| Key links: | |||||||||
 |
GordonWatts.com | GordonWayneWatts.com | U.S. Dist. Court: Fla. N.D. | 11th U.S. Cir. Court of Appeals | U.S. Supreme Court | Brenner v. Scott (Wikipedia) | Pacer.gov | Court Humour |
and
use the find bar.
Consolidated Appeals Docket: 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Case #: 14-14061 (James Brenner, et al v. John Armstrong, et al)
Appeal From: N.D. of Fla. before Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge: 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS
Case #: 14-14066 (Sloan Grimsley, et al v. John Armstrong, et al)
Appeal From: N.D. of Fla. before Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS
| Date Docketed |
Description (Click to view/download) |
Filed By |
Notes |
|||||||||
| 02/28/2014 | VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF | COMPLAINT against PAMELA BONDI, RICK SCOTT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 1129-2886351.), filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: # _1_ Civil Cover Sheet, # _2_ Summons, # _3_ Summons) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2014) | ||||||||||
| 02/28/2014 | PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW | MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: # _1_ Exhibit 1) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2014) | ||||||||||
| 02/28/2014 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN EXCESS OF TWENTY-FIVE PAGES | MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2014) | ||||||||||
| 03/04/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | Hon. David L. Thomas, Deputy Clerk | Summons Issued as to PAMELA BONDI, RICK SCOTT. (Attachments: # _1_ Summon - Scott) (dlt) (Entered: 03/04/2014) | |||||||||
| 03/11/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | SUMMONS Returned Executed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. RICK SCOTT served on 3/6/2014, answer due 3/27/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/11/2014) | ||||||||||
| 03/11/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | SUMMONS Returned Executed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. PAMELA BONDI served on 3/6/2014, answer due 3/27/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/11/2014 | ||||||||||
| 03/12/2014 | COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF | COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 1129-2896463.), filed by ROBERT LOUPO, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., BOB COLLIER, CHRISTIAN ULVERT, CARLOS ANDRADE, DENISE HUESO, THOMAS GANTT, JR, JOYCE ALBU, LINDSAY MYERS, JOHN FITZGERALD, JUAN DEL HIERRO, ERIC HANKIN, SANDRA NEWSON, CHUCK HUNZIKER, SARAH HUMLIE, RICHARD MILSTEIN, SLOAN GRIMSLEY. (Attachments: # _1_ SUMMONS FOR JOHN ARMSTRONG, # _2_ SUMMONS FOR PAM BONDI, # _3_ SUMMONS FOR CRAIG NICHOLS, # _4_ SUMMONS FOR RICK SCOTT) (STEVENSON, BENJAMIN) (Entered: 03/12/2014) | ||||||||||
| 03/12/2014 | CIVIL COVER SHEET | CIVIL COVER SHEET. (STEVENSON, BENJAMIN) (Entered: 03/12/2014) | ||||||||||
| 03/13/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | Hon. Pam L. Lourcey, Deputy Clerk | Summons Issued as to JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (Attachments: # _1_ Summons, # _2_ Summons, # _3_ Summons) (pll) (Entered: 03/13/2014) | |||||||||
| 03/19/2014 | NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER OR PRIOR SIMILAR ACTIONS | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
NOTICE of Pendency of Other or Prior Similar Actions by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., CHRISTIAN ULVERT (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 03/19/2014) | |||||||||
| 03/20/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | Hon. Pam L. Lourcey, Deputy Clerk | SUMMONS Returned Executed . RICK SCOTT served on 3/20/2014, answer due 4/10/2014. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 3/21/2014 (pll). (Entered: 03/20/2014) | |||||||||
| 03/20/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | Hon. Pam L. Lourcey, Deputy Clerk | SUMMONS Returned Executed . PAMELA BONDI served on 3/20/2014, answer due 4/10/2014. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 3/21/2014 (pll). (Entered: 03/20/2014) | |||||||||
| 03/20/2014 | SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION | Hon. Pam L. Lourcey, Deputy Clerk | SUMMONS Returned Executed by ROBERT LOUPO, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., BOB COLLIER, CHRISTIAN ULVERT, CARLOS ANDRADE, DENISE HUESO, THOMAS GANTT, JR, JOYCE ALBU, LINDSAY MYERS, JOHN FITZGERALD, JUAN DEL HIERRO, ERIC HANKIN, SANDRA NEWSON, CHUCK HUNZIKER, SARAH HUMLIE, RICHARD MILSTEIN, SLOAN GRIMSLEY. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 03/20/2014) | |||||||||
| 04/21/2014 | ORDER SETTING A PARTIAL SCHEDULE AND CONSOLIDATING THE CASES FOR CASE-MANAGEMENT PURPOSES | Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge | Consolidation of the 2 cases and setting of a time-table, in the lower tribunal. | |||||||||
| 04/22/2014 | Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff First Amendment Intervening Complaint and Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff |
RETURNED UNFILED: Amicus brief filed by Chris Sevier is returned unfiled in the lower tribunal by Judge Hinkle, whose strongly-worded ruling: "In these consolidated actions, the plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes on same-sex marriage. Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer." Editor's Note: Sevier does make a weak 'Equal Protection' argument, comparing marriage to his computer with other types of marriage and does somewhat address the open-ended nature of the redefinition of marriage, but I feel that an Amicus brief would have been more appropriate than a motion to intervene, the latter standard being much higher. ASSERTS that a 'sexual orientation' classification did not exist until very recently; CITES: Liu Ye of China and Jennifer Hoes of The Netherlands who both apparently 'married' themselves; examples of people 'marrying' animals, objects, etc. CONCLUSION: Supports Florida Law defining 'marriage' as solely between 1 man and 1 woman. OBITOR DICTUM / EDITOR'S NOTE: Some blogs have called him 'nutty' or words to that effect, for wanting to marry his computer, but he is a talented rapper, in the opinion of this writer; very funny briefs! On a more serious note, Mr. Sevier has issued a press release that he is suing several ISP's (Internet Service Providers) regarding damages and other tort violations, including negligent failure to warn regarding unwanted pornography (not censorship, but rather consumer choice). The various filings are posted in this folder. | ||||||||||
| 04/24/2014 | ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR CHRIS SEVIER TO INTERVENE | Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge | In these consolidated actions, the plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes on
same-sex marriage. Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer...[and] has alleged nothing that
would support intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. More egregiously, Mr. Sevier has tendered—but I have directed the clerk not to file...and it purports to be tendered not just by Mr. Sevier on his own behalf but by the original plaintiffs through their own attorneys. Mr. Sevier should take note: he has no authority to tender a document on behalf of anyone other than himself. Filing a document in someone else’s name without the person’s authority is a serious offense...and doing any of this again will have substantial consequences. Editor's Note: I, Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief of The Register and the writer of this story, have carefully reviewed all three (3) documents downloaded from the N.D. Fla. U.S. District Court, using the PACER service, described above, and I do not see any indication that Mr. Sevier attempted to sign any other parties' name(s), and the closest I can see that might resemble that is the Certificate of Service (listing the original plaintiffs, who he claims were served a copy by email) was near his own signature; perhaps Judge Hinkle misread Sevier's complaint? UPDATE: This reporter contacted The Fla. Northern District court and made a public records request from them for a copy of the “second amended motion..." in question, but they informed me that they were unable to comply due to time limits, as mentioned in the order; Mr. Sevier, in a phone interview, asserts that this filing was no different than the 3 posted herein, implying that the judge probably make a human error in reading, as previously theorised by this writer. ||EndOfNote||
For these reasons, |
|||||||||
| 04/25/2014 | PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
Filed in the tribunal below, by Attorney Daniel Boaz Tilley, for Appellees Sloan Grimsley, Joyce Albu, etc. (ECF: Daniel Tilley) Makes 'Equal Protection' arguments about differential treatment of gays, who are not afforded certain benefits that married couples get; asks for an injunction on the Florida Marriage Law in question, using the 4-prong test discussed in Judge Hinkle's subsequent ruling. | |||||||||
| 08/21/2014 | ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND TEMPORARILY STAYING THE INJUNCTION | Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge | U.S. Dist. Judge issues injunction against Florida Constitutional provision voted into law by almost 62% of Fla voters in the 2008 (4,890,883 to 3,008,026; 61.9% to 38.1%) Source: Florida Department of State: Division of Elections, November 4, 2008 General Election. In other words, judge strikes Florida Law enacted by a 'Super Majority' (over 60%) of voters, which is required of proposed amendments. Judge temporarily stays (postpones) injunction pending appeal. | |||||||||
| 09/05/2014 | JOINT NOTICE OF APPEAL | Fla. Surgeon General, Dr. John H. Armstrong, Sec. of Fla. Dept. of Health; Craig J. Nichols, Secr. of Fla. Dept. of Mgt. Svcs.; and Harold Bazzell, Washington County, Fla. Clerk of Court & Comptroller | Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi (R-FL) were removed from the suit by Judge Hinkle, as a 'redundant' defendants, but The State of Florida, through its other officials, appealed Judge Hinkle's ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, GA. | |||||||||
| 10/08/2014 | ORDER: Extension of Time | Hon. Charles R. Wilson, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE | ORDER: All Appellants are GRANTED an extension for filing the following documents. All appellants’ briefs are due November 14, 2014, with the Appellants’ appendices due no later than seven days from the filing of the appellants’ briefs. | |||||||||
| 10/17/2014 | RETURNED UNFILED: Amicus brief filed by Anthony Citro | Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court | RETURNED UNFILED: Amicus brief filed by Anthony Citro is returned unfiled because a motion for leave to file an amicus brief is required. Please see FRAP 29 and 11th Cir. R. 29-1. The brief must be in green covers and comply fully with the requirements of 11th Cir. R. 29-2. (Copy of rules enclosed.) [14-14066, 14-14061] This amicus brief has a historical review of the the Equal rights movement, the Founding Fathers' views on the homosexuality and the 10th and 14th Amendments, and SPARTA, a state-sponsored experiment in homosexuality. Editor's Note: Addressed (on p.4 of 33 of brief) that polygamy "has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe," to show how precedent and case-law from other nations can be persuasive, and makes a good 'slippery slope' argument therewith. CITES: Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145, which held that the federal anti-bigamy statute did not violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause, even in spite of the fact that plural marriage was part of religious practice of certain religions. Editor's Note: Mr. Citro's argument implicates States' Rights, since states have nearly exclusive latitude in matters governing marriage. He also clearly implicates Equal Protection, insofar as it is proof that a religious duty or belief was not a defense to a criminal indictment when considering a form of marriage that is illegal, when considering that Gay Marriage has even less legal or historical underpinning or precedent than plural marriage. | |||||||||
| 10/31/2014 | MOTION OF CLARE ANTHONY CITRO PRIVITE CITIZEN FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIE BRIEF AND AMICUS CURIE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS |
Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court | RETURNED UNFILED: "Motion for Clare Anthony Citro Priv[a]te Citizen for Leave to File Amicus Curi[a]e Brief and Amicus Curi[a]e Brief" submitted by C. Anthony Citro is returned unfiled because the documents are not compliant. [14-14061, 14-14066] CONTAINS: A letter to The Court of an exceptionally horrible experience with some local homosexual persons; views this as proof/evidence of the evil nature of homosexuality, and asks court to uphold Florida Law banning Same-sex Marriage, under the argument that this will embolden and encourage illegal and threatening behaviour. Editor's Note: It appears that the clerk double-scanned, thereby resulting in a duplicate copy of Mr. Citro's brief, but it is a good read, and has relevant case law, and interesting historical perspective, and is worth reading twice. ~Editor-in-Chief, Gordon Wayne Watts | |||||||||
| 11/14/2014 | JOINT INITIAL BRIEF OF ALL APPELLANTS | AG, Pam Bondi; Allen Winsor, Solicitor General; Adam S. Tanenbaum; Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Counsel for the Secretaries; James J. Goodman, Jr., JEFF GOODMAN, P.A., Counsel for the Clerk of Court | Initial Brief of the Appellants, the State of Florida: 10th Amendment / Federalism arguments about States' Rights; a claim that United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972), support States' Rights, and that Baker remains binding precedent; Misc. 14th Am. due Process issues; addressing Rights to Travel, Intimate Association, etc. Addressing Preliminary Injunction Factors | |||||||||
| 11/18/2014 | APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF THIS MOTION | TIME SENSITIVE MOTION to stay pending appeal filed by John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols. Motion is Opposed. [7326286-1]
(ECF: Adam Tanenbaum) TRANSLATION: State of Florida asks Appeals Court to extend the stay on the injunction, thus delaying its enforcement and leaving the Fla. Law intact. |
||||||||||
| 11/19/2014 | Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols. (ECF: Adam Tanenbaum) | |||||||||||
| 11/20/2014 | AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF NORTH CAROLINA VALUES COALITION AND LIBERTY, LIFE, AND LAW FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Deborah J Dewart for North Carolina Values Coalition and Liberty Life and Law Foundation. (ECF: Deborah Dewart) [APPEARANCE of Counsel Form was filed by Deborah J Dewart on 11/14/2014 for North Carolina Values Coalition and Life Life and Law Foundation (ECF: Deborah Dewart).] Claim that Gay Marriage advocates beg the question & use circular logic in presupposing a definition of marriage; addressing deeply-rooted Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution; Argument that Gay Marriage advocates' legal approach "has no limiting principle" in the definition of marriage; Arguments: "ALL LAWS ARE GROUNDED IN MORAL PRINCIPLES" and "THE PRESERVATION OF MARRIAGE IS BASED ON BIOLOGY—NOT BIGOTRY..." and: "This case is not about the right to marry a person of the same sex. It is not about equal protection for an existing fundamental right. It is not about who may marry, but what marriage is." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | Brief of Amicus Curiae Florida Family Action, Inc. In Support of Defendants-Appellants, Seeking Reversal | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Mary E. McAlister representing Amicus Curiae Florida Family Action, Inc. (ECF: Mary McAlister) citing States' Rights under case law: “[R]egulation of domestic relations is ‘an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.’” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691; Argument: "The FMPA [Fla. Marriage Protection Act] Memorializes Millennia Of History Which Have Established That Marriage–The Union Of One Man And One Woman–Is The Essential Social Institution"; and: When, as occurred in this case, “a federal court denies the people suffrage over an issue long thought to be within their power, they deserve an explanation,” citing DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 WL 5748990 at *7; "Florida voters properly exercised their democratic power in a way that should not be blithely set aside. DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990 at *7." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | Amicus Curiae Brief of American College of Pediatricians in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Rachael Spring Loukonen for the American College of Pediatricians. (ECF: Rachael Loukonen) Peer-reviewed scientific research showing that children benefit from the unique parenting contibs of both men & women; addressing methodological errors in another study which came to the opposite conclusion (i.e., that there is 'no difference' in the outcome of gay/lesbian parenting models; contrasting this study with ones with a sufficiently-large sample size, i.e., the largest population-based studies. Addressing lack of monogamy in gay and lesbian relationships compared with heterosexual (straight) relationships, as it relates to marriage and the state's role in promoting it. | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | Motion for leave to file Amici Curiae Brief of 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint in support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal | MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by D. John Sauer for 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint. [7329287-1] (ECF: Dean Sauer) The motion and brief were filed together: "BRIEF OF 16 SCHOLARS OF FEDERALISM AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS AND REVERSAL." The brief argues: "Seven Principles of Federalism and Judicial Restraint Counsel This Court to Exercise the “Utmost Care” When Considering Novel Constitutional Claims, and These Principles Uniformly Counsel Against Requiring the States to Redefine Marriage." ALSO: "Federalism and Deference to the States...Urge Judicial Self-Restraint, Especially in Matters of Traditional State Concern." AND: "This Court Should Respect the Role of the States as Laboratories of Democracy..." AND: "...Should Not Constitutionalize an Area That Is Currently the Subject of Active Debate and Legal Development..." AND: "...Should Favor Incremental Change Over Sweeping and Dramatic Change In Addressing Novel Constitutional Claims"; AND: "The Scarcity of Clear Guideposts for Decisionmaking in the Unchartered Territory of Substantive Due Process Calls for Judicial Restraint," etc. | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MARRIAGE LAW FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by William C. Duncan for Marriage Law Foundation. (ECF: William Duncan) Argues that Fla. voters acted reasonably in retaining the same definition of marriage that is shared by nearly all cultures through all times and eras. Argues that traditional marriage promotes procreation and retains other benefits, which advances the State's interests. ALSO: "THE FLORIDA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ALSO ADVANCES AN IMPORTANT STATE INTEREST IN PRESERVING CITIZEN SELFDETERMINATION IN AN AREA OF TRADITIONAL STATE CONCERN." ALSO: "The state, in recognizing marriage, does not write on a blank slate. Specifically, when Florida voters ratified the Marriage Amendment, they were not creating a new legal arrangement to accomplish novel purposes, and specifically not trying to send a message of stigma or exclusion. Rather, they reaffirmed an understanding of marriage consistently accepted across nearly all cultures throughout recorded history. Such remarkable consensus [exists and] is due to the need for societies to advance important child-centered interests by encouraging the potentially procreative relationships of men and women to take place in a setting where the children who may result have the opportunity to know and be reared by a mother and father firmly bound to one another. As amici Scholars of the Institution of Marriage have shown, a large body of research demonstrates that marriage in fact advance these crucial interests." