Love Is All We Need.

Yesterday was a very special day at the Clark County Clerk's Office. For the first time ever, marriage licenses were being issued to all couples requesting licenses. Finally, Las Vegas was truly living up to its reputation as "The Marriage Capital of the World".



The crowd was huge at the Clark County Clerk's Office last night. The crowd wasn't as huge, however, at the Washoe County Clerk's Office. Nonetheless, the fortunate couples in Reno were greeted by flowers, cheers, and the marriage licenses they've been waiting so long for.



Finally, finally, marriage equality is now the law of the land here in Nevada. Kristy Best & Wednesday Smith were the very first same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in Nevada, as the Carson City Clerk's Office decided not to wait any longer for the formal injunction order that Clark & Washoe were still waiting for. But once that injunction order was issued (preventing any further enforcement of Nevada's marriage ban), Theodore Small & Antioco Carillo became the first Clark County same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license. Shortly after, Karen Vibe & Karen Goody became the first Washoe County same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license.

Shortly after, State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) tied the knot with Sherwood Howard. Later in the evening, RuPaul's Drag Race Season 5 Quarterfinalist Coco Montrese (aka Martin Cooper) became the first "Diva of Las Vegas" to obtain a marriage license. And the fun didn't even stop there. All through the night, Las Vegas wedding chapels stayed open to help newly licensed couples "put a ring on it".



Yep, this really happened. And why not? This was a night some fourteen years in the making.

In 2000, Question 2 was placed on the ballot by the usual H8 filled suspects with the intent of ensuring these joyous moments would never occur. In 2002, they succeeded when Question 2 passed Round 2 on the ballot. And for the next decade, the usual H8 filled suspects had immense political juice in this state.

But when US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) made his big announcement in May 2012, something changed. While Senator Reid had already been quietly evolving on this matter, his public proclamation radically changed the political dynamics of the marriage fight in this state. And of course, the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit forever changed the legal dynamics in this state.



Back in 2010, Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) reminisced on the dark days of 2002. And she summed up quite nicely why the Question 2 marriage ban would be struck down four years later. Why stop love? Why would someone even want to try stopping loving couples from enjoying their lives together? Just take a closer look at the couples featured above. Do you want to stop them?

Love is love is love. And now, love can no longer be stopped here in Nevada. Now, love (along with $60 for the license fee) is all one needs to be married here in Nevada. And yes, this is most definitely something to celebrate.

Happy Marriage Equality Day, Nevada!

It's here! It's finally here! It's finally happening.

Washoe and Clark Counties are now good to go. Carson City was actually first to the marriage equality party, as the County Clerk there decided not to wait for Judge Mahan's order. But once that injunction order hit the Twitter wires, everyone else quickly hopped on board the Equality Express.

Here's the official Freedom Nevada statement on today's joyous news.

“Today is a day for the history books. The freedom to marry has come to Nevada, and soon across our great state, loving same-sex couples will at long last share in the respect and dignity only marriage can provide,” said [State Director Ward] Curtin.



“From this day forward, marriage equality will strengthen our families, strengthen our communities and make Nevada a better place to live and work.”



“We are forever grateful for the incredible legal team at Lambda Legal and the brave plaintiff couples who put their families front and center in this historic fight. Without their heroic efforts, today’s victory would not have been possible.”

And here's Lt. Governor candidate Lucy Flores (D) on tonight's most pleasant (not really a) surprise.

“My sincere congratulations to my good friends Kelvin and Woody,” Assemblywoman Flores said in her official statement. “This is a great day for the LGBTQ community in Nevada. Allowing people to marry who they love is fundamentally the right thing to do. Very soon all Nevadans will be able to experience the legal rights that come with full marriage.”



“It is unfortunate that my opponent does not support equal rights,” she continued – referring to Sen. Mark Hutchison, the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor.

Here's what Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) tweeted:

#MarriageEquality finally! Congratulations to the couples getting married! #Nevada is on the right side of history! #NVproud #LGBT

Oh, and according to KSNV/News 3's Reed Cowan, State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) is now married! Congrats to Kelvin & Woody!

Consider this an open thread. We may update later if more major news breaks. Otherwise, we'll have a clean summary of the big break tomorrow morning.

Happy Marriage Equality Day, Nevada!

Marriage Equality: Where We Now Stand

So where do we now stand in the ongoing Sevcik v. Sandoval legal psychodrama? Here's the latest:

- The Ninth Circuit judges just reinstated their mandate to end Nevada's marriage ban.

