Nevada officials won't defend gay mar...

Nevada officials won't defend gay marriage ban

There are 10 comments on the WBOC-TV Salisbury story from Feb 10, 2014, titled Nevada officials won't defend gay marriage ban. In it, WBOC-TV Salisbury reports that:

Nevada's attorney general and governor said Monday that they won't defend the state's gay marriage ban when it goes before a federal appeals court, saying that a recent court decision makes the state's arguments supporting its constitutional amendment "no longer defensible."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WBOC-TV Salisbury.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Feb 10, 2014
The day is in sight when we will have JUSTICE in all 50 states.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Feb 10, 2014
When you consider that she had won on the trial level, declining to proceed at this point tells you just what's in store for these bans.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Feb 11, 2014
And significantly the Republican Gov agrees the ban is indefensible.

So the big question is how does this affect the case?

According to the article that leaves no state officials defending the ban. Does this mean a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs?

And does that mean the ruling would only apply to Nevada but not the rest of the states in the 9th circuit- i.e. ID, AK, MT, OR, AZ?

And with no state official defending the ban, there is no one to appeal the 9th circuit's ruling to the SCOTUS?

So many questions...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Feb 11, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
And significantly the Republican Gov agrees the ban is indefensible.
So the big question is how does this affect the case?
According to the article that leaves no state officials defending the ban. Does this mean a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs?
And does that mean the ruling would only apply to Nevada but not the rest of the states in the 9th circuit- i.e. ID, AK, MT, OR, AZ?
And with no state official defending the ban, there is no one to appeal the 9th circuit's ruling to the SCOTUS?
So many questions...
Stay tuned ! SAME BAT-TIME. SAME BAT-CHANNEL !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Feb 11, 2014
Another question-

When is the hearing scheduled at the 9th circuit?

Who is the panel of judges?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Feb 11, 2014
The MOST frustrating part is how the process is so disorganized, with no set timelines.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Feb 11, 2014
The other states with bans in the district, have likely already briefed the court as to their position on this, so this round should proceed to ruling without a hearing. Given that whatever the court rules would set the precedent for the others, they would have standing on appeal to the Supremes, even without Nevada's cooperation.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Feb 12, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The other states with bans in the district, have likely already briefed the court as to their position on this, so this round should proceed to ruling without a hearing. Given that whatever the court rules would set the precedent for the others, they would have standing on appeal to the Supremes, even without Nevada's cooperation.
Interesting point; I hadn't though about that aspect.

Regardless, I think the SCOTUS will likely deny any cert request until they get conflicting opinions from 2 or more appeals courts.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Feb 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting point; I hadn't though about that aspect.
Regardless, I think the SCOTUS will likely deny any cert request until they get conflicting opinions from 2 or more appeals courts.
I agree. I think a SCOTUS opinion on this is 2 or 3 years down the pike, but no longer than that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Feb 12, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I think a SCOTUS opinion on this is 2 or 3 years down the pike, but no longer than that.
Yep, it all depends on how quickly the various appeals courts rule, and the more conservative courts- 6th & 5th- tend to move slower.

My main concern is a ruling from the SCOTUS in Jun 2016 just as the presidential election is getting in full gear, injecting an extremely divisive social issue into the political process.

Oh well, nothing we can do about it but roll with it and hope for the best.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mike Huckabee says Hillary Clinton should go to... 22 min Rainbow Kid 2
News Another KY clerk vows to not issue same sex mar... 32 min huntemdown 23
News Kentucky clerka s defiance on same-sex marriage... 43 min Silly Season 27
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 hr DaveinMass 1,301
News Religious Exemptions: How the World Would Look ... 1 hr flame of truth 2
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 2 hr District 1 386
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... (Mar '15) 8 hr piratefighting 7,302
More from around the web