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE RYAN T. ANDERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Michael F. Smith for Amicus Curiae, Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, (A.B., Princeton University, M.A., University of Notre Dame), who is Editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, online journal of the Witherspoon Institute, and a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame. (ECF: Michael Smith) SUMMARY: There are moral, political, and jurisprudential implications of redefining marriage to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity, e.g., the conjugal husband-wife union. "After all, law shapes culture, which shapes people’s behavior. Marriage law shapes what people expect of themselves and others with respect to marriage. So if the law defines marriage as, essentially, romantic-emotional union, people can be expected to internalize this view." AND: "...Windsor’s logic and holding affirm the States’ prerogative to define civil marriage." ALSO: "Intellectual and cultural history corroborates the idea that male-female sexual unions have special value, and refutes the charge that only Jewish or Christian theology or animus against those identified as gay or lesbian could motivate this view." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF HELEN M. ALVARÉ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Amicus Curiae, Professor Helen M. Alvare, B.S., Villanova University; M.A., The Catholic University of America; J.D., Cornell University. (ECF: Edward Trent) ARGUMENT: "The state has a substantial interest in recognizing and encouraging marriage between opposite-sex pairs of adults who commit to one another for exclusive, long-run, sexually intimate relationships, on the grounds of these pairs’ intrinsically procreative capacity, and their fitness for childrearing [because as] The Supreme Court has repeatedly described the state’s interests in marriage as the interweaving of three benefits to society: (1) stable commitment between intimate, opposite-sex pairs of adults, (2) the procreation and rearing of children, and (3) the formation of a decentralized, democratic society." CITING: United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) in support of States' Rights to regulate marriage: "There, the majority did not devote even a single line of its opinion to any state’s interests in marriage recognition. Instead, the Court disclaimed what it found to be the federal government’s interest in directing states’ policy on marriage, a subject within the states’ “virtually exclusive province” and over which they “possess[] full power.” Id. at 2691." QUOTE: "In the United States, especially over the last 50 years, the emphasis between sex, marriage, and procreation have weakened considerably in both law and culture, with negative repercussions for adults, children, and society as a whole." [Editor adds: "negative repercussions" such as divorce, poverty, etc.] AND: "Rather, the most vulnerable Americans—those without a college education, the poor, and minority groups— have suffered more: they marry less, divorce more, experience lower marital quality, and have far more nonmarital births." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | Amici Curiae Brief of Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal | MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by David C. Gibbs III for Professor Robert P. George, B.A., Swarthmore College; J.D., M.T.S., Harvard University; D.Phil., University of Oxford, Of Counsel, Robinson & McElwee; and: Sherif Girgis {alt: profile: (link)}, A.B., Princeton University; B.Phil., University of Oxford-Rhodes Scholar, scholars on the redefinition of marriage, whose book, What Is Marriage? Man And Woman: A Defense, was cited twice by Justices Alito and Thomas in U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), and whose article, "What Is Marriage?," appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. ARGUES for Marriage as a conjugal union. AFFIRMS the dignity of Plaintiffs and gay people in general. ARGUES that redefinition deprives The State of any "limiting principle" for its marriage law. CITES: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, which lists children's right to be reared by biological parents and lists other risks and damages associated with undermining redefinition of marriage. Shows how polyamorous households would have legal rights if marriage were redefined by removing the present limits of marriage. Addresses deficiencies in 'Civil Marriage' and obligations of The State to serve social purposes. Advances a novel "marriage-neutral' solution, similar to that of Amicus, Gordon Wayne Watts' brief, to meet the needs of gay citizens. ASSERTS that Floridians can still be free to conduct romantic lives free of governmental interference even if Florida Law is upheld as Constitutional. [7329469-1] (ECF: David Gibbs) | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, INC. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL | The Ausley McMullen Law Firm |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Stephen C. Emmanuel Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. (ECF: Stephen Emmanuel) CITES: Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), which dictates that a state’s limitation of marriage to male-female unions must be subject only to deferential rational-basis review: "The unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate is a rational basis for Florida’s definition of marriage...As Justice Kennedy recently cautioned in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014) (plurality opinion), the judiciary should not unnecessarily remove such issues from the hands of voters, as voters are capable of deciding sensitive social issues on “decent and rational grounds.” Id. at 1637." QUOTE: "Though no party to this litigation argues that three consenting adults in a committed polygamous relationship have a constitutional right to marry, it is not evident why they would not be entitled to marry under Appellees’ legal theories. Given Appellees’ disdain for history, tradition, and culture as bases for limiting marriage to one man and one woman, on what legal basis would or could Appellees oppose polygamists the right to the benefits of marriage? If the meaning of marriage is so malleable and indeterminate as to embrace all lifelong and committed relationships, then marriage collapses as a coherent legal category. Certainly, the net result of adopting Appellees’ arguments is to prevent any principled argument against polygamy or any other non-traditional marriage. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 648 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[U]nless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals.”)." EDITOR'S NOTE: There are some who favour polygamy; Atty. Emmanuel's novel argument here puts polygamy on equal ground with Gay Marriage, but doesn't quite go as far as Amicus, Gordon Wayne Watts' argument, which puts polygamy one-step higher, making a valid Equal Protection argument. QUOTE: "This Court Should Defer to the Definition of Marriage Duly Enacted by the Florida Legislature and Approved by Florida Voters. Marriage is a matter left to definition by the States." | |||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Byron J. Babione for Alliance Defending Freedom. [7329553-1] (ECF: Byron Babione) QUOTE: "Because redefining marriage to include same-sex couples severs marriage from its intrinsic link to childbearing and childrearing and undermines the long-established ideal that each child deserves to be raised by her biological mother and biological father in a stable family unit, Alliance Defending Freedom has consistently defended against legal challenges claiming that sovereign States or nations must redefine marriage." QUOTE: "A biological mother and a biological father are the only people who innately show children deeply ingrained aspects of themselves, like their genetically predisposed temperament, manner, and peculiarities. Thus, trying to develop an identity and sense of self without these crucial pieces is like attempting to discern one’s physical appearance without looking in a mirror." QUOTE: "The man-woman-marriage laws...substantially further the State’s compelling interest in connecting children to both of their biological parents ...[because]... redefining marriage to include same-sex couples communicates that the State no longer prefers children to be raised by both of their biological parents..." QUOTE: "Contrary to the assumptions of some, a great relationship with custodial parents generally does not remove a person’s need to seek out her origins. See Marian K. Affleck & Lyndall G. Steed, Expectations and Experiences of Participants in Ongoing Adoption Reunion Relationships: A Qualitative Study, 71 Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry 38, 38 (Jan. 2001) (noting that “the vast majority of adoptees who search have positive relationships with adoptive parents,” and that “the quality of adoptive relationships (either positive or negative) is not associated with a decision to search”)." QUOTE: "People are also exposed to potentially life-threatening harm when they do not know their biological parents’ medical history." CITING: Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 310 (1993), which holds: 'Biological “parents” are those “whom our society and [the Supreme] Court’s jurisprudence have always presumed to be the preferred and primary custodians of their minor children.”' | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS,
SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (Court Copy: scanned
image) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (House Copy: searchable PDF) |
* Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com) |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061 and 14-14066;
Deficiencies: CIP (lacks a 'Certificate of Interested Parties'). Service date: 11/20/2014 email to numerous recipients (not shown here for brevity, but
listed on official court docket). [14-14061, 14-14066]. Main argument, comparing Gay Marriage to Polygamy has been alluded to by many others, but
never-before used as a formal 'Equal Protection' argument: "POLYGAMY HAS MORE LEGAL PRECEDENT THAN GAY MARRIAGE, IMPLICATING EQUAL PROTECTION";
This brief, while it while it strongly supports the Florida Marriage Law (defining marriage as solely between 1 man & 1 woman) makes strong arguments
against mistreatment of gays: "II.(A) PREJUDICE IS WRONG ((A)) Prejudice against homosexuals (gays) is wrong:," citing several examples and also addresses
discrimination against heterosexuals (straights) re: Marriage Penalty in both taxation as well as loss of benefits (disability, retirement, etc.) to
straight people who chose to marry. [Brief did not mention this, but it is also true: Gays could also get penalised with a 'Marriage Penalty' in like
manner, if 'Gay Marriage' becomes law.] Proposes unprecedented solution that might be amenable to most parties on both sides: Keeping the definition of
marriage as solely '1 man and 1 woman,' but mandating that gays be not denied such things as life-insurance benefits. (Making the argument that life
insurance beneficiaries can be anyone, and that 'gay' or 'straight' status need not be considered.) Amicus, Watts, was a high-profile litigant in the recent 'Terri Schiavo' lawsuit, almost winning in court on her behalf:
|
|||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | NOTICE: Notice of deficient Amicus | Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court | Notice of deficient Amicus brief filed by Party Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061, 14-14066. Deficiencies: CIP. [14-14061, 14-14066] (I.e., lacks a 'Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement,' in compliance with court rules.') Watts' brief was conditionally filed, pending timely receipt of the missing paperwork. | |||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Hannah C. Smith of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. (ECF: Hannah Smith). Selected ARGUMENTS: "I. According legal recognition to same-sex marriage without robust protections for religious liberty will trigger wide-ranging church-state conflict. A. Leading legal scholars on both sides of the marriage debate recognize the conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty and support legislative exemptions II. State legislatures are better able than federal courts to take into account all of the societal interests at stake, including protecting religious liberty A. Because many of the conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty can be avoided—at least in part—by legislative exemptions, the federal judiciary should allow state legislatures to go first." QUOTE: "There is a consensus among legal scholars that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed." QUOTE: "...Eleventh Circuit states, like many other states, [already] have public accommodations laws that ban discrimination on the basis of gender, marital status, or sexual orientation. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.08 (gender, marital status); § 760.60 (large private clubs); Hillsborough County, Fla., Ordinance 00-37 (gender, marital status, sexual orientation); City of Sarasota, Fla., Ordinance 03-4462 (gender, marital status, sexual orientation);..." CITES: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623, 1636-37 (2014), in which Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion acknowledged an individual’s right “not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power,” but also emphasized that “[o]ur constitutional system embraces . . . the right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times . . . .” | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF 64 SCHOLARS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Gene C. Schaerr, Amici Curiae 64 Scholars of the Institution of Marriage. [7329901-1] (ECF: Gene Schaerr) QUOTE: "Social benefits of the man-woman understanding and associated norms [:] Marriage is a complex social institution that pre-exists the law, but is supported by it in virtually all human societies. Levi-Strauss(a):40-412; Quale:2; Reid:455; Bracton:27; Blackstone:410; Blankenhorn(a):100. [Note]2 Because of the number of scholarly studies cited, in-text citations are in shortened form, and authors with more than one article have letters following their last names to distinguish publications. All sources appear in the Table of Authorities." RESEARCH: "That study [in the Netherlands], by Mircea Trandafir, has much more statistical credibility than Dillender’s study because it examined the effect of a marriage redefinition over a much longer period—13 years...and...shows a clear decline in marriage rates among man-woman couples in urban areas— which in the Netherlands tend to be less religious than rural areas—in the wake of the adoption of same-sex marriage. Trandafir:28-29. Indeed, the Netherlands study also suggests that the debate surrounding same-sex marriage caused a (likely) temporary increase in marriage rates among the more religious segments of society—which embraced traditional marriage with greater fervor—and that this increase tended to offset the decrease in man-woman marriages among the more urban, less religious segments. Trandafir:28-29." CITES: "By permitting unilateral divorce for any or no reason, no-fault divorce soon undermined the norm of permanence, and thus led directly to an explosion in divorce. Parkman:93-99; Allen(a):967-69." QUOTE: "...a law must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve “compelling governmental interests.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." CONCLUSION: "During argument in the California Proposition 8 case, Justice Kennedy noted that redefining marriage in genderless terms could be akin to jumping off a cliff: It is impossible to see all the dangers lurking at the bottom. Oral Argument at 47:19-24, Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). Justice Alito echoed that concern in United States v. Windsor, where he also noted that any empirical analysis of the effects of a redefinition calls for “[judicial] caution and humility.” 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2715-16 (2013) (Alito, J. dissenting). That is because same-sex marriage in the United States is still too new—and the institution of marriage too complex—for a redefinition’s impact to have fully registered. Id. And the risks associated with a redefinition are a powerful reason not to second-guess the people’s considered judgment—expressed at the ballot box or through elected representatives—that the man-woman definition should be retained. Id. at 2716. | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF DR. PAUL MCHUGH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | and: KEVIN T. SNIDER, ESQ., Chief Counsel for the PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Dr. Paul McHugh |
MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Gerard V. Bradley for Dr. Paul McHugh. [7329906-1] (ECF: Gerard Bradley)
ARGUMENT: "I. Sexual Orientation Does Not Define a Discrete and Insular Minority [because] A. Threshold Questions Prevent this Court from Defining a Class
Based on Sexual Orientation with Sufficient Clarity." ARGUMENT: "II. Sexual Orientation is Not an Immutable Characteristic [because, for among other
reasons] Sexual Orientation Can and Often Does Change Over Time." QUOTE/CITE: " Even ignoring the substantial and growing political power of the LGBT-rights
movement, which alone should be sufficient to reject the demand for heightened scrutiny, sexual orientation is neither a “discrete” nor “immutable”
characteristic in the legal sense of those terms. Under the Supreme Court’s longstanding jurisprudence, therefore, sexual orientation should not be granted
the “extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process” entailed by suspect-class status. Mass. Bd. of Ret. v.
Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 (1976) (citing San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 (1973)). QUOTE:
Heightened scrutiny applies to certain classifications, such as race, alienage, national origin, and gender, to protect “discrete and insular group[s],
in need of extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313 (quotation marks
omitted).5 But the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to apply heightened scrutiny where discreteness or insularity is lacking. [NOTE]5 Although religion is often listed as a suspect class for equal protection purposes, see, e.g., Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648, 651 (1992), heightened scrutiny for religious discrimination arises directly from the First Amendment rather than from factors like immutability and political powerlessness that justify suspect-class status under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, once the requirements of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses have been satisfied, any further religious discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause are subject only to rational basis review. See Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 720 n.3 (2004). |
|||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | BRIEF OF THE LIGHTED CANDLE SOCIETY, AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | and: George M. Weaver, HOLLBERG & WEAVER, LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by George M. Weaver for The Lighted Candle Society. (ECF: George Weaver)
SUMMARY: Although The Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), included blunt dictum
characterizing the federal DOMA as an expression of “animus,” the Court emphasized that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages” sanctioned in states where samesex marriage is legal. Id. at 2696. The bottom line is that
Windsor held for "States' Rights" (in this case, the State of New York, which opted for a redefinition of
marriage), and this would strengthen, not weaken, Florida's right to define marriage. QUOTE: "Several courts have erroneously concluded that
the U.S. Constitution delivers a fundamental right to same-sex marriage." ARGUMENT: "III. THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECT OF MARRIAGE LAWS FURNISHES A STRONG
RATIONAL BASIS FOR LAWS DEFINING MARRIAGE AS OPPOSITE-SEX IN NATURE. A. The Law Has an Inevitable Educational Effect." QUOTE: "The educational effect is
especially strong where the law is seen as carrying a moral imperative. Laws of this type have traditionally been described as regulating “mala in se,”
whereas other laws have been described as regulating “mala prohibita.”3 [NOTE]3 Joycelyn M. Pollock, Criminal Law § 1.8 (Anderson Publishing, 2013) QUOTE: "If children are taught starting in kindergarten that marriage is not oppositesex in nature and that same-sex relationships (and perhaps eventually polygamous/polyamorous ones) are fully equivalent and desirable to opposite-sex marriage, the states may reasonably be concerned that the institution of marriage will be irreparably damaged and perhaps destroyed." CONCLUSION: "Some say the “arc of history” bends toward same-sex marriage and polyamory. But, after only 10 years of experience in redefining marriage into a genderless phenomenon in a few states (against 6,000 years of recorded history under the opposite-sex definition), we do not know that." |
|||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | Brief of Amici Curiae United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod In Support of Defendants-Appellants and Supporting Reversal | MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Anthony R. Picarello for U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. [7329930-1] (ECF: Anthony Picarello) SUMMARY: Many religious organisations assert that the allegations of 'animus' and hate towards homosexuals are false allegations and without honour. Affirming that Windsor did not create an independent right to same-sex marriage, but rather, it invalidated DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act) based on an impermissible intrusion into states' rights to define marriage. Asserting that traditional marriage complements our different (male/female) humans natures and promote responsible procreation and welfare of children, with both parents are living and visible role-models. Defense of traditional marriage out of fidelity to religious beliefs, not animus or hatred, citing Genesis 1:27; 2:23; Matthew 19:4-5, of the Christian Holy Bible. Rejecting claims that Florida voters were bigoted when voting for the Marriage Amendment, codified into Art. I, Sec. 27, Fla. Constitution (which then enabled §741.212, Fla. Statutes). Making Federalism and 10th Amendment States' Rights claims for Florida's ability to self-determination of its voters and legislature. Not necessarily invalid, simply because of support by religious voters or organisations, citing Schuette, 134 S.Ct. at 1637. | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, in support of Defendants-Appellants, supporting reversal | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Steven W. Fitschen, Concerned Women for America. (ECF: Steven Fitschen) KEY ARGUMENT: Since homosexuals have attracted the attention of lawmakers, have many powerful allies, as well as wealthy contributors, thus, they are not a powerless class, and therefore can not be classed as a 'protected class' under current case-law. QUOTE/CITE: "Amicus agrees with the district court that under this Court’s decision in Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), homosexuals cannot be considered a suspect or quasi-suspect class. That view is also binding on this Court, since only the Court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel opinion. However, should this Court disagree (believing that a narrow exception to this rule applies), it should still refuse to recognize homosexuals as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, since—among other reasons— homosexuals are not politically powerless. This Brief demonstrates this by documenting... [these claims with ample proof]." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | MOTION OF AMICUS CURIAE DAVID BOYLE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FOR ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ, SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by David Boyle, representing himself pro se as amicus curiae, and also representing Robert Oscar Lopez as amicus curiae in a separate brief. (ECF: David Boyle) ASSERTS: "The Court’s staff (here unnamed for privacy’s sake), when Amicus contacted them by telephone to ask about various brief-filing issues, told Amicus that he could file only one amicus brief, not two, following the “one attorney, one brief” Internal Operating Procedure..." Makes a 'Due Process,' 'Redress,' and 'Free Speech' arguments for his client: "Given the lack of previous written notice against multiple amicus briefs being submitted by one lawyer, Amicus respectfully asserts that it would be fair to allow Lopez to file his brief." EDITOR'S NOTE: Equal Protection is also implicated if either Boyle or Lopez is denied a fair redress of The Courts; probably, the court will accept both briefs for review, as they appear to comply with applicable rules and offer useful insight. KEY QUOTE: "CLIENTS HAVE SOME MORAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE, PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION." | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DAVID BOYLE SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by David Boyle, representing himself pro se as amicus curiae, and also representing Robert Oscar Lopez as amicus curiae in a separate brief. (ECF: David Boyle) ARGUES: “The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both[.]” Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193, 67 S. Ct. 261, 264 (1946) (Douglas, J.). And, re that difference: “The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S. Ct. 879, 882 (1940) (Frankfurter, J.). These two preceding quotes alone should decide this case in favor of Florida’s People, who seem to recognize the common-sense differences supra between diverse-gender and same-gender couples." ARGUES: Since human sexuality is fluid: "if same-sex marriage were unavailable, then, at least c. 3.15 million more people, if they marry, would marry opposite-sex partners." ARGUES: "C. The Successful Heterosexual Marriages of Some Bisexual Mormons: Further Proof that Gay-Marriage Bans Are Effective." CITE/QUOTE: "There is another socially positive aspect to gay-marriage bans besides increased fertility. That is, Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003)) upholds diversity, including gender diversity, as a compelling state interest, see id. at 325, 123 S. Ct. at 2337. IMPLICATES EQUAL PROTECTION: "Some say that due to the Ban, children being raised by same-sex couples are needlessly deprived of protection. However, polygamous families, too, produce children outside a legal marriage relationship; yet a polygamy ban is legal, and those children are “deprived”, despite Florida’s overall desire to promote children being born into marriage. NOTES that Sodomy is a vector for cancer, AIDS, and injury. ARGUES: "X. MANY ARGUMENTS FOR MANDATORY GAY MARRIAGE WOULD ALSO SUPPORT LEGALIZING POLYGAMY." CITES: Mircea Trandafir's 2009 study which found that same-sex marriages had a negative impact on different-sex marriage. | ||||||||||
| 11/21/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL | Brief authored by Professor Robert Oscar López of California State University: Northridge |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by David Boyle, representing himself pro se as amicus curiae, and also
representing Robert Oscar Lopez as amicus curiae in a separate brief. (ECF: David Boyle) QUOTE: "I,
Robert Oscar López,1 write this Brief Supporting
Appellants and Reversal, to ask that the Court respect Florida’s upholding the original definition of marriage as between one man and one woman...
ARGUMENT: "My personal life story is not the main source for my position before the Court. My position against same-sex marriage stems more from my
experience as a scholar and archivist compiling the testimonials of people raised by same-sex couples (I affix here a collection of such), and my
observations of how academic researchers have collaborated with gay activist organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the
Human Rights Campaign to commit character assassinations against such children who come forward with negative feedback." NOTE: "1I wrote the vast majority of this brief without help from any other party or its counsel, though my own counsel gave editing, formatting, or other help at the end; and no party or its counsel gave money to its writing or submission, see Fed. R. App. P. 29. All parties have sent permission to Amicus to write this brief." PERSONAL TESTIMONY: Lopez states that he was raised by a same-sex couple, and that, even though his childhood was still fairly good, nonetheless, he "experienced a great deal of sexual confusion. I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males, which manifested in 1984, when I had my first sexual encounter with two older teenage boys in my bedroom. One of the boys ended up having to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning after my mother discovered us naked and entangled." (Brief, at page 4) "I was exposed to gay culture from an early age because my mother and her lover had a number of lesbian friends." (Next paragraph) CAVEAT: Some details are sexually explicit. CITES researchers, Mark Regnerus and Doug Allen, who found problems in homosexual-based families. CITES Loren Marks’ study published in July 2012, Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on gay and lesbian parenting, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 4, at 735-75. LISTS many testimonials of gay-based families; CONCLUSION: "It is not necessary to do additional research to find that something precious and important has been taken from a child who is forced to live without a mother or father, and the state has no business encouraging such a taking. For these reasons, please abide by the Florida marriage laws." |
|||||||||
| 11/24/2014 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT | Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS,
United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register:
http://GordonWatts.com and
http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com) |
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061. [14-14061, 14-14066] | |||||||||
| 11/26/2014 | GRIMSLEY APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF MOTION | [Response to] MOTION to stay pending appeal filed by James Domer Brenner, Charles Dean Jones, Ozzie Russ and Stephen Schlairet. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [7333304-1] (ECF: William Sheppard) CITES: Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 which holds that a stay on an injunction is not a matter of right, but that the party seeking it bears the burden of justifying such relief. ARGUES: (1) Appellants are not likely to succeed on the merits; (2) appellants (State of Florida) will not suffer irreparable harm if stay is lifted (and injunction goes into effect against the Florida Marriage Law) defining marriage as solely 1 man and 1 woman); (3) plaintiffs seeking Same Sex marriage will suffer irreparable harm if stay is not lifted; and, (4) no public interest is served by continuing the stay. Editor's Note-even the issuing judge conceded that: "But at the stay-pending-appeal stage, an additional public interest comes into play. There is a substantial public interest in implementing this decision just once—in not having, as some states have had, a decision that is on-again, off-again. This is so for marriages already entered elsewhere, and it is more clearly so for new marriages. There is a substantial public interest in stable marriage laws. Indeed, there is a substantial public interest in allowing those who would enter same-sex marriages the same opportunity for due deliberation that opposite-sex couples routinely are afforded. Encouraging a rush to the marriage officiant, in an effort to get in before an appellate court enters a stay, serves the interests of nobody." Cite: pages 28-29 of 33 of this August 21, 2014 ruling issued by Judge Hinkle in the tribunal below. Also, the novel Equal Protection argument by Amicus, Watts, can not be denied in a 'fair' court unless polygamy is deemed legal (which seems very unlikely), so appellants, The State of Florida, seem almost certain to win on the merits, even if some portions of Florida Law are struck as unconstitutionally denying certain benefits to citizens -gay or otherwise -who are not married; so, prong (1) above also is questionable: appellants do seem likely to win on the merits -in time. DISCUSSES: The concept of the fundamental right to marry. Implicates (refutes) Stare Decisis in claims that the fact that SSM is a 'new' concept does not render is void as a right; Argues that Lofton has been effectively overturned by Windsor regarding heightened scrutiny; CLAIMS that the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene. Editor's note-This writer feels otherwise: No matter who wins, it seems likely that the matter will be reheard en banc and then appealed -and accepted for review -by the U.S. Supreme Court in light of the 4-2 split in the circuits -it is 4-2, not 4-1, since I count the recent Federal Puerto Rico decision here: Ada Conde-Vidal, er al. v. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla, et al., Civil No. 14-1253 (PG), Case# 3:14-cv-01253-P. There is also a great 'split' insofar as public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of the new Florida Law: it passed with greater than a 60% supermajority needed for proposed Constitutional Amendments; thus given the 'split' in opinion here, it seems all but inevitable that the SCOTUS will take the case. | ||||||||||
| 11/26/2014 | BRENNER APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF THIS MOTION | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
RESPONSE to Motion to stay pending appeal filed by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols in 14-14066 [7326286-2] filed by Attorney Daniel Boaz Tilley for Appellees Sloan Grimsley, Joyce Albu, etc. (ECF: Daniel Tilley) MAKES similar arguments regarding the 4-pronged test for a stay (delay) on an injunction pending appeal, but cites Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) instead. ARGUES: Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), is not "binding on this Court. But the precedential value of a summary dismissal is not the same as that of an opinion of the Court addressing the issue after full briefing and argument. Edelman v. Jordan,, 415 U.S. 651, 671 (1974). “[I]f the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial, it remains so except when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise[.]” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) (emphasis added)." ARGUES: "Principles of federalism do not insulate the marriage ban from scrutiny." Editor's Note-somewhat true: for example, state's could not implement polygamy under 10th Amendment principles of Federalism and States' Rights. Misc. other Constitutional arguments. | |||||||||
| 12/01/2014 | FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIE BRIEF Amicus Curiae on the side of the Petitioners in support of REVERSAL of the ORDER of the COURT BELOW |
of Dania, FL |
MOTION to file amicus brief filed by Not Party Anthony Citro in 14-14061. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [7343975-1] [14-14061, 14-14066] - - CONTAINS: Motion proper, letter to The Court, Cert. of Interested Persons & Corp. Disclosure Statement, Proper green-colour cover for amicus briefs, Amicus brief proper, and proper Cert. of Service. ~Editor,G.W.Watts// | |||||||||
| 12/03/2014 | Order Denying extension of stay | ORDER: Motion to stay pending appeal filed by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols is DENIED. [7326278-2]
in 14-14061, Motion to stay pending appeal filed by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols is DENIED. [7326286-2] in 14-14066 FMH, CRW and