- As we reported earlier, the usual (H8 filled) suspects dropped their petition to the US Supreme Court for a stay on the Ninth's ruling in favor of marriage equality. While the SCOTUS drama continues in Idaho, it's officially over here in Nevada.

- Now, all eyes turn to Las Vegas Federal District Judge James Mahan. Since the case is now in his court, it's up to him to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban.

- Once Judge Mahan issues this injunction that everyone in The Silver State is now eagerly awaiting, Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses an hour later. Other Nevada county clerks will likely soon follow.

- But in the mean time, Lambda Legal's Tara Borelli is wondering why we're even waiting: “Finally, the confusion has ended and the Ninth Circuit’s decision is final and fully in effect. While the trial court will enter an order in the case finalizing relief, nothing prevents marriages from beginning immediately for same-sex couples in Nevada.” And technically, she's correct. Our hunch is that after yesterday's Supreme clusterf-ck, county clerks are exercising extreme caution (perhaps, too extreme).

- And finally, expect more legal movement in the coming days in Alaska, Arizona, & Montana. These are the remaining states covered by the Ninth Circuit that don't yet have marriage equality (other than Idaho, which is appealing Tuesday's ruling).

So here's where we stand now. As soon as we find an announcement stating when marriages will begin in Nevada, we'll post an update.

What We Have... & What We Will No Longer Be Denied

(So we're still waiting for the federal district court to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban. Once that happens, marriage equality will finally be a reality here in Nevada. However that day may come sooner than originally thought, as Ninth Circuit Judge Steven Reinhardt ordered a prompt issuance demanding the lower court issue that injunction ASAP. And Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses at 2:00 PM today!

Here at Nevada Progressive, we've been waiting just over 5 years for this joyous occasion. To celebrate, we took to our archives and pulled out this gem from 2009. Oh, yes. That's right. We're going all the way back to the beginning of SB 283, and of this blog.

This not only explains what we've had for the past 5 years, but also why a few brave people decided to sue for full equality. And now, we're here. Hallelujah, the wait is finally over!)



Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".



OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality. But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.

.... As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does).

First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses.

Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.

Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development. And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.

But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.


I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.

Marriage Equality... Is Finally Coming to Nevada!

Boom goes the dynamite. Just like this, it's over.

We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we adopted in SmithKline.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion. Judges Marsha Berzon and Ronald Gould agreed, so the panel was unanimous in rendering this decision. The full Ninth Circuit opinion is now up. And like that, marriage equality is coming to Nevada! Oh, and it's coming to Idaho, too!

Actually, this is no suprise. Back in September, the Ninth Circuit judges were highly skeptical of the H8ers' whines and screams. H8ers are going to hate... But the Ninth Circuit panel wanted none of it.

Now keep in mind that this decision will not be appealed by the State of Nevada. And since the US Supreme Court just turned down seven cases appealing lower court pro-marriage rulings, it's probably a good idea for our world famous wedding chapels to prepare for the onslaught of wedding requests that's about to begin any day now.

Moments ago, Reps. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) tweeted their congratulations. We're still awaiting word from Cresent Hardy (R-"Segregation Laws"), Adam Laxalt (R-"Political Issues"), & Barbara Cegavske (R-License to Discriminate). And we have a feeling we'll see far more reactions from elected officials across the state as the news sets in.

Justice... Just Fashionally Late

Finally, we must wait no more... At least when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The nation's highest court had several marriage equality cases awaiting action. And now, we know the Supreme Court has denied petitions (for appeal) in all those cases.

So what does this mean? In short, marriage equality is now the law of the land in at least 5 more states: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah. By denying petitions of appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage will stand. This also means SCOTUS stays on those rulings expire today, and this is why marriages will likely begin today in Virginia and Wisconsin.

But wait, there's more. The Supreme Court essentially upheld these federal appellate court rulings de facto by dismissing the appeals. This will require lower federal courts within these appellate court circuits (4th, 7th, & 10th) to abide by these appellate court rulings. And this most likely opens the door to marriage bans being struck down quite soon in North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina (all 4th Circuit), Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado (all 10th Circuit). (Maryland, Illinois, and New Mexico already have marriage equality.)

But wait, what about us? Well, that's the downside of today's ruling. Because the 9th Circuit hasn't yet issued a ruling on Sevcik v. Sandoval, we'll have to wait a little longer here in Nevada.

