Comments on: Federal judge rules against gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Nevada marriage equality case

By: Right to “Vote with their Feet” Odious | McAffee's Machinations

Right to “Vote with their Feet” Odious | McAffee's Machinations — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:04:28 +0000

[...] November 26, a federal district court ruled against eight same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Nevada. In the case, the plaintiffs argued that Nevada’s [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Does the Nevada marriage equality ruling change the Supreme Court’s calculus on Prop 8?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:51:03 +0000

[...] NPR affiliate KQED, wrote on KQED’s newsfix blog yesterday that the recent district court ruling in Sevcik v. Sandoval, the Nevada marriage equality case, could complicate the Supreme [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Nevada marriage equality case Sevcik v. Sandoval appealed to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:01:52 +0000

[...] week a federal district court judge in Nevada ruled against gay and lesbian couples who challenged Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage as a violation of [...]

By: Breaking: Judge Rules State Has Right To Limit Marriage To Straight Couples | The New Civil Rights Movement

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:15:02 +0000

[...] “will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Scottie Thomaston at Prop 8 Trial Tracker adds: The judge’s ruling against the plaintiffs was anticipated after he expressed skepticism [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:29:59 +0000

Exactly. I think the very idea of "promoting traditional marriage" is beyond absurd, as the state really does very little to do so and arbitrarily attaching more and more benefits to marriage sounds really more like coercion than promotion. But "promoting traditional marriage" does not require to do that on the backs of other people.

By: Str8Grandmother

Str8Grandmother — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:18:46 +0000

Thanks Steve

By: Johyn

Johyn — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:13:31 +0000

I don't thing writing to the editor will go anywhere. You can go on-line and file a complaint and get a case number. Mine was kicked up the the Publisher in the UK. He wrote back telling me that Elsiver stands behind Regenerus and his paper. sigh

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:55:40 +0000

That's pretty silly reasoning though and based on nothing but historical reasons. Really just legal hairsplitting. It should be argued that DPs and CUs are legally equivalent to marriages on a state level (at least in theory) and thus should be treated the same at the federal level.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:53:16 +0000

To clarify, the main rationale in High Tech Gays was that gays can't be a protected class because being gay is criminalized. That's obviously not the case anymore.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:51:46 +0000

SCOTUS already invalidated High Tech Gays years ago. It's based on Bowers and thus no longer good law. It's just that courts so far have refused to revisit that issue and review the situation in light of Lawrence v Texas.