AJ [14-14061, 14-14066] BY THE COURT: On November 18, 2014, the Appellants in the above appeals, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Health, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services, and the Clerk of Court of Washington County (collectively, Appellants), jointly filed a Motion to Extend Stay of Preliminary Injunctions Pending Appeal and for Expedited Treatment of This Motion (the Motion). Appellees James Domer Brenner, et al., and Appellees Sloan Grimsley, et al., filed separate responses in opposition to the Motion. Appellants’ request for expedited review of the Motion is granted. Having reviewed and fully considered the Motion, the parties’ briefs, and the orders issued by the District Court in the proceedings below, the Court hereby denies Appellants’ Motion. The stay of preliminary injunctions entered by the District Court expires at the end of the day on January 5, 2015. |
||||||||||
| 12/11/2014 | Order granting motions of various Amici for leave to file Amici Curiae briefs | Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE | ORDER: Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Not Parties Robert Oscar Lopez and David C. Boyle is GRANTED. [Likewise for] Amicus Briefs filed by the following Amici Curiae: US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Paul McHugh, Scholars of the Institution of Marriage, Alliance Defending Freedom, Robert P. George, Amicus Curiae 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint, Robert Oscar Lopez RSR [14-14061, 14-14066] | |||||||||
| 12/12/2014 | Order to C. Anthony Citro re tardy motion and deficient brief | Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court | Public Communication:. [14-14061, 14-14066] Please be advised that your motion to file an amicus brief is out of time. If a motion to file out of time brief is not immediately filed, your motion and brief will be returned. The motion received does not contain a certificate of service which also needs to be filed with the motion. Also, the motion and brief are deficient because neither have been served upon the opposing party. | |||||||||
| 12/15/2014 | Application to Stay Preliminary Injunctions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Pending Appeal | AG, Pam Bondi; Allen Winsor, Solicitor General; Adam S. Tanenbaum; Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Counsel for the Secretaries | This application for a stay is "DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE CLARENCE THOMAS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT." Thomas may rule on the application, or, alternatively, he may refer it to the full court for review. Here is a related ruling by Thomas: Thomas Dissent regarding application for stay in MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ET AL., v. ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, ET AL., slip No. 14A493 [November 13, 2014] Attorney General Pam Bondi News Release states, in succinct part: "The recent decision denying a longer stay has created statewide confusion about the effect of the injunction, which is directed to only one of Florida's sixty-seven clerks of court. [line break] In a continuation of the effort to maintain uniformity and order throughout Florida until final resolution of the numerous challenges to the voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage, the Attorney General’s Office filed with the United States Supreme Court an application to extend the stay." UPDATE: The Broward/Palm Beach New Times reported on Dec. 17 2014, that "On Tuesday [Dec. 16., 2014], [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [Clarence] Thomas, who oversees emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for Florida, Alabama and Georgia, agreed to hear the argument over a recent federal court decision that ruled Florida's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. That decision denied Bondi's original request for a stay in the ruling, which meant that same-sex couples could start filing for marriage licenses on January 6." Source: "Justice Clarence Thomas Accepts Pam Bondi's Request To Rule On Florida's Same-Sex Marriage Ban," By Chris Joseph, Broward/Palm Beach New Times Wednesday, 17 December 2014 | |||||||||
| 12/15/2014 | ANSWER BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Appellee's Brief filed by Appellees James Domer Brenner, Charles Dean Jones, Ozzie Russ and Stephen Schlairet. (ECF: William Sheppard) USES "doctrinal developments" arguments to rebut Florida's interpretation of Baker regarding U.S. Supreme Court's holding on the precise point of gay marriage. Rebuts state's Federalism interpretation of Windsor. Argues harm to plaintiffs outweighs state interests regarding this law. Argues that since a majority of court decisions favour SSM, this makes it inevitable that Florida will lose. Does not address either public opinion (which is opposed to SSM, at least in Fla.) or polygamy arguments mentioned in other briefs (implicating Equal Protection). | ||||||||||
| 12/16/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Benjamin Shatz, counsel for amicus curiae Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic. (ECF: Benjamin Shatz) ARGUES to affirm injunction against Fla. Law; ARGUES: "Marriage Is A Symbol Of Civil Freedom, A Marker Of Social Equality, And A Badge Of Full Citizenship"; Compares SSM (Same Sex Marriage) to interracial marriage, arguing that both should be permitted; ARGUES against religious influence in interpretations as follows: "Judeo-Christian Theological Interpretations Often Have Been Invoked to Challenge Marriage for Both Interracial and Same-Sex Couples"; cites scientific studies in favour of interracial marriage to bolster prior argument; does not address polygamy Equal Protection arguments; admits (p.27) of research that has found SSM to be bad ("Today, opponents of marriage equality suggest that children will be subject to social condemnation, exclusion, and will become angry, rebellious, and perhaps suicidal because their families are different. See Wardle, Homosexual Parenting, at 854, 856 n.115. They maintain that these children face the double-barreled risk of developing “homosexual interests and behaviors,” which in turn heightens the chances that such children will face mental illness, a tendency for criminal behavior, and suicide. Id. at 852-54."). Claims (on p.9) that "Setting aside the discredited arguments used against interracial marriage, there can be no credible evidence that allowing couples of the same sex to marry would threaten either American society or the institution of marriage itself," but, oddly-enough, does not cite any peer-reviewed scientific studies supporting their arguments in favour of SSM. (Good historical review of discrimination, and many studies that support interracial marriage) | ||||||||||
| 12/16/2014 | Motion for Leave to file out of time “AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION” (Amended Motion, proper - House Copy: searchable PDF) | Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS,
United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register:
http://GordonWatts.com and
http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com) |
Motion for leave to file an out of time Amended Amicus brief to replace current one on docket. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [14-14061, 14-14066] Reminds court that original brief was filed on time and accepted by court; reminds court that he almost won in court for Theresa 'Terri' Schiavo - all by himself - and asks court to overlook human errors and be lenient with amicus, as was offered to another tardy litigant. Tracking: USPS Priority receipt confirmed | |||||||||
| 12/16/2014 | AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (Amended Amicus, proper - House Copy: searchable PDF) | Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS,
United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register:
http://GordonWatts.com and
http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com) |
Amended Amicus brief proper [14-14061, 14-14066] Adds in key omissions from original brief, including (but not limited to) specific (not generalised) relief; corrects many typos. Tracking: USPS Priority receipt confirmed | |||||||||
| 12/16/2014 | AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (Amended Amicus and Motion, combined into 1 document - Court Copy: scanned image) | Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS,
United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register:
http://GordonWatts.com and
http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com) |
MOTION for leave to file amended amicus brief out of time filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061, 14-14066. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [7348496-1] [14-14061, 14-14066] | |||||||||
| 12/17/2014 | RESPONSE BRIEF OF GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
Appellee's Brief filed by Appellees Joyce Albu, Sloan Grimsley, Save Foundation, Inc., etc. (ECF: Daniel Tilley) ARGUES: Federalism doesn't insulate Florida’s marriage ban from constitutional scrutiny. (Editor's note: true, but does that necessarily mean Fla Law is unconstitutional?) ARGUES Baker v. Nelson is not binding precedent because "the precedential value of a summary dismissal is not the same as that of an opinion of the Court addressing the issue after full briefing and argument." (Editor's note: but did The Supreme Courts actually fully address gay marriage specifically after Baker?) ARGUES: "(“Doctrinal developments need not take the form of an outright reversal of the earlier case.”), rev’d on other grounds, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558." CLAIMS: Florida’s marriage ban infringes upon fundamental right to marry, and that it discriminates on the bases of gender and sexual orientation. | |||||||||
| 12/17/2014 | Case Handler: Thomas, David L., AA | Received paper copies of EBrief filed by Appellees James Domer Brenner, Charles Dean Jones, Ozzie Russ and Stephen Schlairet in 14-14061. [14-14061, 14-14066] | ||||||||||
| 12/17/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE OUTSERVE-SLDN AND THE AMERICAN MILITARY PARTNER ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Christopher D. Man as Attorney for Outserve-SLDN and The American Military Partner Association. (ECF: Christopher Man) ARGUES: "Refusing To Recognize A Marriage Is An Affront To The Dignity Of The Married Couple And Their Children." (Editor's note: Would refusal to recognise polygamous (plural) marriages (e.g., polygamy) be an affront to these citizens? If not, then why would SSM be suspect here? This brief does not address that - or polygamy, at all, a valid Equal Protection argument.) ARGUES: "THE UNEVEN PATCHWORK OF STATES PROVIDING MARRIAGE EQUALITY COMPLICATES THE PAYMENT OF VETERANS BENEFITS AND HARMS VETERANS." (Editor's note: Good points, and valid complaints, but these are addressed in brief of Amicus Curiae, Gordon W. Watts.) | ||||||||||
| 12/18/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE HISTORIANS OF ANTIGAY DISCRIMINATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | of Hogan Lovells |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Catherine E. Stetson for Historians of Antigay Discrimination. (ECF: Catherine Stetson) Brief discusses historical roots of discrimination against gay people, inclusive of 1990s to the Present; ARGUES: "HISTORY PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE COURT’S EQUAL-PROTECTION ANALYSIS." STATES (on p.2 of brief) that: "In answering the question presented in this case, the Court will consider, among other things, whether “[a]s a historical matter” a particular class of persons “ha[s] been subjected to discrimination.” Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602 (1987) (citation omitted)." Gives examples of discrimination against gays. CLAIMS (on pp.13-14) that: "Vicious stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters fostered by such campaigns continue even today to stoke public fears about gay teachers and parents. CHAUNCEY, WHY MARRIAGE? 150-151." (Editor's note: It is conceded that prejudice in many forms -including against gay -exists even today, but this claim seems a bit beyond the pale and a probable exaggeration; citation to polls or other proof would be helpful here, if making such a strong claim; the study and other examples cited, however, are only anecdotal, and not necessarily representative of the population, as a whole. Nonetheless, this editor's own Amicus brief cites a few examples of discriminatory laws, and takes issue with them, proposing a novel solution hopefully amenable to all parties.) | |||||||||
| 12/18/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE JOAN HEIFETZ HOLLINGER, COURTNEY JOSLIN, NANCY DOWD, AND FORTY-SEVEN OTHER FAMILY LAW PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | Morrison & Foerster LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by SARA BARTEL ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE JOAN HEIFETZ HOLLINGER, COURTNEY JOSLIN, NANCY DOWD, AND FORTY-SEVEN OTHER FAMILY LAW PROFESSORS. (ECF: Sara Bartel) ARGUE: "The Ability or Desire to Procreate Has Never Been the Defining Feature of or a Prerequisite for a Valid Marriage." AND: "The Constitutional Rights to Marry and to Procreate Are Distinct and Independent." ARGUES: "Florida Does Not Require a Biological Relationship to Establish a Legal Parent-Child Relationship." (Editor's note: This is correct: The recent Florida law prohibiting adoption by homosexuals was struck down; however, that law was also "distinct and independent" from the definition of marriage, and the latter was left intact, whilst the former was struck down as violating Equal Protection in Fla. Dept. of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D08-3044, Opinion filed September 22, 2010, proving that the Florida law defining marriage need not be struck to satisfy the legitimate grievances of gays in Florida.) ARGUES: "FLORIDA’S MARRIAGE BAN BEARS NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN." (Editor's note: If that is true, then why are single parents less favoured for adoption than nuclear families, all things being equal? Obviously, there is some rational basis for 'favoring' one type of family. Nonetheless, this does not discriminate against singles, since they, too, can adopt, even if they are not 'favoured'; likewise, gays have no claim here.) | |||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROFESSOR CARLOS A. BALL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Debevoise & Plimptom LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Jyotin Hamid on behalf of Carlos A. Ball as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. (ECF: Jyotin Hamid) COMPARES anti-gay discrimination with: (1) antimiscegenation laws that prohibited interracial relationships; (2) 19th Century laws prohibiting disabled individuals from marrying; and, (3) assertion that American colonies followed English law in distinguishing between marital children (those born in wedlock), who were “legitimate” and could inherit property from their parents, and nonmarital children (those born outside of marriage), who were “illegitimate” and could not inherit from anyone. ARGUES (on p.27 of brief): "Although class-based marital exclusions have been relatively rare in American history, they have usually shared one characteristic: Proponents of those laws have attempted to justify them by making pseudo-scientific claims about how best to maximize social welfare and child well-being." (Editor's note: does not adequately address how laws against polygamous (plural) marriages are also discrimination; also, gives little or no attention to governmental interests regarding promoting possible benefits of traditional "man-woman" marriages, but rightly concludes some discrimination in law exists.) | |||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX OF GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
Supplemental Appendix [1 VOLUMES] filed by Appellees Joyce Albu, Sloan Grimsley, Save Foundation, Inc., etc. (ECF: Daniel Tilley)
CONTAINS: Tab A: Declarations of the Grimsley Plaintiffs; Tab B: H.R. Comm. on Governmental Operations, Final Bill Research and Economic Impact
Statement, HB 147 (1997); Tab C: House OKs Gay Marriage Ban, Orlando Sentinel, Mar. 27, 1997, at D4, 1997 WLNR 5938295; and, Tab D: Christian
Coalition, Questions and Answers Florida Marriage Amendment, citing:
http://www.cfcoalition.com/full_article.php?article_no=94. (Editor's note: The declarations were VERY moving and emotionally-compelling to me, highlighting the obvious truth that even "right-wing" Conservatives, such as myself, can not deny, namely that there exists discrimination in law against gays; furthermore, this writer believes that most of us political and religious 'Conservatives' do not approve of such discrimination, but, in my own 'amended' brief, on this docket -and the Court's docket -propose solutions that should be acceptable to all sides here. ~Register Editor-in-Chief, Gordon W. Watts) |