But then again, we may not have to wait that much longer. If the 9th overturns Nevada's marriage ban (as most legal observers expect), the Supreme Court may not decide to place a stay on that ruling should opponents appeal. After all, the Court just dismissed all these cases.

Nevada's LGBTQ families have been waiting 12 years for this. And sadly, they will have to wait just a little longer for justice to finally arrive. But now, we can feel more confident about justice arriving to The Silver State. Just pardon her for arriving fashionably late.

Still Waiting

We've been waiting all week for this. And now, we have our answer. And yes, it involves another week of waiting.

Earlier today, the US Supreme Court announced a slew of cases it will be taking up next session. None of those cases are marriage equality cases.

However, the nation's highest court may announce next week more cases it will be taking up in the next session. Might Justices be waiting for decisions from the Ninth Circuit? (Probably, along with decisions from the Sixth Circuit on Tennessee's, Kentucky's, Ohio's, and Michigan's respective marriage bans.)

One of the cases now at the Supreme Court is Kitchen v. Herbert. This is the suit challenging Utah's marriage ban. If the Court decides to reject this appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage equality will stand... And marriages will resume in Utah.

Marriage equality will also come to Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma by the end of the year if the Supreme Court rejects appeals in all those cases. But wait, aren't we missing a state?

Hold on. We haven't been forgotten. Actually, Sevcik v. Sandoval is still in San Francisco at the moment. Even though most legal observers have a good idea as to how the Ninth Circuit will rule on Nevada's marriage ban, we still don't have an actual ruling yet. And since the usual suspects will likely appeal if the judges rule against upholding the 2000/2002 marriage ban, Nevada may be included on the Supreme Court's 2015 docket should the Justices decide to take up some or all of the marriage cases.

But for now, we're still waiting.

How It All Started

(Today, we're sifting through the Nevada Progressive archives, all the way back to April 2012. Yes, we've been monitoring the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit since its infancy. And now, we await both a decision from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and a possible intervention from the US Supreme Court. So today, let's go all the way back to the beginning of this groundbreaking civil rights law suit.)

Last night, the lead plaintiffs in the case that's destined to shake up Nevada's marriage law went to Ralston to make their case.

(Start at 9:00.)



Yet while we see a new round of media buzz on this issue, let's not forget that there's an actual case to be tried in court. As we touched on yesterday, how the federal courts taking up this case interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be key. And while there are similarities to the Prop 8 case in California, there's one key difference that Prop 8 Trial Tracker noted yesterday.

Lamdba Legal’s suit is no doubt in part inspired by the success of the American Foundation for Equal Rights in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, which led to historic rulings in favor of marriage equality in California both at the district and appellate court levels. Nevada, like California, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so lawyers in the Sevcik case could cite the Prop 8 ruling in the Ninth Circuit as precedent. Additionally, any appeal of the eventual Sevcik ruling would end up at the Ninth Circuit just like Perry did.

Despite these similarities, the legal arguments that Lamdba Legal are pursuing in Sevcik are not quite the same as AFER’s arguments in Perry. The central complaint in the new Nevada case is an equal protection claim that domestic parternships violate the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. In the Prop 8 case, AFER made the same equal protection claim but also argued for a fundamental right to marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lamdba, explained to MetroWeekly that the group “certainly believe[s] that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples, but this court doesn’t need to answer that question to rule for the plaintiffs here. We’re convinced that our equal protection claim is so clearly correct that we want to keep the focus on that claim.”

Lambda Legal’s strategy makes the Sevcik case a more conservative one than the Prop 8 case in Perry, and would appear to be a response at least in part to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Prop 8 case, which declined to address the fundamental right question and instead focused more specifically on the circumstances unique to California’s situation.

In explaining Lambda’s complaint, Borelli said, “One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state’s decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage.”

So the Sevcik case here in Nevada will come down to whether domestic partnership actually provides "equal protection under the law", and if we can ever have true equal protection as long as the Question 2 marriage ban remains on the books. Unlike AFER's argument for a broad, nationwide fundamental right to marry that's being made in the Perry case in California, Lambda Legal is making a narrower argument based on the inequality present in Nevada family law and how that can not make federal Constitutional muster. It looks like Lambda Legal is confident that even if some federal judges are hesitant to use one stroke to knock down all the state marriage bans at once, they have to closely examine situations like ours and realize that we're experiencing clear and illegal discrimination.

