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's Next?

Apparently, we're not done checking up on our original homeland. And sadly, we have to discuss another heartbreaking Orange County story here.

In June, Zoraida Reyes was found dead in the parking lot of a Diary Queen in Anaheim. She was a fierce activist who advocated tirelessly for immigrant and trans* civil rights. When she passed away, the local DREAMer and transgender communities were shocked by this horrifying loss.



But now, they're a little closer to justice. On Tuesday, Anaheim Police arrested Randy Lee Parkerson for suspicion of murder. Anaheim Police are not investigating the Zoraida Reyes case as a hate crime, even though local trans* activists suspect Reyes' transgender identity was a "huge factor" in her death.

Southern California LGBTQ community advocates are also asking questions in the death of Aniya Parker in the East Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles. LA Police initially described Parker's death as the result of a "robbery gone bad", but video surveillance shows the assailants shooting Parker after she ran away from them, then leaving her purse behind.



The untimely deaths of Zoraida Reyes and Aniya Parker in Southern California serve as sorrowful reminders of the dangers so many LGBTQ Americans still face in this nation. And they serve as reminders to LGBTQ civil rights activists that we still haven't reached the end of the long road to equality just yet.

Now, we're finally a bit closer here in Nevada. Just moments ago, Jon Ralston posted the document showing the usual H8 filled suspects withdrawing their respective petitions to the US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay in Sevcik v. Sandoval. They can still try requesting an en banc hearing in the Ninth or an appeal to the US Supreme Court. But as we've explained before, Perry v. Brown will ultimately be cited in their dismissal due to lack of standing.

So now, finally, after this very long wait, marriage equality is coming to Nevada. And already, we can hear folks asking, "What's next?" "What do those people want?" "Can't they leave all us 'normal people' alone now?"

As long as injustice persists, the beautiful struggle for equality continues. As the old saying goes, "No Justice, No Peace." Hate crimes are still happening, and perpetrators are still claiming "panic defense". People are still being fired, and perpetrators are still claiming "freedom". People still face wrongful discrimination on a number of matters daily, and perpetrators are still claiming "segreation laws".

While we've come a long way here in Nevada, there is still more progress needed here. And yes, there's still far more progress needed nationally. Today, we can't help but feel relieved that the Nevada case is finally coming to an end as marriage equality is fast on the move nationally. However, this doesn't mean the LGBTQ civil rights movement is now finished.

So what's next? Justice. And equality. For everyone. As long as people like Zoraida Reyes and Aniya Parker are losing their lives because of who they are, we should all know what's next for the LGBTQ civil rights movement.

Dammit, Justice (Kennedy) Delayed Again.

Of course, it can't be easy. It can't be simple. It must be confusing.

When we woke up this morning, marriage equality was set to become the law of the land here in Nevada today. Because the State of Nevada already promised not to appeal the case, the legal fight was supposed to end today.

But then, this happened. And mass confusion on Twitter soon followed. Some legal experts seem to think US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's temporary stay in Idaho also applies to Nevada because both cases were consolidated by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, but SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston is reporting Justice Kennedy's stay only applies to Idaho (as that state is appealing The Ninth's ruling).

For now, it looks like Nevada officials are once again erring on the side of caution. Moments ago, the Clark County Clerk's Office recanted its proclamation from last night and will not issue marriage licenses today. And since the Washoe County Clerk's Office had already stated its plans to wait this out, that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

So what happened? Short answer: Idaho. Longer answer: Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) is appealing the ruling, and the state's lawyers requested a temporary stay from Justice Kennedy. So Kennedy granted the stay.

But because Idaho and Nevada cases are consolidated, we must wait even longer to find out where we actually stand. Will the Supremes "decouple" the cases? Will they decide to take up both cases? Or will both cases be subsequently dismissed (like all the other ones were on Monday)?

Stay tuned. This isn't over yet.

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.

"It's Over."

It always feels so good to be validated. But how are we supposed to feel when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) validates us? Well, this is why we're feeling quite awkward this morning.

But hey, he said it: "It's over." And he's correct about this.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court green-lighted marriage equality in Wisconsin, Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Utah by denying petitions for appeal in their respective marriage cases. And because the Court let these appellate court rulings stand, marriages may soon begin in even more states. Already, Colorado Attorney General John Suther (R) stood down and ordered all 64 Colorado county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses as soon as possible, so marriages are now even happening there.

Just a year ago, marriage equality in Utah was unimaginable. But now, it's reality.