|||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Carmine D. Boccuzzi for American Sociological Association. (ECF: Carmine Boccuzzi) ARGUES that: "SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS IS CLEAR: CHILDREN OF SAMESEX PARENTS FARE JUST AS WELL AS CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT-SEX PARENTS," in academic and social areas, citing some research on this matter, and refuting other, contradictory, research; ADMITS (on p.4, note 5) that: "The Marriage Bans in no way affect whether children will be raised by same-sex or different-sex parents. They do not encourage gay and lesbian individuals to enter into different-sex marriages, nor do they deter such individuals from having children within same-sex relationships." (Editor's note: If this admission is made that SSM bans do not impede or otherwise restrict what this brief would surely describe as Constitutionally-protected behaviour, then what, exactly, is the objection?) REFUTES (on p.15 of brief) a comparison with "Studies Regarding the Impact of Stepparents, Divorced Parents, or Single Parents." | |||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL SEXUALITY AND GENDER LAW CLINIC IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by SUZANNE B. GOLDBERG ON BEHALF OF COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL SEXUALITY AND GENDER LAW CLINIC. (ECF: Suzanne Goldberg) IMPLICATES Due Process as supporting the protection of Florida citizens to have few limits placed on choice of spouse; ARGUES (on p.10 of brief) that: "Eligibility for Marriage in Florida Does Not Hinge on Spouses Being Able to Procreate Biologically." ARGUES (on p.11) that: "This delinking of marriage and biological procreation is consistent with the Supreme Court’s commentary on the due process protections governing marriage. As the Court explained in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95–96 (1987),..." but does not address the delinking of disparate treatments between polygamy and same-sex marriage, which would implicate Equal Protection (and thus guarantee polygamous relationships, e.g., plural marriages, the same or greater protections to avoid running afoul Equal Protection on this point of law). ARGUES (on p.12) that SSM marriage restrictions infringe "Family Integrity and Association." ARGUES (on p.16) that: "The Due Process and Equal Protection Guarantees Require Equal Access to Fundamental Rights, Including Autonomy in Decisions about Childrearing, Intimacy, and Whom to Marry," but does not address how polygamous (plural) marriages would somehow be less protected. (Editor's note: Also, does not address how Fla. SSM ban would prevent or restrict one's ability to childrearing or intimacy, as claimed in this argument: While this writer freely admits that some discrimination in law exists against gays, and is addressed in his brief, nonetheless, Gay Citizens' rights to bear children and freely associate, with intimacy, are not prevented by this Florida Law, so what, precisely, is the complaint?) | ||||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS, AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Christopher F. Stoll for Amici Curiae Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al.. (ECF: Christopher Stoll) ARGUES (on p.6 of brief) that: "Federal Decisions Before Lawrence Rejected Heightened Scrutiny By Relying on Bowers, But Lawrence Removed Any Impediment To Recognizing That Sexual Orientation Classifications Warrant Heightened Scrutiny." ARGUES (on p.13 of brief) that: "Lofton’s reliance on out-of-circuit cases that based their holdings on Bowers is incompatible with intervening contrary decisions of the Supreme Court and should not be followed. See Davis v. Singletary...," referring, of course, to Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which criminalised sodomy. Editor's note: Very good point! However, we must ask two questions: First, did Lawrence really demand use of heightened scrutiny, or, instead, was it merely a rejection of the ban on certain behaviour (sodomy, in this case)? Secondly, even if some justices in Lawrence personally relied on this, as Obiter Dictum, and not as a formal holding, is heightened scrutiny actually necessary as an absolute truth? ANSWER: Bowers held, first, that criminal prohibitions of homosexual sodomy are not subject to heightened scrutiny because they do not implicate a "fundamental right" under the Due Process Clause, 478 U.S., at 191-194. Noting that "[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots," id., at 192, that "[s]odomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights," ibid., and that many States had retained their bans on sodomy, id., at 193, Bowers concluded that a right to engage in homosexual sodomy was not "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,'" id., at 192. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Lawrence did not overrule this holding: Not once does it describe homosexual sodomy as a "fundamental right" or a "fundamental liberty interest," nor does it subject the Texas statute to "strict" scrutiny much less to "heightened" scrutiny! Nonetheless, some scrutiny is necessary due to the lingering prejudice that exists in both law and society against homosexuals. Thus, Lofton is still good case-law. ARGUES: "Sexual Orientation Is An Immutable Characteristic And An Integral Part Of Identity That Defines A Discrete Group" AND: "Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People Are A Small And Politically Vulnerable Minority." (See: 'Table of Contents' for these arguments.) | ||||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | ORDER IN PENDING CASE |
|
||||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | Appearance of Counsel Form | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) |
APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Paul R. Q. Wolfson (ECF: Paul Wolfson). Appearance for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in 14-14061. Case number 14-14066 is a related case. Editor's Note: I normally don't post appearances on The Register's docket, here, but I didn't see this attorney's brief when reviewing The Court's docket, and downloaded the appearance form in order to make sure and have his email address handy, in order to make sure I include him when serving, via e-mail, copies of my filings, even though he came into the case late and missed my original service to the parties. As long as I had a copy, I felt it would be appropriate to post one "appearance" form, as representative to show readers what, exactly, an "Appearance of Counsel Form" is. ~Editor-in-Chief, Gordon W. Watts | |||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA; GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; MORMONS FOR EQUALITY; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL ASSOCIATION; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE AND JEWISH RECONSTRUCTIONIST COMMUNITIES; UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; AFFIRMATION; COVENANT NETWORK OF PRESBYTERIANS; FRIENDS FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER CONCERNS; METHODIST FEDERATION FOR SOCIAL ACTION; MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS; MUSLIMS FOR PROGRESSIVE VALUES; PARITY; RECONCILING MINISTRIES NETWORK; RECONCILING WORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; AND 201 FLORIDA FAITH LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE | Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Jeffrey S. Trachtman, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA, ET AL.. (ECF: Jeffrey Trachtman) ARGUES: "A Wide Cross-Section Of American Religious Traditions Recognizes The Dignity Of Lesbian And Gay People And Their Relationships." Editor's Note: This is correct; both myself and others on the 'conservative' side affirm the dignity and worth of our gay neighbours, and recognise that they are people, who are inherently valuable and worthy of respect, honour, recognition and dignity; indeed, the brief of this writer, Gordon W. Watts, asserts and affirms as much, and, to a lesser degree, so do many other briefs in support of Florida's marriage laws. ~Editor-in-Chief, Gordon W. Watts ARGUES: "Recognizing The Necessary Distinction Between Civil And Religious Marriage, A Growing Number Of Faiths Support Civil Marriage Equality." Editor's Note: This argument invokes the classic 'Libertarian' philosophy, in the which the government has limited involvement in private matters. ARGUES: "While Amici Respect All Fellow Faiths, Including Those That Embrace Different Religious Views On Marriage, It Is Constitutionally Impermissible To Impose Religious Views Through Civil Law To Curtail Civil Marriage Rights Of Same-Sex Couples." Editor's Note: Oh, really? If Amici truly respect other religious views, then does this mean that The State Of Florida must recognise plural marriages (e.g., polygamy, polygyny, polyamory, etc.), as practiced by many Muslim countries, as well as some splinter groups of Mormons aka "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Oh, really? Even though gays have some legitimate grievances, this argument is illogical and untenable, and not the 'right' way, in the humble opinion of this writer, to address said grievances. | |||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | Brief of the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Florida Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers Florida Chapter as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees | Jenner & Block LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Florida Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Association of Social Workers, et al.. (ECF: Paul Smith) ARGUES: "Homosexuality Is A Normal Expression of Human Sexuality, Is Generally Not Chosen, and Is Highly Resistant to Change." Editor's Note: No one on either side disputes that one's sexual preference/orientation is unchosen and very difficult, if not impossible, to easily change; however, the claim that homosexuality, whether the orientation or the lifestyle, is 'normal' is highly-disputed, and not unlike, for example, obesity or adultery: No one of conscience makes fun of or mistreats the obese or those who cheat on their spouses -understanding the difficulties of those involved, but, at the same time no true scientist or researcher would label either of these two conditions 'normal'; therefore, such a claim here, if made, should be backed with science, not emotion. ARGUES:"Gay Men and Lesbians Form Stable, Committed Relationships That Are Equivalent to Heterosexual Relationships in Essential Respects." Editor's Note:Oh, really? Then, how would your logic not also extend to polygamous relationships (plural marriages), which have a much greater historical and legal precedent? This claim must be backed with science or else scrapped. ARGUES: "The Institution of Marriage Offers Social, Psychological, and Health Benefits That Are Denied to Same-Sex Couples Who Cannot Legally Marry." Editor's Note: Correct, and my own brief asks the court to right those wrongs, while, at the same time, resisting the temptation to change the definition of 'marriage.' ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts ARGUES: "There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Same-Sex Couples Are Any Less Fit or Capable Parents Than Heterosexual Couples, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted," citing research to support this claim. Editor's Note: Oh? What about the 'Netherlands Study?' Other Amici, "64 SCHOLARS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE," cite Mircea Trandafir's study, "The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands" (2009), 9th IZA/SOLE Transatlantic Meeting of Labor Economist, stating that Trandafir's study has much more statistical credibility then other similar research, because it examined the effect of a marriage redefinition over a much longer period—13 years, and which found a clear decline in marriage rates among man-woman couples in urban areas—which in the Netherlands tend to be less religious than rural areas —in the wake of the adoption of same-sex marriage. Trandafir:28-29. ARGUES: "Denying the Status of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Stigmatizes Them." Editor's Note: Oh? If this is so, then why does your brief not make the same arguments for plural marriage, e.g., polygamous relationships, which, as stated previously, have much more legal and historical precedent? Obviously, not a strong argument. | |||||||||
| 12/19/2014 | Attorney General Pam Bondi News Release (Regarding recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision) |
TALLAHASSEE, Fla.—In response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the case before the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued the following statement.
“Tonight, the United States Supreme Court denied the State’s request for a stay in the case before the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals. Regardless of the ruling it has always been our goal to have uniformity throughout Florida until the final resolution
of the numerous challenges to the voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has now spoken,
and the stay will end on January 5.”
Source:
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/75021C2E7B74E92485257DB400029519 |
||||||||||
| 12/22/2014 | AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL AND COLAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE | of Bryan Cave LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Ryan Reetz representing Family Equality Council and COLAGE. (ECF: Clement
Reetz) OFFERS: Testimonials (p.3 of brief, and passim) of children: "voices of children raised by same-sex parents."
ARGUES: (p.6) that: "Proponents claimed that banning same-sex marriage finds a rational basis in “increasing the likelihood
that children will be born and raised by the mothers and fathers who produced them in stable and enduring family units.”8 [line-break] Extensive
evidence, however, demonstrates that same-sex-parented families provide stable and loving environments for children throughout the country."
ASSERTS (p.9) that: "Same-sex-parented families are neither an oddity nor a rarity." QUOTE (from p.10 of brief) states: "Eleven-year-old J.A.B.-M.from
Fort Lauderdale describes her family as no different from different-sex-parented families:
My family is like any other family. We play games, we take care of each other, we talk, and we enjoy our rescue puppy, Tippy. In the morning, my dads wake me up and make me a school lunch. At night, my dads tuck me in. In between, they help me study, they do my laundry, they work to support me, and they show me unconditional love (and, as Mr. Peabody might say, “I have a deep regard for them, too”).19"CITATION (p.14, note 29, of brief) quotes study as follows: "Michael E. Lamb, Mothers, Fathers, Families, and Circumstances: Factors Affecting Children’s Adjustment, APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 16:2, 98-111, 104 (2012) (numerous studies of same-sex parented children “conducted over the past 25 years by respected researchers and published in peer-reviewed academic journals conclude that they are as successful psychologically, emotionally, and socially as children and adolescents raised by heterosexual parents.”)" Editor's Note:What about other studies (some cited by other Amici) that say the opposite, namely that while gays and singles CAN adopt, that, all things being equal, opposite-sex relationships are optimal? ARGUES: (on p.16) that: "FLORIDA’S LAWS DE-LEGITIMIZE SAME-SEX-PARENTED FAMILIES IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND SOCIETY." Editor's Note: How, then, do you fail to argue that Fla. laws de-legitimise polygamous-relationship families (e.g., polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, polyamory - plural marriages in general)?? |
|||||||||
| 12/22/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE MASSACHUSETTS, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES | Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by John M. Stephan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (ECF: John Stephan) ARGUES: "Excluding Same-Sex Couples From Marriage Does Not Promote The Well-Being Of Children." Editor's Note: Where is your research to support this claim? Also, what of the scientific research cited by other amici which comes to the opposite conclusion? If you mean financial benefits accorded to married couples by the government, then, yes, you have a point, but if you mean the social factors, then you are talking about a different issue: Homosexuals, like single parents, can raise children, but singles are not favoured over traditional families, all things being equal, and if this is OK for singles, then gays should not cry discrimination: State Interests lie to compel promotion of traditional families, based on the research. ARGUES: "Same-Sex Parents Are As Capable As Different-Sex Parents Of Raising Healthy, Well-Adjusted Children." Editor's Note: Even if true, you do not cite research to support your claim, and amici on the opposing side cite research to rebut this claim. Like singles, gays can raise children, but 'better'? Or not? In some cases, a gay or single-parent family would be best, but on average, more than 50% of the time? That is the question. ARGUES: "Promoting Responsible Procreation Does Not Justify Restricting Marriage To Different-Sex Couples." Editor's Note: Just how is responsible procreation -be it by a gay or a straight parent -not a worthy goal? Whether or not the law in question promotes this, this is still a very worthy goal. ARGUES: "Federalism Considerations Cannot Justify Discrimination by the States." Editor's Note: Correct. And your point? Now, a question to you: if Federalism will not even permit polygamy, how much less could it permit gay marriage, which has even less historical or legal precedent or biological underpinning? ARGUES: "The Institution Of Marriage Remains Strong In States That Allow Same-Sex Couples To Marry." Editor's Note: One study cited by the 64 Scholars amici shows that, long-term, this is not true; how, then, do you know you have waited long enough to have reliable research? Same-sex marriage is too new in the states you cited for reliable conclusions. | |||||||||
| 12/22/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FAMILY LAW AND CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | of Arnold & Porter LLP |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Marjory A. Gentry for Amici Curiae Family Law and Conflict of Laws Professors. (ECF: Marjory Gentry) ARGUES: "FLORIDA’S ANTI-RECOGNITION LAWS ARE HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED." Editor's Note: That may be true, but just as I took issue with Defendant-Appellant, The State of Florida attempting to invoke Stare Decisis (regarding traditional marriage), it is only fair that I take issue when the Plaintiff-Appellees (or their Amici, as here) attempt to evoke that legal defense. Stare Decisis, following past precedent, is a good metric, but it is not absolute: if that were the case, we would have never overcome slavery or other injustices, now would we have? ARGUES: "FLORIDA’S ANTI-RECOGNITION LAWS DEPRIVE APPELLEES OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW." Editor's Note: Oh, really? Then how is this not true of plural marriages? How can polygamists not also invoke Equal Protection to demand the 'right' for a man to marry 3 or 4 wives!? "Things that make you go: 'hmm...'." ARGUES: (on p.28) that: "The Status of Marriage Is a Fundamental Liberty Interest." Editor's Note: How can this not include polygamous and polyamorous marriages and relationships? ARGUES: (on p.30) that: "In refusing to recognize otherwise legal marriages between same-sex spouses, Florida denies these couples more than the title of marriage. Whether a couple is considered married controls myriad issues including “housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright.”" Editor's Note: CORRECT: That is why, even though this writer is 'Conservative,' and supports 1-man-1-woman marriage only, his Amicus brief, filed in this case, here, takes issue with financial disparities, such as these. ~Editor-in-Chief, Gordon W. Watts | |||||||||