So where will we go from here? For now, this will be in courtroom of Senior Judge Roger Hunt. And regardless of how Hunt decides, this will likely head next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough, The Ninth is the same court that issued a narrow ruling in the Perry case back in February, a narrow ruling centered on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And funny enough, the Sevcik case will be argued on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Coincidence?

And like the California case, don't expect any immediate resolution. This may very well end up on the Supreme Court docket, but perhaps not for another 3-5 years. So buckle up and get ready for a long and bumpy and fascinating and trailblazing ride.

Constructive Criticism

Today, we're trying to be nicer. A little earlier, we gave some helpful advice to NV-04 candidate Cresent Hardy (R) on "segregation laws". And now, we'd like to help another prominent Nevada Republican.

So now, we're turning our attention to Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R)... And his many "political issues".

Last weekend, Adam Laxalt finally did a debate with his general election opponent, Ross Miller (D). OK, so at least he listened to us on that. But then, all of this happened.



No wonder why Laxalt has been so reluctant to agree to further debates. Ever since his "legal issues" have been unearthed, Laxalt has faced questions of his fitness to serve as Attorney General.

Laxalt has since tried to bury the story of the brutal evaluations from his own law firm by leaking "rave reviews" from the military and his law firm. He's even claiming now that he's "closing the gap" with Miller in his internal polling... Even though he refused to provide any actual numbers to anyone.

Adam Laxalt always likes to claim others have "no respect for the rule of law". So where's his? (Start around 3:00.)



No matter what Laxalt likes to claim about the state constitution and his opinions on various state & federal statutes, he needs to remember the ultimate supremacy of the US Constitution. Obamacare is the law of the land because the US Supreme Court declared it passed Constitutional muster. And federal courts continue to strike down bans on marriage equality because they're finding these marriage bans don't pass Constitutional muster.

Because we're feeling nice today, we'll give Adam Laxalt some constructive criticism. Perhaps before he opens his mouth and further embarrasses himself, he should first do his homework and get his facts straight.

The Waiting Game

Last week, the State of Nevada had no one present. No one even bothered to show up for court in San Francisco. Instead, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals instead had to endure this bucket full of crazy last week.

We will likely receive a ruling from the Ninth on Sevcik v. Sandoval fairly soon. And so far, marriage equality seem to be liking their odds.

Yet now, other states may have leapfrogged ahead of Nevada on the way to the US Supreme Court. However, Nevada may yet slip onto The Supremes' docket if the Ninth issues a ruling on Sevcik this week.



As we've discussed before, the US Supreme Court set this chain of lower court marriage rulings with its US v. Windsor. Will the SCOTUS Justices who ruled so passionately in favor of LGBTQ civil rights reverse course so suddenly? We seriously doubt it, but we can't take anything for granted there.

Now here's where it becomes even more interesting. The State of Nevada dropped its legal defense of marriage discrimination in February. That's why no one from the State of Nevada even bothered to show up in San Francisco last Monday to argue for the Question 2 marriage ban. And that's why US Supreme Court Justices will have to determine standing (a la Prop 8 California) should the usual suspects decide to appeal the Ninth's ruling.

This is why we're now playing the waiting game. If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of equality, Nevada may become State #18 for marriage equality by next month. Or we may not, should SCOTUS decide to place that ruling on hold. Perhaps our case may be one of the marriage cases that will set a national precedent next year. Or perhaps not, should SCOTUS decide not to take up Sevcik at all.

Whatever happens, this month promises to be an exciting one for civil rigts activists here in The Silver State. We're just waiting to see what comes next.

General Issue

It happened again. Another court weighed down on the side of equality. However, this time was special.

This time, an appellate court ruled unequivocally in favor of marriage equality. And unlike the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals' rather restrained ruling that overturned (just) California's marriage ban in 2012, the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals did not hold back when striking down Virginia's marriage ban. In fact, this ruling doesn't stop at the Virginia state line.



While the 3 judge panel at the Fourth Circuit specifically took on Virginia marriage law in this case, they ruled 2-1 in favor of a strong rebuke of marriage discrimination on 5th and 14th Amendment grounds that applies to the entire region covered by the Fourth Circuit. The majority opinion was strong enough for North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) to declare he will no longer defend his state's marriage ban in court. And for the record, North Carolina also falls under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (along with Maryland, South Carolina, and West Virginia).