And eventually, it will be reality here in Nevada. Just don't tell Nevada Republican luminaries Adam Laxalt & Cresent Hardy. For them, "segregation laws" always make great "political issues". And yes, they still have plenty of company in the Nevada Republican Party.

Oh, and don't tell the religious wrong. They're still condemning the US Supreme Court for striking down (back in 2003!) state laws that pushed police officers into people's bedrooms. And of course, they're condemning yesterday's Supreme (in)action as "unconstitutional". Clearly, they're still in need of "basic plumbing lessons" on Constitutional law... Along with a general reality check.



Apparently, they haven't received Scott Walker's memo yet. It's over. Yes, truly, it's over.

Well, OK, it's not completely over yet. It won't be until we have marriage equality nationwide. But in terms of the political "optics" (that certain media pundits love to talk about), it's over. Sorry, H8ers.

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.

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".

Because It Works

We've been waiting quite some time for this. After years of ballot initiatives, legal challenges, and legislation, medical marijuana is closer than ever to becoming fully legal in Nevada. Nine months after SB 374 was signed into law, Clark County is preparing zoning regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries.

So why is this important? Clark County is the first Southern Nevada municipal government to consider medical marijuana dispensary regulations. And that means Clark County may be the first Southern Nevada municipal government to legally sanction the sale of medical marijuana.

Even with the state legalizing medical marijuana dispensaries, the City of Henderson has banned them while the City of Las Vegas has been dragging its feet in issuing dispensary regulations and most of the rest of the state's municipal governments have been sitting on their hands. So it's a big (f**king) deal that Clark County is moving forward in allowing dispensaries.

But why is this such a big deal? Why should local governments cater to potheads' desires to get stoned? Believe it or not, this is about more than just "potheads getting stoned". This is about patients accessing the treatment they need.

Like it or not, some patients use marijuana as medicine... Because it works. What hasn't worked, on the other hand, is the War on Drugs. While many of the above mentioned potheads have been subjected to long, expensive, and nonsensical prison sentences, multinational drug cartels continue to thrive in the violence plagued black market. The cartels truly have been the only ones "winning" the War on Drugs.

In the big picture of the War on Drugs, Clark County's consideration of dispensary regulations may not seem like a big deal. However, it will be should Clark County adopt new regulations. After decades of criminalizing people who are just looking for treatment that works, Nevada has the chance to move in a different direction... And start implementing sensible drug policies that work.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

Last week, we looked at the increasingly evident failure of the Republican Party's "rebranding campaign". Even as party "leaders" have attempted to "soften their image" and "change the optics" of the Republican brand, the 21st Century Know Nothings have been pulling G-O-TEA politicians in the opposite direction. And so far, it looks like the 21st Century Know Nothings have the upper hand.

Case in point: Sharron Angle. She refuses to go away. Instead, she's become the de facto leader of Nevada Republicans. And now that she's hawking a brand new voter ID voter suppression initiative, Nevada Republicans will have an even harder time trying to convince minority voters that they "care about all Nevadans" and actually care about earning their votes. Why bother with that when Sharron Angle can just prevent them from voting in the first place?

And that brings us back to Sue Wagner. Her departure from the Republican Party should serve as a wake-up call. Once upon a time, she was considered to be the rising star most likely to become Nevada's first female Governor. But now, she's just another example of Republicans' rebranding FAIL.

On Tuesday, Republican "leaders" were hoping that Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers' (R-Washington) "official Republican response" (as opposed to all the other ones) would help quell all the talk of their party's "rebranding" failure. Instead, it's been overshadowed by this Republican response.



Rep. Michael Grimm's shocking, violent confrontation of a reporter has not just turned the media's attention to Grimm's own troubled past, but also to the Republican Party's troubled present. This week was supposed to be all about the "new face of the party". Yet ironically enough, the "new faces" shown this week look an awful lot like the old ones we've come to recognize.

This week, the usual crew of "Republican leaders" are claiming their party is not trying to shove some crazed Culture War down Americans' throats, the critical mass of their own party continue to prove the opposite. After all, actions speak louder than words.

The Ultimate "Rebranding" FAIL

This morning, we couldn't help but take another glance at that terrific "Republican rebranding" campaign underway. Ain't it something to behold?

Apparently, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R-Still Doesn't Know It's 2014) wants to add his own contribution to the "Republican rebranding" campaign. But how so? Oh, he's continuing to fight against marriage equality in federal court. No really, he had the Attorney General's office file this brief with the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

So what does it say? Get a load of this.