| 12/22/2014 | BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. (ECF: Paul Wolfson) ARGUES: (on p.4) that: "A. Rational-Basis Review Varies Depending On Context [line-break] The application of rational-basis review is neither wooden nor mechanical. The nature and scope of the inquiry may depend on the context of the classification, and circumstances may warrant a more in-depth look at the legislature’s purpose and the claimed fit between that purpose and the classification. See, e.g., Windsor, 699 F.3d at 180. These circumstances include whether the group targeted by the classification has traditionally been subject to discrimination, whether important personal interests are at stake, and whether the classification reflects a departure from past practices." Editor's Note: That makes sense: I agree; however, does Florida run afoul here? ARGUES: (on p.7) that: "Florida’s bans impose sweeping and targeted disadvantages on a particular group of persons..." Editor's Note: Oh? Then how can the ban on polygamy (and ALL plural marriages) not do the same -especially in light of how this ban is in all 50 states (see Watts amicus); if anything, polygamists should have a better case, so how do SSM advocates have it any worse? ARGUES: (on p.23) that: "Florida’s Bans Are Not Rationally Related To Preserving A Child-Rearing Culture Or To Protecting Child Welfare." Editor's Note: Where is your scientific studies supporting this claim? Citing to case law, alone, is insufficient here: Furthermore, other amici cite research to refute your claim, here. | |||||||||
| 12/22/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE GARY J. GATES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Benjamin G. Shatz, counsel for amicus curiae Gary J. Gates. (ECF: Benjamin Shatz) STATES: (on page C-1 of 8) that: "Amicus Curiae Gary J. Gates is the Blachford-Cooper Distinguished Scholar and Research Director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law." Editor's Note: I added the hyper-links for context; they were not in the original quote. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts ARGUES: (on p.8) that: "Same-Sex Couples: Nearly 1.3 Million Adults in the U.S. and 97,000 Adults in Florida Are Members of Same-Sex Couples" Editor's Note: If we use 300 Million as a rough estimate of the U.S. Population (he cites to several different years), according to http://www.census.gov, then this means about 0.43% (less than 1%) of the population are adults who are members of Same-Sex couples; however, what is the point? Whether large or small, all Americans are important and are (or should be) protected by our Laws and Constitution. ARGUES: (on p.9) that: "Same-Sex Couples Are Diverse in Terms of Sex, Age, Race, and Ethnicity." Editor's Note: TRUE, but your point? ARGUES: (on p.13) that: "Same-Sex Couples With Children: Approximately One in Five Same-Sex Couples in the U.S. and One in Six Same-Sex Couples in Florida Are Raising Children." Editor's Note: While SS couples, like single parents, are probably not the 'optimal' parents on average, in some cases, they *are* the best option, and it is good that the Fla. law banning gay adoption was struck down. ARGUES: (on p.25) that: "In states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates for different-sex couples." Editor's Note: ANY divorce is sad, but you admit in your footnote that you are only "analyzing data from the following ten states and the District of Columbia: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington." Is this a large-enough set of data? Also, considering that this data-set seems to be primarily "blue-state" liberals where SSM is more-accepted, is this data-set even 'representative' of the nation, as a whole? Nonetheless, some gays are more fit to adopt and raise children than some straights, even if less-likely, on average. Yet, the conclusion to affirm is not solidly-based: These are just a bunch of statistics, and can be interpreted in any number of ways. | ||||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, OTHER WOMEN’S LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND PROFESSORS OF LAW ASSOCIATED WITH THE WILLIAMS INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS–APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Helen Oh, Program Assistant and/or Emily Martin, Esq., National Women's Law Center. (ECF: Emily Martin) Editor's Note: Court's official docket listed Ms. Oh as filer for 14-14061, but Atty. Martin for 14-14066; both entries listed Atty. Martin as the ECF e-filer. ARGUES: "A. The Supreme Court Adopted Heightened Scrutiny for Laws That Discriminate Based on Sex Because Such Laws Are Typically Based On Gender Stereotypes" AND: "B. Laws That Discriminate Based on Sexual Orientation Should Be Subject to Heightened Scrutiny Because of Their Frequent Basis in Gender Stereotypes." To support the claim that discriminatory laws have a basis in gender stereotypes, brief (on p.14) ARGUES: "Central among the gender-based expectations on which these prohibitions rest are the overbroad presumptions that a woman will be attracted to and form an intimate relationship and family with a man, not with a woman, and that a man will be attracted to and form an intimate relationship and family with a woman, not with a man." Editor's Note: It does seem true to presume/assume that most women will be attracted to men (are heterosexual/straight), but it does not follow that this basic truth necessarily means that "Laws That Discriminate" regarding orientation are necessarily based in gender stereotypes about most women being straight. Indeed, while is readily admitted that discrimination based on orientation (or, for that matter, ANY discrimination!) is wrong, how is it necessarily tied to gender-based assumption, especially in light of how discrimination against gays is probably equal regarding both gay men and lesbian women? This is an illogical connection and makes no sense. CITES (on pp.20-21 of brief): Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, Appeal No. 0120110873, 2011 WL 2663401, at *3 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 1, 2011) (holding that discrimination based on stereotype that a man should not marry another man can constitute sex discrimination). Editor's Note: Oh, and how is it, then, not discrimination to have a stereotype that a man is unable to marry -say - five (5) women? Especially in light of the much-stronger legal and historical precedent of polygamy and plural marriages, both within the Mormon and Islamic faiths, both locally and world-wide --both recent and and ancient? Hmm... CONCLUDES on p.33 of brief: "Amici respectfully request that the Court apply heightened scrutiny to invalidate the challenged Florida provision banning same-sex couples from marrying and denying recognition to same-sex couples’ legal marriages obtained in other jurisdictions, and affirm the judgment of the District Court." Editor's Note: Recognition of Gay Marriage would violate Equal Protection, since we don't even recognise plural marriage; however, financial disparity is, indeed, wrong at any level of scrutiny, as my own Amicus brief argues. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts | ||||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND GAYS, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE | of Folger Levin LLP for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Andrew J. Davis for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,
Inc. (ECF: Andrew Davis) ARGUES: "BANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AND HARM PEOPLE WHO ARE GAY OR LESBIAN BY
RELEGATING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AN INFERIOR STATUS" Editor's Note: This brief contains only one (1) argument: this one;
however, it is backed up by testimonials of many gays and lesbians: "A. Story of Winston Johnson....We lacked the positive
reinforcement from friends and family that comes with getting married...The commitment that Leon and I made to each other is in no way inferior to the
commitments made by opposite-sex couples that the state chooses to recognize as “marriages.” Yet the state denied us the right to marry, and condemned our
relationship to an inferior status." Editor's Note: This is touching, and no person of conscience should desire to insult or
demean gays; however, how can this not also be true for those who wish to practice polygamy, e.g., plural marriage? Also, while I agree that financial
discrimination is wrong (and says so in my own amicus brief), why is it necessary for The State to 'recognise' one's relationship to have honour and peace?
Is this not being insecure and relying on that which is unneeded, wasting one's time, energy, and resources on recognising something with even less legal
(or historical) precedent than plural marriages? How is this right? QUOTE from brief, pp.26-27: "About seven years ago, Lee
and David adopted our grandchildren, Braiden and Michael, through the foster care system. Braiden, who is now 11 years old, wrote the following
letter...on her own, with minor assistance from her teachers on spelling and grammar...
“Love is important! It doesn't matter who people love, as long as they are happy...Before I lived with my two dads, my life was horrible. My old family never treated me well...Would there be any purpose to ban the marriage of two men or two women when they can treat children the same or even better than other couples. I hope that you will do the right thing and let anyone marry who they want to.”"Editor's Note: I admit that it is true that some gay couples can be better parents than some opposite-sex husband-and-wife families; however, singles can also sometimes be better parents, yet we don't call it discrimination when we favour traditional families, against singles, now do we? Or, when we disfavour plural-marriage families (polygamy, e.g., several wives, etc.), do we? So, how is this legally or morally any different? |
|||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF HISTORIANS OF MARRIAGE PETER W. BARDAGLIO, NORMA BASCH, STEPHANIE COONTZ, NANCY F. COTT, TOBY L. DITZ, LAURA F. EDWARDS, SARAH BARRINGER GORDON, MICHAEL GROSSBERG, HENDRIK HARTOG, ELLEN HERMAN, MARTHA HODES, LINDA K. KERBER, ALICE KESSLER-HARRIS, ELAINE TYLER MAY, SERENA MAYERI, STEVEN MINTZ, ELIZA BETH PLECK, CAROLE SHAMMAS, MARY L. SHANLEY, AMY DRU STANLEY, AND BARBARA WELKE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr. - Counsel for Amici Curiae Historians of Marriage. (ECF: Daniel Lane) ARGUES on pp.7-8: "MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL INSTITUTION... Being based on consent between two free individuals, marriage is understood to be a contract." Editor's Note: Who are you to say that marriage must be limited to only two (2) individuals? Whilst I may disagree with plural marriages, you will find yourself hard-pressed to sell this argument to practicing polygamists: Your argument, even if true, lacks proof." ARGUES on p.13: "Marital Eligibility Has Never Turned Upon Child-Bearing or Child-Rearing Ability." Editor's Note: So? You invoke Stare Decisis, and so will I: Marital Eligibility Has always turned on the gender being opposite; however, even if true, Stare Decisis (precedent) is not always a sure-fire method of guaranteeing the correct legal result, slavery being but one example. ARGUES on p.16: "DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATIONS OF MARRIAGE RULES HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND HAVE SINCE BEEN REJECTED." Editor's Note: Correct, but this does not necessarily mean that this is what is going on here; you are using circular logic to beg the question, and that is bad logic. ARGUES on p.19: "MARRIAGE HAS CHANGED IN RESPONSE TO SOCIETAL CHANGES." Editor's Note: Not really, at least in regard to opposite gender (but marriage has changed in number: first, being 1-man-1-woman, and then allowing polygamy, and then back to 1-man-1-woman, in most parts of the world). But so what? As before, Stare Decisis is not an absolute standard. ARGUES on p.31: "Florida’s marriage laws treat men and women without regard to gender and gender-role stereotypes – except in the statutory requirement that men may marry only women and women may marry only men. This gender-based requirement is out of step with the gender-neutral approach of contemporary marriage law." Editor's Note: So? Whilst I agree that no State Interest lies in mistreating anyone, nonetheless, some State Interest lies in differentiating between the genders, since they are different, no less than, for example, adults being different than children. | ||||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. AND NATIONIAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES | NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Ryan P. Haygood on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and the NAACP. (ECF: Ryan Haygood) ARGUES on p.6: "Neither the Fourteenth Amendment’s Guarantee of Equal Protection, Nor the Holding of Loving v. Virginia, is Limited to Race-Based Discrimination." Editor's Note: That is true, but does this necessarily mean that the Gay Marriage ban is necessarily included? Would it also mandate marriage for minor children or for plural marriages (polygamy)? While these may (or may not) be true, the statement made here, about the 14th Am., does not actually answer the question -one way or the other -about Gay Marriage -and thus is 'bad logic.' ARGUES on p.9: "The state law at issue here plainly burden lesbians and gay men as a class, because they ban lesbian and gay couples from marrying..." Editor's Note: So? The law also 'burdens' children and polygamists from marrying, but are these necessarily wrong simply because one "says so?" ARGUES on p.22: "Loving Rejected the Notion that History and Tradition Alone Can Justify Discrimination." Editor's Note: Correct: Stare Decisis (precedent & tradition) alone don't guarantee a correct answer; however, neither do they guarantee an incorrect one. | |||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF 37 EMPLOYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Susan Baker Manning for 37 Employers as Amici Curiae. (ECF: Susan Manning) ARGUES: "To Reap the Rewards of Diversity, We Need to Be Able to Recruit and Retain Top Talent, in Part Through Equitable and Competitive Benefits Packages" AND: "Employees in Same-Sex Relationships Receive Varying Access, If Any, to the Rights, Benefits and Privileges That Different-Sex Couples Enjoy Under State and Federal Law." Editor's Note: Correct: That is why, even tho I am a right-wing conservative in favour of opposite-sex marriage (and upholding Fla. Law), my amicus brief argues against disparity and financial discrimination as described here. | ||||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE· AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE · BEND THE ARC: A JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE · CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS · GLOBAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE · HADASSAH, THE WOMEN’S ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA · THE HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION · INTERFAITH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION · THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE · JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK · KESHET · METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES · MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS · THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN · NEHIRIM · PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION · PRESBYTERIAN WELCOME · RECONCILINGWORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL PARTICIPATION · RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE AND JEWISH RECONSTRUCTIONIST COMMUNITIES · RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC. · SIKH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND · SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM · T’RUAH: THE RABBINIC CALL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS · WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM · AND WOMEN’S LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM · IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE | Ropes & Gray LLP Law Firm |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Rocky Tsai - Anti-Defamation League. (ECF: Rocky Tsai) ARGUES: "The Florida Marriage Ban violates the Establishment Clause because it was enacted with the purpose of imposing a particular religious understanding of marriage as law." Editor's Note: How can you infer intent or 'purpose' in a law that was enacted by almost 62% of the electorate -and passed into law by a diverse variety of state lawmakers? This is unreasonable: perhaps a few voters or lawmakers had ill intent, but, unless you are a mind-reader, you can not know; furthermore, even if intent or motive is bad on some voters, how does this necessarily render the whole law 'bad?' This is 'bad logic.' ARGUES: "Religious definitions of marriage vary, and a significant and growing number of religious groups and individuals support marriage equality. Editor's Note: Yes, and some religion (particularly, Muslims and Mormon separatists) "believe in" polygamy, that is, plural marriage, in the which 1 man and (say) 5 wives, can marry, and some ancient Muslims even accepted child-marriage; however, does this necessarily make it valid and appropriate? This is 'bad logic.' ARGUES on p.3: "It is a violation of the First Amendment to deny individuals the right to marry on the grounds that such marriages would offend the tenets of a particular religious group." Editor's Note: Oh, really? Then how come we do not allow child-marriage or plural marriages? "Things that make you go: 'hmm...'." ARGUES on pp.2-3: "Florida’s Marriage Ban flouts this fundamental principle by incorporating a particular religious definition of marriage into law." Editor's Note: Oh? Then why do we allow laws against murder, even though they agree with the Judeo-Christian religion's prohibition likewise -and as mandated in the following passages of their Holy Book, the Bible: Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Matthew 5:21; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9; James 2:11; 1st John 3:15; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15, and elsewhere? Again: 'Bad Logic.' ARGUES on p.22: "Civil and religious marriage are distinct, a tradition that religious groups on all sides of this debate recognize and value." Editor's Note: This evokes (and also invokes) the Libertarian view (of getting government out of our personal lives) and is interesting -and merits further investigation. ARGUES on p.26: "In all three instances discussed above [Interfaith Marriage, Interracial Marriage, & Marriage Following Divorce], individual religious groups have adopted particular rules relating to marriage, yet those rules do not dictate the contours of civil marriage law." Editor's Note: Good points, but would this 'separation' between church & state necessarily allow some faiths to practice child marriage or plural marriages? Hmm... Looks like 'bad logic.' | |||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ALACHUA COUNTY, BROWARD COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, CITY OF TAMPA, CITY OF ORLANDO, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, CITY OF GAINESVILLE, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH, CITY OF KEY WEST, CITY OF WILTON MANORS, CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, AND VILLAGE OF BISCAYNE PARK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | the City Attorney for the City of Miami Beach, Florida |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., for Alachua, Broward, Orange, & Palm Beach Counties; Cities of Coconut Creek, Gainesville, Hallandale Beach, Key West, Miami Beach, Orlando, S. Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa, W. Palm Beach, Wilton Manors; Village of Biscayne Park. (ECF: Robert Rosenwald) STATES on pp.1-2: "Some of us [county & city governments] require that our contractors provide equal benefits to domestic partner couples and some of us pay the extra federal income tax levied upon unmarried same-sex couples that married straight couples do not have to pay when purchasing group health insurance." Editor's Note: I agree that we should not cheat non-married citizens (be they gay or straight) in such benefits (and that is what I said in my own amicus in this case), but we need not change the definition of marriage in response to a few 'bad' laws; rather, we should change those laws: is that too complex for a deep thinker? ARGUES on p.26: "Our Best Efforts Still Impose Stigma and Confusion Among Employees." Editor's Note: Again, I am all for not mistreating people, but what about the 'stigma' that polygamists must endure for not being recognised as "legally married?" Hmm... | |||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, FIRST RESPONDERS, AND ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE WARNING: This PDF file is approximately 20.3 MB in size, and may take a while to download. |