This Fourth Circuit ruling comes just month after the Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down Utah's and Oklahoma's respective marriage bans. And it comes about 4 months before the Ninth Circuit takes on marriage equality again as Nevada's own Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit arrives in San Francisco. And with Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and outgoing Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) both declining to defend Nevada's marriage ban any longer, Nevada may soon go the way of California and Virginia.



Outgoing Secretary of State and current Attorney General candidate Ross Miller (D) refused to mince words when he delivered a passionate legal and personal endorsement of marriage equality in Reno last month. His general election opponent, Adam Laxalt (R), has dismissed this and other LGBTQ civil rights matters as mere "political issues" that he prefers to mock and demean.

Funny enough, Virginia Republicans have been screaming at Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) ever since he decided to drop the state's defense of its marriage ban. Perhaps they even sensed this was coming, as Virginia Republicans spent millions trying to defeat Mark Herring in the very hotly contested Attorney General race last year.

A State Attorney General's job is to defend both the state constitution and the federal constitution. But when the 2 are in conflict, the US Constitution trumps all. Ross Miller seems to understand this, yet Adam Laxalt does not. Keep an eye on this, as it may become a "political issue" this fall that Mr. Laxalt may later come to regret mocking.

This Is Why Elections Matter.

This morning, the US Supreme Court decided to tinker with workers' right to unionize... And the very survival of the American labor movement... And women's rights at work... And employers' ability to dictate their workers' health care decisions.

Both decisions were allegedly narrow, but they have the potential to set very dangerous precedents. Oh, and both decisions were 5-4. Who could have guessed the Roberts Court is so extremely ideologically divided?

In Harris v. Quinn, the 5 conservative Justices ruled in favor of a handful of home health care workers who did not want to pay union dues to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations. In order to curb "free riders", non - union workers were required to pay some sort of reimbursement fees to the unions for negotiating higher pay and better benefits for them. But now, 5 Justices (guess who!) just punctured a hole in this arrangement.

Now, they claim there's a separate class of workers who are "public employees" but are not really "public employees". Confused yet? Try Andy Kroll's Mother Jones primer for Harris. Suffice to say, today's ruling doesn't completely eviscerate the American labor movement... But it does bruise workers and threatens more pain ahead.

And then, there's Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. Once again, we have a 5-4 ruling. Once again, we have a troubling precedent that threatens workers' rights. And once again, we have theoretical "religious freedom" valued over real women's health.

In Hobby Lobby, 5 Justices (guess who!) ruled that "closely held corporations" (essentially family run enterprises) can claim "religious objections" when denying workers contraception and other forms of reproductive health care. Strangely enough, some progressives are breathing sighs of relief today because this rather jumbled ruling actually gave plenty of room for the federal government to step in and provide reproductive health care to affected workers. The ruling was also designed to be narrow enough to avoid threatening other health care benefits (like blood transfusions and vaccinations) and/or legalizing workplace discrimination.

Still, this sets a frightening precedent. What if the hardest of hard-line conservative Justices just had one or two more votes on the Supreme Court? The message from Justice Samuel Alito (who authored both majority opinions) seems to be that he's waiting for just this to go even further in the direction of undoing the entire past century of progress on workers' rights and women's rights.

Here's a helpful hint: This is why elections matter. Presidents appoint and Senators confirm Supreme Court Justices. And there's a good chance we'll see at least one more vacancy this decade. Imagine the difference one vote could have made today.

This is why elections matter.

Some "Issues"

This morning, 3 very important judicial decisions dropped. So let's take a look at them.

In Denver, the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling overturning Utah's ban on marriage equality. And in doing so, the 10th made a very critical announcement. In their ruling, the majority of 10th Circuit Justices made a major declaration that may end up further accelerating the arrival of nationwide marriage equality.

“Today’s ruling marks the first time a federal court of appeals has ruled that excluding same-sex couples from the freedom to marry is unconstitutional," said NCLR executive director Kate Kendell in a statement. "The court makes clear that the promise of equality embedded in our revered U.S. Constitution includes the lives and loves of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. That recognition marks an indelible milestone in our nation’s journey to full inclusion — and one that will undoubtedly influence other courts in the months to come.”

Attorney Peggy Tomsic, who presented the arguments on behalf of the Utah couples — Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge, and Karen Archer and Kate Call — noted the far-reaching consequences of a federal appeals court's involvement.

