3 favorites]


Wow, from the comments I have read from the Indiana-ish* on Mefi, this appears a surprising yet awesome decision!

Serious question: How does it work if you are SS Married in a SSM state, and then move to a non-SSM state? Is there a Federal Statute governing this, or is it dependent on the state? It seems (to an old skool european) a strange state of affairs when you can be married in one state and move 5 miles over the border to another and be un-married.

(* I don't know what you call yourselves! Indianaites?)
posted by marienbad at 8:32 AM on June 26


States decide on their own whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. some of the cases currently working their way through the system are based on couples who were married in SSM states suing the states where they live for recognition.

In addition, the federal Defense of Marriage Act used to say that the federal government doesn't recognize any same-sex marriages. That was struck down by the Supreme court last year in Windsor, and now anyone who gets married in an SSM state is married for federal purposes, even if they move to a state where their marriage isn't recognized. So if two women get married in California, they're considered married by the state and by the federal government. If they move to Texas, the government there will treat them as an unmarried couple, but the federal government still considers them married. If they leave Texas and fly to, say, Delaware, they're married for state purposes again.

Clear? No? Good.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:38 AM on June 26


(Also, they're Hoosiers.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:38 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]


(* I don't know what you call yourselves! Indianaites?)
We are Hoosiers. 8)
posted by MikeWarot at 8:40 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]


Thanks, Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish, that was a typically quick Mefi response! Also - *laughs* wow, talk about ridiculous.

Oh yeah, I shoulda remembered that, considering how much Vonnegut I've read!
posted by marienbad at 8:43 AM on June 26


If you have a valid marriage certificate, then the federal government will agree that you are married no matter which state you live in and no matter whether you're same-sex or not.

If you have a valid marriage certificate and are a same-sex couple, then to a first approximation your state will agree that you are married if it allows SSM and it will disagree and say you are not married if it does not allow SSM.

(It's really not that weird; it's a consequence of federalism in a system where what the federal government does is pretty restricted. States commonly refuse to recognize legal statuses that run counter to their policy. I want to say that states have occasionally refused to recognize marriages performed in (IIRC) Mississippi where the couple would be underage in their state, at least when it appeared that they hadn't been legitimate MS residents. But I can't easily find the information.)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:53 AM on June 26


So if two women get married in California, they're considered married by the state and by the federal government. If they move to Texas, the government there will treat them as an unmarried couple, but the federal government still considers them married.

Substitute "New York" and "Pennsylvania" for "California" and "Texas," and this is exactly where the DingoWife and I were last April (prior to PA's ruling). I really wasn't expecting it to be as sickening as it was to have to check that "single" box on my state tax return. Prior to that it had almost been an eye-rolly joke to us when we'd cross state lines - "Hey, we're married! Whoops, now we're not!" - but having to deny in writing the existence of my amazing WIFE, even on something as impersonal as a tax form, was viscerally upsetting in a way that still lingers.

SO glad that PA has since come around, and that now there are even more states with marriage equality. Here's hoping that soon nobody in any state (or elsewhere!) will ever have to pretend to their own damned government that their spouse does not exist.
posted by DingoMutt at 9:17 AM on June 26 [8 favorites]


Fred Clark, fros Slacktivist, has this observation about religious objections.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:30 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]


DingoMutt what you write brings up a very interesting question.

I hope future republican administrations don't prosecute for tax shenanigans as the result of all this bullshit.
posted by Talez at 11:30 AM on June 26


My huge extended family's roots are in Muncie/Yorktown, so I'm related to some Hoosiers who are very happy about this. Unfortunately, I'm also related to some Hoosiers who are very unhappy about this.
posted by jocelmeow at 12:45 PM on June 26


So if two women get married in California, they're considered married by the state and by the federal government. If they move to Texas, the government there will treat them as an unmarried couple, but the federal government still considers them married.