Arent Fox LLP Law Firm |
Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, FIRST RESPONDERS, AND ORGANIZATIONS. (ECF: Paul Fakler) ARGUES: "AMICI'S EXPERIENCES SHOW WHY CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY." Editor's Note: This is a debatable point, but even conceding the point, if one's legal argument is strong, does it really matter what level of scrutiny is applied? Indeed, lawyers on both sides of the argument have bragged that their legal arguments could withstand any level of scrutiny, so this point may not be the best use of our time to consider. ARGUES: "THE REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX COUPLE'S MARRIAGES DENIES FIRST RESPONDERS THE RESPECT AND DIGNITY THEY DESERVE AND PUTS THEM IN HARM'S WAY." Editor's Note: While I agree that recognition of one's worth is important, is this not distinct from recognition of one's marriage? If this, latter, point is so important, then why not recognise plural marriage (polygamy) or child-marriage, as do some religions? Hmm... Even IF your claim is true, you use 'bad logic.' ARGUES (on p.32) "A. The Lack of Marriage Equality Impacts Benefits Provided by Federal Law to Families of Public Safety Officers Killed in the Line of Duty" AND (on p.33) "B. The Families of Gay and Lesbian Officers Are Denied Significant Benefits Under State Law." Editor's Note: I agree that inequality in benefits is wrong (as I argue in my own amicus brief in this case), but is this really the fault of the 'definition' of marriage that voters enacted into the Fla. Constitution? Of course not: the adoption inequality, for example, was addressed in 2010 by challenging that law (Fla. Dept. of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D08-3044, Opinion filed September 22, 2010), proving that the 2008 Florida law defining marriage need not be struck to satisfy the legitimate grievances of gays in Florida. (Fla. law prohibiting adoption by homosexuals struck down by Fla. 3d DCA as violating Equal Protection) | |||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | EMERGENCY FOR CLARIFICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW | Jeff Goodman, P.A. Law Firm |
MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law by HAROLD BAZZELL. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 12/23/2014) Asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida for clarification on whether the injunction, if/when it goes into effect, would require the Clerk of Courts to issue marriage licenses to any Same-Sex couple, or, rather, just to the named plaintiffs to the suit if/when the stay on the injunction expires on Jan. 05, 2015. Asks for a hearing on an expedited basis, given the urgency of the ramifications: the clerk could be held in contempt of court for disobeying, but could also be subject to criminal prosecution under state law for obeying. | |||||||||
| 12/23/2014 | AMICUS CURIE BRIEF CLARE ANTHONY CITRO PRIVATE CITIZEN |
of Dania, FL |
MOTION for leave to file motion for amicus brief out of time filed by Not Party Anthony Citro in 14-14061, 14-14066. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [7355890-1] [14-14061, 14-14066] NOTE: Contains proper Certificate of Service; colour of front cover (which should be green) is unknown. Cites to original amicus in support of Constitutional violations resulting in alleged Writ of Error in the lower tribunal; original amicus (p.33 of 33) seeks reversal of lower tribunal order: "And for the afore mentioned reasons and for any reason as this Honorable Court shall deem proper, I ask this Honorable Court to decide for the petitioners in the above styled case." | |||||||||
| 12/24/2014 | BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE | Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Elizabeth Littrell for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (ECF: Elizabeth Littrell) ARGUES (on p.6) "The Essence of the Fundamental Right to Marry Is Freedom of Choice in the Selection of One’s Spouse Free from Governmental Interference." Editor's Note: True, but the 'freedom' of whom (or how many) person(s) to choose is not an absolute and unlimited right; for example, child marriage and plural marriage (polygamy) are both illegal -and not "Free from Governmental Interference." ARGUES (on p.9) "In Keeping with the Autonomy Protected by the Due Process Guarantee, Florida Imposes Very Few Restrictions on Adults in Different-Sex Relationships..." Editor's Note: True, but 'few' is not 'zero.' ARGUES (on p.17) "Appellants Misapprehend the Role of History When Considering the Scope of Fundamental Rights." Editor's Note: Correct: And, even tho I support the appellants, I took issue with their undue reliance on Stare Decisis, that is, precedent; moreover, in case you missed it, I also took issue with financial disparity and other mistreatment of gays, in my own amicus in this case. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts STATES (on p.22) that: "Florida was hardly an outlier in banning interracial marriage." Editor's Note: Interesting (as history does show some patterns developing) and sad - but not actually determinative to the case at hand, as it is a totally different creature, intertwining both the definition of marriage as 1-man-1-woman (which I feel should stay the same) along with financial disparities e.g., gays, singles, etc. being denied certain financial benefits (which I think should change). Racial discrimination is, thus, legally distinct from this matter. | ||||||||||
| 12/24/2014 | PLAINTIFFS' CERTIFICATE OF ACTUAL NOTICE | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET re 74 Order (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/24/2014) TRANSLATION: The plaintiffs certified to the district court, below, that they served a copy (by U.S. Postal Mail) of the Order of the Court (by the Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge for the Northern District of Florida) to all of the Clerks of Courts for the State of Florida. | ||||||||||
| 12/24/2014 | ORDER SETTING PROCEDURES ON THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY | Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge | Order setting procedures on the emergency motion to clarify. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/24/14. (RH) (Entered: 12/24/2014) Judge Hinkle quotes a section of his recent order to clarify to whom his injunction applies: "The preliminary injunction binds the Secretary, the Surgeon General, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise." (Emphasis in original) ALSO: Judge Hinkle orders the Secretary of the Department of Management Services to file a response by Dec. 29, 2014, and furthermore, allows and permits that "The Surgeon General and the plaintiffs may [if they so choose] file by December 29, 2014, a response to the Clerk’s motion to clarify." (Comments in brackets; not in original quote of the judge's order. ~Editor) NOTE: The motion does not ask about whether other clerks are so bound, and the court's order, apparently, does not address whether other clerks are so bound, or merely those clerks & state officials who are working with the clerk named in the suit. | |||||||||
| 12/24/2014 | Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge | Set Deadlines re 101 Order: Secretary of the Department of Management Services must file a copy of each paper the Secretary filed in the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court on the stay issue - by 12/29/2014. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if the Secretary of the Department of Management Services, The Surgeon General and Plaintiffs response to 99 Motion for Clarification is not filed earlier: 12/29/2014). (tdl) (Entered: 12/24/2014) NOTE: It is not clear if Judge Hinkle, himself, entered this order, or, instead, if a clerk, with the initials 'tdl,' entered this order, on behalf of the court. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts UPDATE: As of late PM on Mon. 12-29-2014, I notice this entry is no longer on the Northern District's docket, accessible via PACER; however, I shall leave it here on my docket to preserve the record. Probably, the clerk deleted it as something on an agenda that was checked off as 'done,' I am guessing.~GW// | ||||||||||
| 12/29/2014 | PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CLERK OF COURT OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, FLORIDA (“CLERK”)'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW WARNING: This PDF file is approximately 7.47 MB in size, and may take a while to download; this is primarily due to the large amount of graphics/image files. |
RESPONSE in Opposition re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM)
(Entered: 12/29/2014) ARGUES: that the injunction binds all Florida clerks of court, since they are “persons who are in
active concert or participation” with the state defendants; that a “person can not be prosecuted for violating an unconstitutional law,” thus making
said statute unenforceable; and, that the court, through it's 'Inherent Authority,' could suspend application of this state law, and thus extend its
order to cover all Florida clerks if necessary. Furthermore, Plaintiff Brief argues that even if the other clerks are not parties to the suit, the court
can enjoin and bind them to comply with the court's orders, on the basis that non-parties are not permitted to interfere with the court's order.
Editor's Note: This argument looks to be very solid -and implicitly evokes the Supremacy Clause, i.e., Article. VI. Section
2, of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
However, in their 'EXHIBIT A' supplement, they cite to legal arguments raised by the Greenberg/Traurig law firm, which advised Fla. clerks that they
are not bound by this court's ruling if they are not a named defendant, and furthermore, could be criminally prosecuted for marrying a Same-Sex couple.
To make this argument, they cite case law from the 11th Circuit, itself, Doe v. Pryor, 344 F.3d. 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003), which held that:
"The only federal court whose decisions bind state courts is the United States Supreme Court." Their advisory opinion on this head evokes the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which, in essence, holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions. This would
give a strong support to Federalism, and 10th Amendment State's rights, that is, that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States." ACCORD: ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH and Robert D. Park, Petitioners v.
ARIZONA et al., 520 U.S. 43, at Syllabus 23, note 11, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held: "(Supremacy Clause does not require state courts to follow
rulings by federal courts of appeals on questions of federal law)." In other words, lower Federal Courts may not sit in appellate review of state court
decisions; they may only address these issues through original jurisdiction (which, apparently, the plaintiffs allege, insofar as they claim that the'
state laws in question are unconstitutional). Indeed, when 'Gay Marriage' bans in other states have been found to be unconstitutional, they typically were state-wide in application (and not just for the named plaintiffs as alleged by the Greenberg/Traurig law firm's advisory opinion). However, taken to the extreme, if the Supremacy Clause is indeed the proper metric to use here, then it would be, theoretically, possible, for any single U.S. District Federal judge (such as Hon. Judge Hinkle) to find ALL 50 states to be prohibited from enacting 'Gay Marriage' bans. (Yet, this extreme, likewise seems untenable.) Nonetheless, while I personally disagree with Judge Hinkle's decision (and for the reasons enunciated in my own amicus brief, which is currently being reviewed by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals), I think that his decision is binding on ALL 67 Fla. counties, their clerks, and ALL applicants for marriage licenses. In other words, I think that the State of Florida is "grasping for straws" in their claims that this ruling only applies to the one clerk named in the suit, and the plaintiffs who are named (and seeking a marriage license). In other words, I think that Judge Hinkle's decision is binding state-wide, based on the Supremacy Clause, even though I feel his ruling is not actually Constitutional on other grounds (argued in my amicus brief). Nevertheless, I admit that this is a 'difficult' area of law! ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts |
||||||||||
| 12/29/2014 | DMS SECRETARY’S RESPONSE TO CLERK’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION | Solicitor General |
RESPONSE to Motion re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law filed by CRAIG J NICHOLS. Editor's Note: While Mr. Nichols is not mentioned by name in this filing, he is in fact, the head of the Fla. Department of Management Services (DMS), which oversees state property, & the state workforce. (Attachments: # _1_ Appendix A [Application for stay w/ SCOTUS & related orders], # _2_ Appendix B, [Motion & related orders] # _3_ Appendix C [Joint initial appeal]) (WINSOR, ALLEN) (Entered: 12/29/2014) ARGUES: That, since a clerk is an "independent constitutional officer," and "not in privity with the DMS and Health Secretaries, represented by them, or subject to their control, "they are not among the “persons bound” by the court's injunction. CLAIMS (on p.3 of brief) that: "In a separate case, counsel for the Brenner plaintiffs advised another federal court that “the injunctive relief in Brenner affects [only*] the following] people: the Agency Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services, the Florida Surgeon General, and Secretary of Health for the State of Florida, and the Clerk of Court of Washington County, Florida.” Editor's Note: Comments, the word 'only,' in bracket, to clarify, and not in original. In other words, Florida was telling Judge Hinkle that even the Brenner plaintiffs admitted that the injunction applied to no one but themselves; however, as much as I disagree with Judge Hinkle's decision, I think Florida is 'grasping for straws' with this type of argument. ARGUES (on p.3 of brief) that: "If the Court intends the injunction to have effects beyond those that appear on its face, or beyond the interpretation of the Brenner plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court may wish provide appropriate clarification." Editor's Note: Even though I am sure that we all know what Judge Hinkle meant, I must agree that his order could use a little clarification. | |||||||||
| 12/29/2014 | APPLICATION OF AMICI CURIAE EQUALITY FLORIDA INSTITUTE, INC. AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS TO FILE A MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR CLARIFICATION; PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES | of the Mary Meeks Law Firm |
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Equality Florida Institute, Inc., National Center for Lesbian Rights and Application to file amicus curiae memorandum. (MEEKS, MARY) (Entered: 12/29/2014) ASKS THE COURT (on p.1 of brief) that: "this Court to clarify that, based upon the language of the Order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and controlling case law, the Court’s Order prohibits all state and local officials involved in administering Florida’s marriage laws in concert with each other, including all 67 of Florida’s county court clerks, from enforcing the provisions of those laws that this Court declared to be invalid." ARGUES (on p.4 of brief) that: "The unitary nature of Florida’s marriage laws also requires county clerks to work in concert with one another, as well as with the Department, to ensure the uniform administration of those laws," in support of their argument right above, that: "county clerks are “persons who are in active concert or participation” with the Department within the meaning of Rule 65." ARGUES (on p.5) the 'complete relief' can only be had with state-wide application, and (on p.6) that, since the state law, itself, was found to be invalid, that no clerk in the state could, legally, deny a Same-Sex couple a marriage license. Points out that other SSM bans struck down were state-wide in application. ARGUES (on p.7) that: "...county clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in reliance on this Court’s Order cannot be criminally prosecuted. Under settled law, a person cannot be prosecuted for violating an unconstitutional law, which is void. As both the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have made clear: “An unconstitutional law is void . . . . An offense created by it is no crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.” Penn v. Atty. Gen. of State of Ala., 930 F.2d 838, 841 (11th Cir. 1991)..." Editor's Note: Good arguments, not unlike those made by Atty. Sheppard, for the Plaintiffs, above; solid case-law, to boot; however, what if we take this to the extreme: what would stop Judge Hinkle's ruling from effectively striking the Same-Sex marriage bans in all 50 states? They are, after all, only 'state,' and Judge Hinkle is 'Federal,' right? Laws in all 50 states would, then, be "not merely erroneous, but" also "illegal and void," and thus unenforceable, right? However, this seems untenable, and so I wonder if this logic is correct. Like I said: tough legal question. ~Editor, G.W.Watts | |||||||||