"The court’s ruling is a victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case," Tomsic said in a statement, "but for our entire state and every state within the 10th Circuit.”

  
The 10th Circuit includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. In its opinion, the 10th Circuit noted that the Windsor case "left open the question presented to us now in full bloom: May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?" Then it sided unequivocally against the ban. "Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union."

Every so often, we've examined the awfully strong Constitutional case for marriage equality. None other than 5 US Supreme Court Justices hinted at it in their Windsor ruling almost exactly a year ago. In fact, several federal district judges have cited Windsor in their rulings striking down state marriage bans...

Including the latest one in Indiana. Judge Richard L. Young didn't mince words when ruling in favor of couples seeking the freedom to marry. And while it's unclear how soon marriages will begin in Indiana, this ruling just adds to the favorable trend for equality in federal court.

And speaking of federal court, let's take a glance at some big news happening closer to home. In San Francisco, the full 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals rejected an en banc (or full court) review of an earlier decision requiring heightened scrutiny in all cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. Remember that Sevcik v. Sandoval is now in the 9th as it awaits a November hearing. And even before this confirmation, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) & Governor Brian Sandoval (R) had already abandoned their legal defense of Nevada's marriage ban. So today's announcement further signals the arrival of marriage equality to Nevada is no longer a question of if, but when.

So today, we have 3 more federal court rulings in favor of LGBTQ equality. And all 3 suggest Question 2's stoppage of marriage equality in Nevada are numbered. Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R) and his "TEA" tinged ideological soulmates may have "political issues" with this, but judges who actually interpret the US Constitution for a living only seem to have issues with those who want to deny millions of loving families their b civil rights.

"Political Issue"

Again? He's going there again? He just doesn't seem to know when to quit before he falls even further behind.

Even as Governor Brian Sandoval (R) agreed to drop his fight against the plaintiffs in Sevcik v. Sandoval, Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R) vowed to continue fighting against marriage equality. And he's still doing so today. Even though he's been "softening" his language (a la Pat Hickey) as of late, Adam Laxalt is still hard set against equality.

“(The ban) is in the (state) constitution. That’s the thing that has been bothersome. It has been made a political issue. If we allow these to become political issues in the attorney general’s office, everyone will lose faith in the attorney general.”

Actually, Mr. Laxalt, this was "made a political issue" by Richard Ziser and Janine Hansen when they placed the Question 2 marriage ban on the 2000 & 2002 general election ballots. They launched a campaign to ban marriage equality in Nevada. And they ultimately succeeded in 2002.

However since then, two things have changed. One is public opinion, both here in Nevada and nationally. The other is federal courts stepping in to remind states that these little marriage bans just happen to violate a little something called the US Constitution.

And then, there's something that hasn't changed: family values. And by family values, we mean true values. Love. Honor. Cherish. Commitment. These are values that be taken away by ballot initiative. Richard Ziser and Janine Hansen tried, but they couldn't succeed at this.

Remember, this "has been made a political issue" by Ziser, Hansen, and their anti-equality allies. This "has been made a political issue" by Adam Laxalt's ideological soulmates whenever they started political campaigns to take away people's civil rights. And this "has been made a political issue" by these same G-O-TEA politicians who are now attacking the courts for acknowledging Constitutional law.

As usual, Adam Laxalt is wrong. Marriage equality "has been made a political issue" by those in his political party who sought political advantage by demonizing LGBTQ people and our Constitutional rights. But now that case law and public opinion are no longer swinging in their direction, they're trying to "play victim" by claiming that those who are now undoing the damage of the past 14 years are somehow making this into "a political issue". Nice try, Mr. Laxalt, but we're onto you and your "political issues".

Not If... But When

Just yesterday, we talked about two more to fall. Now, we can add another one to the pile: Pennsylvania. No really, Pennsylvania is the latest state where a federal court struck down its marriage ban.

As we were discussing yesterday, marriage equality is increasingly becoming a legal reality for the entire nation. And it's only a matter of time before it arrives in Nevada.

When the US Supreme Court issued its US v. Windsor ruling, it made clear that anti-LGBTQ discrimination would no longer be welcomed there. And since that ruling, we've had this long string of federal judges issuing rulings in favor of equality. That's certainly not a coincidence. Lower federal courts tend to take their queues from "The Supremes".