This situation will be at the heart of any case SCOTUS agrees to hear. SCOTUS will probably tap-dance around an outright declaration that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Rather, any decision they hand down will revolve around whether states must respect SSMs performed in other states under the auspices of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. It will be a roundabout way to allow SSMs without coming out and trashing a bunch of states' constitutions.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:50 PM on June 26


Four gay couples were married in the mayor's office in St. Louis, MO, in defiance of the state constitutional ban on same sex marriage.
The four marriage licenses were signed by an emotional and misty-eyed Recorder of Deeds Sharon Quigley Carpenter, and four wedding ceremonies were held in Slay’s office as the smiling mayor snapped cellphone pictures of the couples. Two men who were married Wednesday have been in a committed relationship for 39 years. “It makes me proud as a citizen and as a mayor,” Slay said.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:33 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


"Two men who were married Wednesday have been in a committed relationship for 39 years. “It makes me proud as a citizen and as a mayor,” Slay said.

Way to degrade straight marriage guys! Honestly, what a joke of a position to take in opposition to SSM.
posted by marienbad at 2:21 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


Folks over thirty: could your teenage self have even imagined this happening?

I'm 35, so I was a (gay!) teenager through the 90's. It was barely registering on the radar as an issue even worth bringing up until I was I think 17?

Wasn't until 2004 that Canada legalized SSM across the board, when I was 25.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:59 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


It will be a roundabout way to allow SSMs without coming out and trashing a bunch of states' constitutions.

That really depends on how Kennedy goes. Sotomayor et al will pretty obviously uphold lower court opinions that banning SSM is unconstitutional.

Alito et al will say ewwww queers are icky.

Kennedy's the deciding vote here I think, and I think he's casting an eye on what legacy he leaves behind: progressive, or dinosaur. I doubt he wants to be seen as a dinosaur in 20-30 years when he's dead and queer folk are getting married everywhere. Perhaps more pithily, I don't think he wants to be remembered as "That dumbfuck Kennedy who said we weren't allowed to be married."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:03 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


I know it's been years but I keep reading it as Chief Justice Julia Roberts.
posted by The Whelk at 8:20 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]


SCOTUS will probably tap-dance around an outright declaration that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Rather, any decision they hand down will revolve around whether states must respect SSMs performed in other states under the auspices of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. It will be a roundabout way to allow SSMs without coming out and trashing a bunch of states' constitutions.

I just cannot see any possible way for the S Ct to avoid confronting the issue head on, given the 10th Circuit Ruling. I'm having trouble imagining the S Ct accepting cert on the narrower issue of granting full faith and credit to lawful SSM but not taking up the broader issue of whether SSM marriage bans are unconstitutional in the first place. It would require them to refuse cert on cases like the 10th Circuit, and accept cert only on cases ruling on the narrower issue--and I don't know if there are any circuits that have done that yet, although I know there have been some district court decisions on it.

I think it's maybe possible that until a circuit court comes out the other way, that the S Ct will do nothing, and we won't see a S Ct SSM ruling again until there's actually a circuit split. But with cases pending in the (conservative) 4th and 5th circuits it's not too hard to imagine that one of the district court cases will be reversed and there will be a circuit split. But there's maybe this outside chance that lower courts keep finding in favor of SSM and the S Ct never rules. That seems super unlikely to me.

Kennedy's the deciding vote here I think, and I think he's casting an eye on what legacy he leaves behind: progressive, or dinosaur. I doubt he wants to be seen as a dinosaur in 20-30 years when he's dead and queer folk are getting married everywhere. Perhaps more pithily, I don't think he wants to be remembered as "That dumbfuck Kennedy who said we weren't allowed to be married."

I'm starting to also think that he might actually believe it's the right thing to do: he's written the critical opinion in three of the critical gay rights decisions of the last decade and a half, and for all the attention that Scalia's comments in dissent get, it's been Kennedy's opinions in Roemer, Lawrence, and Windsor that have paved the way for all of the lower courts finding in favor of SSM.