| 12/29/2014 | GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
RESPONSE to Motion re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law filed by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/29/2014) TRANSLATION: The Grimsley plaintiffs are making similar arguments as the Brenner plaintiffs made, above, namely that the injunction binds not only the named defendants, the Secretary & Surgeon General, but also "their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys— and others in active concert or participation with any of them..." (brief, pp.1-2) Besides addressing who is bound by the court's order/injunction, this brief also addresses who is eligible to obtain Same-Sex marriage licenses: It claims (p.4) that: "...county clerks are required to issue marriage licenses to all eligible same-sex couples because this Court has held the marriage ban to be facially unconstitutional." Editor's Note: As discussed above, there are compelling arguments that this federal judge (by the Supremacy Clause) can indeed strike down ANY state law, and there are equally compelling arguments that he can not: Two good rebuttals are (#1) The "Reductio ad absurdum" argument, which states that, taken to the extreme, the judge's order should apply to all 50 states, but, since that seems too much "a stretch," it can't be true; and (#2) the Rooker-Feldman argument, that inferiour Federal Courts (e.g., all courts which are not the U.S. Supreme Court) can not sit in direct appellate review of state court decisions; backing this up is solid case law. Nonetheless, since Judge Hinkle's court, using its original jurisdiction, can indeed find laws unconstitutional, and since the Supremacy Clause is Constitutional (and thus higher in authority than even Federal Case Law), this becomes a thorny issue, especially given the practice of applying such Federal rulings state-wide, in recent Federal District court rulings (or circuit-wide, in the case of recent U.S. Courts of Appeals rulings) finding "state law" SSM bans to be unconstitutional (or 'Constitutional' in the case of the U.S. 6th Cir., which "went the other way"). Like I said earlier, I lean in favour of the 'Supremacy Clause' argument, giving Judge Hinkle the 'technical' authority to strike down the state law, but disagreeing with his ruling on the merits, on other grounds, as I argued in my own amicus brief before the appeals court. Again, very tough legal question. ~Editor, G.W.Watts | |||||||||
| 12/29/2014 | AMICUS FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CLERK OF COURT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION | Liberty Counsel, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Florida Family Action, Inc. |
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION INC re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law . (MIHET, HORATIO) (Entered: 12/29/2014) ARGUES: (on p.3) that since "The Preliminary Injunction, on its face, binds only the Washington Clerk with respect to the issuance of marriage licenses," therefore: "None of the foregoing provisions of the Preliminary Injunction, however, bind any Florida court clerk, other than the Washington Clerk, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Neither the Secretary nor the Surgeon General has any authority to issue marriage licenses; that authority is expressly reserved to circuit court clerks and county judges by Fla. Stat. §741.01(1). ARGUES: (on pp.4-5) that: "If Plaintiffs were correct in their contention that the Preliminary Injunction binds all Florida clerks to issue marriage licenses as supposed agents of the Secretary or Surgeon General, Plaintiffs would not have needed to sue the Washington Clerk. Plaintiffs, however, did sue the Washington Clerk, presumably because they understood that there was no other means or mechanism for this Court to require the Washington Clerk to issue Plaintiffs a marriage license." Editor's Note: Very good point; however, just because the plaintiffs may've sued the wrong party, that does not necessarily invalidate or abrogate their legal argument. ARGUES: (on pp.5-6) that: "An injunction binds only parties to the proceeding, and the parties' officers...See Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958, 971-72 (l1th Cir. 2012);...Furthermore, a federal district court’s ruling that a Florida statute is unconstitutional is not binding on any Florida state court which may acquire jurisdiction over a clerk. See, e.g., Doe v. Pryor, 344 F.3d 1282, 1286 (1Ith Cir. 2003) (“The only federal court whose decisions bind state courts is the United States Supreme Court”)..." ARGUES: (on p.7) that: "Enforcing the Preliminary Injunction within its legal boundaries will not deprive any Plaintiff of complete relief. Plaintiffs’ “complete relief” arguments are therefore without merit." ARGUES: (on pp.7-8) that: "the Court has no personal jurisdiction over non-party clerks. No “additional specificity” could legally extend the Preliminary Injunction to Florida clerks who have not even been subjected to the Court’s jurisdiction through service of process, let alone given the basic and indispensible opportunity to be heard on any matter covered by the Preliminary Injunction," and would therefore "be a profound violation of due process." ARGUES: (on p.7) that: "the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction to revise or expand the Preliminary Injunction, which is now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, (1982). “[T]he filing of a notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction over all issues involved in the appeal.” Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2003)." ARGUES: (on p.8): "In sum, the Court may not expand the Preliminary Injunction as an after-thought, to afford relief that no one requested, benefiting persons who are not plaintiffs, at the expense of clerks who are not defendants." CONCLUDES: (on p.9): "For all of the foregoing reasons, the Preliminary Injunction does not and cannot bind any Florida clerk not before the Court to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples." | |||||||||
| 12/30/2014 | GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF CORRECTED FILING TO FIX SCRIVENERS’ ERROR IN THEIR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT WASHINGTON COUNTY CLERK’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION | The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter) |
AMENDED DOCUMENT by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN
GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC,
CHRISTIAN ULVERT. Amendment to _105_ Response to Motion,
(Attachments: # _1_ Exhibit corrected page) (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
Translation: (direct quote taken from p. of this notice): The Grimsley Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) wish to advise the Court of a scriveners’ error they discovered in their response to Defendant Washington County Clerk’s Emergency Motion for Clarification, filed on December 29, 2014 (Brenner Doc. 105). On page 3 of that filing, Plaintiffs stated: “Section 741.04(1) provides that clerks and county court judges may not issue marriage licenses to different-sex couples; it says nothing about the duties of any state agencies with respect to the restriction of marriage to different-sex couples.” Brenner Doc. 105 at 3 (bold emphasis added). The sentence should have stated: “Section 741.04(1) provides that clerks and county court judges may not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; it says nothing about the duties of any state agencies with respect to the restriction of marriage to different-sex couples.” Plaintiffs realize that their inadvertent mis-description of the statute could inadvertently mislead. A corrected page 3, substituting the proper word, is attached as an exhibit hereto." |
|||||||||
| 12/31/2014 | EQUALITY FLORIDA INSTITUTE, INC. AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS; DECLARATION OF MARY B. MEEKS AND EXHIBIT A THERETO |
of the Mary Meeks Law Firm |
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Equality Florida Institute, Inc., National Center for Lesbian Rights Request for Judicial Notice. (MEEKS,
MARY) (Entered: 12/31/2014) In Plain English: Atty. Meeks wants to bring to the attention of Judge Hinkle (The Fla. N.D. U.S.
Circuit Court) the fact that Hon. Timothy R. Shea, Fla. Cir. Judge for the Circuit Court of Orange County (Fla. 9th Judicial Circuit), has issued an order,
Dated Dec. 30, 2014, was in response to an "Emergency Petition for Declaratory Judgment" filed by Hon. Tiffany Moore Russell, Orange County Clerk of
Courts, Orange County, Florida. Page 1 of Atty. Meeks' declaration states as follows: "The attached order is relevant to this matter because it states, in relevant part: “The Honorable Tiffany Moore Russell, Orange County Clerk of Courts, Orange County, Florida may rely upon the decision in Brenner v. Scott, 999 F.Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014) as the law of Florida and in so doing issue a same-sex marriage license commencing on the expiration of the temporary stay issued by Judge Hinkle in Brenner (January 6, 2014).”" Editor's Note: This is interesting -and useful; however, since the inception of the appeal has divested and removed subject-matter jurisdiction in the lower tribunal (which, I am guessing, only has authority to extend or shorten the stay on the injunction), then perhaps her motion would have been more appropriate before the appeals court, where the merits are formally being considered. ~Editor-in-Chief, Gordon W. Watts |
|||||||||
| 01/01/2015 | THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |
Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge | ORDER granting _99_ motion to clarify the preliminary injunction. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/1/2015. (RH) (Entered: 01/01/2015) States (on pp.3-4) in relevant part: "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." | |||||||||
| 01/02/2015 | Notice to Clerk that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 28-1 and 28-1 IOP 4, no reply brief will be forthcoming filed by Attorney Adam Scott
Tanenbaum for Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols. (ECF: Adam Tanenbaum) In relevant part: "Dear Mr. Ley: Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 28-1 and the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures (28-1 IOP 4), appellants notify the Court that no reply brief will be forthcoming and the appeal may be submitted to the Court. Sincerely, /s/ Allen Winsor" Editor's Note: 11th Cir. R.28-1, I.O.P. 4. states: "Waiver of Reply Brief. A party may waive the right to file a reply brief. Immediate notice of such waiver to the clerk will expedite submission of the appeal to the court." |
|||||||||||
| 01/06/2015 | Hon. Beverly B. Martin, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE | ORDER: Motion for Leave to File Out of Time filed by Not Party Anthony Citro is DENIED. [7355890-2]; Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Not Party Anthony Citro is DENIED. [7343975-2]; Motion for Leave to File Out of Time amended amicus brief filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts is GRANTED. [7348496-2] BBM [14-14061, 14-14066] | ||||||||||
| 01/06/2015 | AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF
GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION
(Amended Amicus, proper - Court Copy: scanned image) AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (Amended Amicus, proper - House Copy: searchable PDF) |
Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS,
United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register:
http://GordonWatts.com and
http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com) |
AMENDED Amicus Brief filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061, 14-14066. Service date: 12/13/2014 email - Attorney for Amicus Curium: Babione, Bartel, Boccuzzi, Boyle, Bradley, Davis, Dewart, Duncan, Emmanuel, Fakler, Fitschen, Gentry, Gibbs, Goldberg, Hamid, Haygood, Lane, Littrell, Loukonen, Man, Manning, Martin, McAlister, Mihet, Minter, Picarello, Reetz, Rome, Rosenwald, Sauer, Schaerr, Schoenfeld, Shatz, Smith, Smith, Smith, Snider, Stephan, Stetson, Stoll, Trachtman, Trent, Tsai, Weaver, Weisel, Wolfson; Attorney for Appellants: Goodman, Tanenbaum, Winsor; Attorney for Appellees: Cooper, DeMaggio, Jacobson, Kayanan, Rosenthal, Sheppard, Tilley, White; Attorney for Not Party: Kallergis; US mail - Amicus Curiae Watts; Not Party Citro. [14-14061, 14-14066] | |||||||||
| 02/04/2015 | Hon. AMY C. NERENBERG, Acting Clerk of Court | Public Communication: Notice to parties: cases stayed pending US Supreme Court decision. [14-14061, 14-14066] Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the appeals in case numbers 14-14061, 14-14066, 15-10295, and 15-10313 are held in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s issuance of an opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, — S. Ct. —, Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574, 2015 WL 213650 (Jan. 16, 2015). Any other current or future appeals that are filed in this Court raising the same or similar issues as the appeals listed above will also be held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s issuance of an opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date the Supreme Court issues its opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder, the parties are directed to notify this Court in writing what issues, if any, remain pending in these appeals. Sincerely, AMY C. NERENBERG, Acting Clerk of Court Reply to: David L. Thomas, AA Editor's note: this is a stay of the appeals reviews, but not a stay of the lower court's injunction. |
| RELATED: On Fri., Jan. 23, 2015, Watts asked U.S. Supreme Court for leave to file an amicus pro se in the 'Gay Marriage' cases currently being reviewed from our sister circuit, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which are consolidated from 4 appeals originating from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee: * -Brief- - * -Certificates of Compliance- * -Signed Certificates- (large file size) * * The U.S. supreme Court almost accepted these filings, and docketed Watts as a party in one case: -Docket- but quickly deleted the entry when they re-read the filing, and saw that Watts was not a lawyer. (Apparently, his filing was good enough to pass for that of a lawyer.) The Court eventually denied his request, claiming that he didn't use proper protocol in filing an "All Writs" petition, so he refiled using exacting protocol: * -Motion In Forma Pauperis, etc.- * * -UPDATED amicus (PDF)- * * -UPDATED amicus (*.doc)- * |
|
RELATED:
On Monday, June 28, 2021, I got an email from someone
named Adam Gintzburg, and representing on behalf of Finimpact, a website apparently which helps
provide funding for small businesses. Adam said that they just wrote a list of ways/tips to support and help LGBTQ-owned small businesses, and asked me to
consider adding this guide to this page (the gay marriage legal case) as an additional resource/information. While I have been exceptionally busy with
personal things, I now have a free moment to take a look at Adam's request. Their article,
linked here (and archived by
Archive Today as well as
The Wayback
Machine), suggests, among other things, that people buy from or donate to LGBTQ-owned businesses. We will take no position one way or the other as
to whom you should buy from, but, as mentioned in my court brief, on this page, all sides (both those "for" and those "against" same-sex marriage) all seem
to agree that gays, homosexuals, and all others who are in a minority status should NOT be mistreated or treated as "less" important: All people are
important, have worth, and are valuable.
To expand on that, my participation in this case was unique in two (2) ways: First, I was the only "non-lawyer" which this court allowed to participate (so
far as I know: A few other non-lawyers were denied participation). Secondly, I was the only "pro-marriage" litigant to advocate and defend gays against
mistreatment (for example, hospital visitations, life insurance policies, etc.), while at the same time defending the 1-man, 1-woman definition of
marriage (under Equal Protection standards) arguing that polygamy, aka plural marriage, had more legal precedent, and would have to be allowed if "same
sex" marriages were allowed by the court. (My fellow-Conservatives did not advocate loudly like me, but are certainly against mistreatment of gays.) See
e.g., the 01/06/2015 entry, and related "ORDER: regarding misc. motions," entered regarding my brief, by Justice Martin, accepting my amicus brief. So, in
conclusion, while there is a good chance that some of those LGBTQ business owners who may disagree on legal issues and definitions of marriage,
nonetheless, these are our neighbours, and we must realise that we should get along with one another. Therefore, I will give them some advertisement, and
hope that -- perhaps -- they will consider a kind exchange with links to my various mirror websites (both the front-page news mirrors, listed below, as
well as direct links to this docket, on its various mirrors).
Today is Sunday, 8-8-2021, a little over a month after Adam's 6-28-2021 email, but I am better late than never. As a Christian, I was treated well by
Christ, Sovereign King Jesus, Who (among other things) lived a perfect life to encourage our faith in His ability to save us from our sins, and so He
expects us to treat others well.~Editor, G.W.Watts// |
and use the
find bar.