And it's not a coincidence that Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) & Governor Brian Sandoval (R) decided to drop their legal defense of marriage discrimination this past February. The original defendants in Sevcik v. Sandoval had tried to make their case in court, but that only blew up in their faces. They ultimately had to realize that they truly had no Constitutional ground to stand on, so they stood down.

It's no longer a question of if... But rather, when. When will Question 2 finally be tossed into the dustbin of history? When will Nevada's marriage ban be declared unconstitutional? When will marriage equality arrive in The Silver State?

Just two years ago, Sevcik v. Sandoval seemed like a long shot. But now, it's feeling more like a slam dunk. But really, this was bound to happen. Eventually, public opinion would catch up with Constitutional law.

And it's no longer a question of if it will arrive here... But when.

Losing Culture War

We told you this was coming. When the US Supreme Court issued its US v. Windsor ruling, we sensed this would only the beginning of more federal courts ruling in favor of marriage equality. And since then, we haven't been disappointed.

Just this month, we've had two more favorable rulings: Idaho and Oregon. Federal judges just knocked down two more state marriage bans. And now, it only seems to be a matter of time before Nevada is next.

Governor Brian Sandoval (R) is still trying to figure out how he really feels about it. Adam Laxalt is still promising to fight against it. Monte Neil Stewart is still trying to convince a judge that segregation should be legal. And Cresent Hardy is still explaining to anyone who will listen what he means by "segregation laws".

So how's that "Republican rebranding" coming along? Georgia? Florida? Texas? Michigan? Nevada?

We sensed this was coming. G-O-TEA politicians across the nation are still in denial. Marriage equality is increasingly becoming the law of the land across this great land. Yet even as court after court strikes down more marriage bans, G-O-TEA politicians try harder to "rebrand" it away.

When will they finally realize they can't? Love is makes a family. All families deserve to be valued. And marriage is meant for loving families.

We told you this was coming. Marriage equality is increasingly becoming reality across the nation. It just remains to be seen how much longer G-O-TEA politicians want to continue fighting their losing "Culture War" to stop equality.

Free-dumb

Might the armed madness finally be nearing an end? After over a month of Cliven Bundy and his gang of "outlaw cowboys" running rampant and unleashing mayhem upon Gold Butte and the Virgin Valley, law enforcement may finally step up to put an end to this. And we're not just talking about any law enforcement. Now, the FBI is starting to investigate #BundyRanch while the BLM is preparing to take Bundy (back) to court.



Yet as the Bundy Gang are starting to encounter consequences for their actions here in Nevada, that isn't stopping them from spreading their signature brand of armed madness into another state. Last week, they began making noises about BLM land in southeastern Utah. Apparently, they've been upset over the BLM restricting all terrain vehicle (ATV) use in Recapture Canyon, an area well known for Native American petroglyphs and sensitive riparian habitats.

Even before last week, Recapture Canyon had been subjected to repeated acts of vandalism. But last weekend, that vandalism reached new levels when the Bundy Gang decided to take an ATV joy ride through the area. Oh yeah, who cares about some silly birds and burial sites. The Bundy Gang only care about their Free-dumb!

And they're not alone. Since last month, a number of G-O-TEA politicians have joined the Koch funded AFP in encouraging this kind of armed rebellion. And even though they've been trying to avoid Bundy's racist comments, they've still been championing the extreme ideology behind those comments.

They may not be alone, but they are quite clearly in the wrong. The vast majority of Westerners don't condone this behavior. And perhaps more importantly, both state & federal law forbid it.



For all their talk of "loving the Constitution", these "Constitutional conservatives" seem to have no idea how the US Constitution actually works. And they seem to forget that the Constitution set up the very federal government that they oh so hate now.

So what are they fighting for? What are they demanding? What are they making the case for?

Apparently, free-dumb. They demand the free-dumb to vandalize and flat out destroy property that belongs to the American people. And they don't care who gets hurt in the process.

Here in America, these fringe characters have the freedom to be stupid. They just don't have the free-dumb to pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

"Basic Plumbing Lessons"

Here we go again. Last month (and year), the 21st Century Know Nothings went to great lengths to defend their beloved Dynasty (of Quackery) after the Dynasty's patriarch had plenty of not-nice-at-all things to say about people of color and LGBTQ folk. We guess when the rest of America has moved comfortably into the 21st Century, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors must find some televised cave in which to hide from it.

But now, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Born That Way?) is emerging from that cave. And he has something to say. He says federal judges who rule in favor of marriage equality "need some basic plumbing lessons". Wait, what??!!