I'm now wondering if that line of thinking applies more to Roberts now than to Kennedy, since Kennedy seems firmly onboard. I can imagine Roberts sliding over to the SSM equality majority for the reasons you say: he can see the writing on the wall, he's the chief justice, and he doesn't want to be remembered as a bigoted dick who voted against it. Also, maybe he'll want to keep the opinion for himself.
posted by MoonOrb at 8:33 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago issued a stay. This won't affect the licenses already issued but does prevent the issuance of additional licenses.

Browse in incognito or "private" mode to get around the article limits on the Indy Star website. Also works on any Gannet website.
posted by ChrisHartley at 5:33 PM on June 27


Looks like we've got zombie litigation in the Keystone State. A Pennsylvania clerk is asking the Supreme Court to stay all same-sex marriages in the state until there's a national ruling. She's also asking for the court to let her step in to appeal the case after Gov. Tom Corbett opted to save his re-election chances instead. (The third circuit has already told her to get lost.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:52 AM on July 7


Sounds like somebody's cruising for a being fired for refusing to do her job!
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:58 AM on July 7


So there's now... two? SSM cases that have finished at the Circuit level? One or both will be granted cert, yes? I cannot see the Court punting on this.

By which I mean I hope the Court doesn't punt on this.

By which I mean I hope the assholes aren't in the majority.

After Hobby Lobby though I am very, very worried.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:20 AM on July 7


The Governor's lawyers issued a memo saying the state won't recognize any of the marriages performed before the stay. IndyStar article.
posted by ChrisHartley at 11:11 AM on July 9


Greg Sargent: The nightmare scenario for Republicans on gay marriage
Whether or not there is any SCOTUS ruling, there are already signs gay marriage could divide Republicans in 2016. The RNC autopsy into what went wrong in 2012 explicitly called for evolution on the issue, in part to keep in step with the cultural sensitivities of young Republicans and conservatives. Meanwhile, GOP-aligned gay advocates are actively planning to encourage pro-marriage equality voices within the GOP to speak out. Freedom To Marry has launched a $1 million satellite effort spearheaded by young conservatives who hope to expunge anti-gay language from the GOP platform, to “modernize” the party.

“We’re going to encourage voices within the party who support the freedom to marry to speak up and get the party where it needs to be — in alignment with a majority of the American people, of independents, and younger Republicans,” Freedom to Marry head Evan Wolfson tells me.

Yet the party platform still opposes gay marriage. A large majority of evangelical protestants still oppose it, and Mike Huckabee has warned that GOP support for it will cause the evangelical base to “take a walk.” Meanwhile, Cruz seems to be planning to make opposition to gay marriage a part of his case that the GOP can only win in 2016 by remaining faithful to pure conservatism — or his version of it, anyway.

An intra-GOP primary dispute over it could help reinforce a dynamic Ron Brownstein has already identified, one in which cultural issues such as gay rights have “reaffirmed the GOP’s identity as the champion of the forces most resistant to the profound demographic and cultural dynamics reshaping American life — and Democrats as the voice of those who most welcome these changes.” One can even imagine a viral moment in which all the GOP candidates are asked to raise their hands if they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. If Rob Portman doesn’t run, all the GOP candidates’ hands may promptly shoot heavenward.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:17 PM on July 9 [1 favorite]


Fucking Indiana.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:12 PM on July 9


I don't know why Indiana Republicans are pushing back on this. They must realize that the long-term trend is toward equality. They could either get ahead of it now, either from a civil rights or just 'government out of my bedroom and interpersonal contractual relationships' point of view, all the while grumbling about activist judges blah blah. Or they can take this approach and cement their retrograde reputation for another generation.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:15 PM on July 9 [1 favorite]


Mike Huckabee has warned that GOP support for it will cause the evangelical base to “take a walk.”

So win-win is what you're saying here
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:50 AM on July 10 [3 favorites]


« Older Ken Sei Mogura   |   Wearing a Pink Scarf to a Press Conference Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post