Skip to main content

Marriage equality was set to begin tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM MDT in Idaho after Federal Magistrate Judge Dale ruled Idaho's marriage ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. However, Governor Otter has filed a motion for an emergency stay at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The main argument for the stay (other than "unseemly choas" occurring in the state without the stay) is that the SCOTUS issued a stay in the Kitchen marriage equality case out of Utah. The plaintiffs in the case counter that at the time the SCOTUS issued the stay in the Kitchen case, it was the only pro marriage equality ruling made post-Windsor. Now, there are numerous rulings in favor of marriage equality in both federal and state courts nationwide.

The Ninth Circuit (three judge) panel has issued a temporary stay pending their decision of the motion for the emergency stay. So, marriages will not begin tomorrow morning in Idaho (unless further developments occur).

via Buzzfeed

From the State's Motion to Stay:

If the Injunction becomes effective, Idaho will experience the same unseemly chaos, confusion, conflict, uncertainty, and spawn of further litigation and administrative actions seen in Utah and, to a lesser extent, in Michigan and resulting from a period of time when those district courts’ decisions, very similar to the Injunction, were not stayed and hundreds of same-sex couples “married” in contravention of their respective States’ marriage laws.

On January 6, 2014, the United States Supreme Court made clear that it will decide the constitutionality of man-woman marriage and until that time no lower court decision holding against man-woman marriage should operate to allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized contrary to the law of their particular States. The Supreme Court did this by the extraordinary measure of staying the Utah district court’s injunction against man-woman marriage after both that court and the Tenth Circuit had refused to do so.

Now, weren't you just disgusted and horrified by the "unseemly chaos" of seeing all those extremely happy gay couples getting married in Utah? What is a self-respecting homophobe to do? Goodness gracious!

From the Plaintiffs' Response to the Motion to Stay:

“A stay is not a matter of right.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). A party seeking the extraordinary relief of a stay must satisfy a four-factor test, which requires, among other things, a “strong showing that [the stay applicant] is likely to succeed on the merits” and a showing that “the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” Id. at 434. Moreover, with respect to irreparable harm, the applicant “must show that there is a reason specific to his or her case, as opposed to a reason that would apply equally well to . . . all cases” why denial of a stay will irreparably harm the applicant. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Defendants cannot meet this standard.

This Court should reject Defendants’ suggestion that the Supreme Court’s entry of a stay in Herbert v. Kitchen 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014), compels a stay here. The district court decision in Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013), invalidating Utah’s ban on marriage by same-sex couples, was the first reported decision of any court to address a marriage equality claim in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). While the district court’s reasoning was clearly correct, at the time it was decided, it stood virtually alone as federal authority; accordingly, the stay application had to be measured against a limited jurisprudence of a single case. Since that decision, however, an unbroken wave of federal and state courts in every corner of the nation—including Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico,  New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—have come to the same conclusion: in the wake of Windsor, marriage equality is a constitutional imperative. Not a single court in the nation has found to the contrary.

In light of that extraordinary consensus, the stay application in this case, and this Court’s assessment of the merits, must be measured against a substantial body of doctrine that is consistent and uniform in supporting the correctness of the District Court’s judgment. That body of uniform case law—virtually non-existent in Kitchen—differentiates this case and strongly supports the denial of a stay.

via Equality On Trial

Originally posted to librarisingnsf on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site