Oh, no he didn't. Grrl, please!

Rep. Gohmert seems to forget that these judges have actually had many plumbing lessons. In fact, they're supposed to be experts at the plumbing that nourishes the America we know and love: The US Constitution!

Federal judges have overturned state bans on same-sex marriage in three states now — California, Utah, and Oklahoma — in addition to decisions by state courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico. The most recent rulings in Utah and Oklahoma are thorough but reach a simple conclusion: defining marriage as only between a man and a woman accomplishes nothing and only serves to discriminate against same-sex couples. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, the judges wrote, so the disparate treatment of these amendments violates this principle.

Doesn't Louie Gohmert care about our Constitution? Doesn't he love freedom? What's his problem with America?

And if you're wondering why this all sounds familiar, that's because it should. The equal protection argument forms the heart of Nevada's Sevcik v. Sandoval federal marriage suit. And the US Supreme Court suggested that LGBTQ families indeed deserve equal protection under the law in its US v. Windsor decision last June.

So if anyone "needs basic plumbing lessons", it's Louie Gohmert and other G-O-TEA politicians trying to stop progress on LGBTQ civil rights. Hey, someone's got to say the ugly truth.

The Last Laugh

Roughly 18 months ago, a whole lot of heads were exploding in Carson City and Las Vegas. Why? Sevcik v. Sandoval was filed in federal court. And with that, Nevada finally had its own marriage equality law suit.

Last November, the trial court judge dismissed the suit... But he did so in such a laughably bizarre way that he was basically daring an appeal. And now, his dare has been granted in San Francisco.

On Friday, Lambda Legal filed their opening brief inSevcik v. Sandoval, the challenge to Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban. The same-sex couples who are plaintiffs in the case lost at the district court in late November last year. Their appeal to the Ninth Circuit was filed within months of the challenge to Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban, and the cases were put on a parallel track (although Hawaii’s is now on hold pending a special session of the state legislature to take up a marriage equality bill.)

The brief, filed along with a request to allow for 26,500 words, is the first argument in favor of marriage equality to reach a federal appeals court following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And theWindsor case figures prominently in the new filing. Picking up an argument made in Garden State Equality v. Dow, a state court challenge to New Jersey’s same-sex marriage ban, the plaintiffs argue that Nevada’s marriage ban now has stateand federal repercussions:

"Same-sex couples’ exclusion from the institution of marriage brands them as less deserving of equal dignity and respect and demeans them and their children. The marriage ban also blocks same-sex couples from rights and responsibilities across the entire spectrum of federal law."

Here's where it gets quite interesting. Keep in mind that this is the first marriage law suit to reach a federal appellate court since the US Supreme Court took a major bite out of marriage discrimination in its US v. Windsor ruling this past June. In that case, "The Supremes" essentially established a precedent in applying strict scrutiny to cases involving anti-LGBTQ discrimination while also striking down Section 3 of DOMA (or the "Defense of Marriage Act").

Now add this to The Ninth's history on marriage equality suits, and we can understand why Steve Sebelius is feeling bullish about Sevcik's future. Both The Ninth and The Supremes have ruled against government denying LGBTQ families the same relationship recognition and legal protection afforded to other families. Lambda Legal and the attorneys working for the couples suing Nevada recognize this, and that's why they cite the Windsor decision quite a bit in their brief.

Last November, Judge Robert C. Jones laughed this case out of his trial court. But in the end, the last laugh may be on him. Both legal trends and public opinion have shifted dramatically in favor of equality in just the past four years. Judge Jones may have thought he was thwarting a challenge to Nevada's current marriage law, but he may ultimately play a role in setting up an even bigger legal battle with even bigger results for LGBTQ families in Nevada and throughout the nation.

Standing on Bitter Ground

On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.

Thousands of demonstrators from across the country — chanting, praying and even fighting tears — protested a jury’s decision to clear neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager while the Justice Department considered whether to file criminal civil rights charges. [...]

The NAACP and protesters called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday in Martin’s February 2012 shooting death. The Justice Department said it is looking into the case to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. [...]

In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. “You can’t justify murder,” read one poster. Another read “Don’t worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans.” Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. “I was really devastated. It’s really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free,” she said. [...]

In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin’s name and “No justice, no peace!”

“We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men,” said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest’s organizers. “And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system.”

A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".

Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?

That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?

Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.

So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.