State's brief: "The institution of traditional marriage pervades Nevada law and society... (has) a defining effect on Nevada’s society." [...]

NV brief: "Nevada law that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman is legitimate..under equal protection or due process standards." [...]

Followed by: "interest of the State in defining marriage ..motivated by the state’s desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage."

"Institution of traditional marriage"? What does Governor Sandoval mean by that? Is he talking about the "institution" Britney Spears flew into town a decade ago to indulge in for a grand 55 hours? (Don't worry, Brit Brit. We still love you!)

And let's talk about that "interest of the state". In 1931, the "interest of the state" involved attracting more dollars into the state and finding a way to ride out The Great Depression. That's why "quickie weddings" and "easy divorces" came into existence and made a lasting mark on Nevada marriage laws.

So who's Governor Sandoval kidding here with his talk of "traditional marriage"? We already know he's on very shaky legal ground. And in the wake of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision to adopt the "heightened scrutiny" standard for cases of anti-LGBTQ discrimination, Governor Sandoval is now standing on incredibly unstable ground.

Dare we ask, who is he getting his advice from? This season's "Bachelor"? Dave Agema? Perhaps Sherri Shepard? Or was it just someone who was trying to compete with the comedic platinum that we're finding in this hot mess of a brief brought to us by the usual suspects?

So how's that "Republican rebranding" coming along, Nevada G-O-TEA? We see you're still trying to deny what's increasingly undeniable. And you're still twisting yourselves into knots to try to defend the indefensible. And you wonder why your recruitment campaign is increasingly looking like this?

Embrace the Weed

Well, isn't this interesting? Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) dropped quite the bomb during his interview with Las Vegas Sun's Karoun Demirjian. So what was this bong bomb? Go ask Mary Jane about it.

No really, Senator Reid said he's down with medical marijuana. This marks another major policy evolution for the Senator. He's never even tried pot before. And not that long ago, he was a willing "Drug Warrior". But now, he says it's time for a change.

And why not? SB 374 is now the law of the land here in Nevada. Medical studies have shown that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, and that there are legitimate health benefits of medical marijuana. Oh, and most Americans now support full legalization of (medical & recreational) marijuana.

Even President Obama now seems to be accepting the science... And society's changing attitudes. So why are Las Vegas & Henderson dragging their feet on allowing medical marijuana dispensaries? Patients need it. The state will soon officially sanction dispensaries to provide it. Why are Nevada's two largest cities pretending that it's some sort of "evil weed"?

Apparently, they're afraid of "the feds". And to be fair, they're still a problem. Even though President Obama and reality now seem to disagree, federal law enforcement is still cracking down on any & all marijuana. And local law enforcement still seems to be following the feds' lead... Even with state law saying otherwise.

Unfortunately, medical marijuana patients and other marijuana users are still caught in the middle of all this hot legal mess. And if they happen to be caught "inhaling while dark skinned", they get quite the heavy book thrown at them.

So what are we to do about this hot legal mess? Usually, we're not into letting out gardens go. But in this case, our OCD weeding is far more detrimental than the actual weed itself. Perhaps it's time for us to finally embrace the weed (provided it's properly regulated).

"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.

Duck Duck Goose

So it's back. And oh, we can hear that quack. The G-O-TEA Culture Warriors have declared victory in their latest battle for "moral value$.



Yet even as the 21st Century Know Nothings celebrate the return of their beloved "Dynasty", they fail to notice they're still losing the overall Culture War. Keep in mind that they're now having to play defense in Utah and Ohio! Never mind their supposed triumphant quacks, it's increasingly looking like the religious right is trying to duck inevitable defeat.

We've even seen these winds of change blow into Nevada in recent years. Just look at the remarkable journey of SJR 13 in Carson City this past spring.





After many years of dismissing the possibility of marriage equality ever coming to Nevada any time in the near future, politicians and pundits had to finally face the Nevada of the 21st Century... Along with the rest of 21st Century America. In case the remarkable progress of SJR 13 in Carson City wasn't surprising enough, the US Supreme Court then upped the ante with a groundbreaking ruling.

Edie Windsor was stuck with a $300,000 tax bill after her wife passed away. She and her lawyer decided to do something about it.

And as a result, not only does Edie Windsor not have to worry about that $300,000 tax bill, but she's also just set incredible legal precedent for LGBTQ equality going forward. [...]

Going forward, any and all laws challenged as discriminatory against LGBTQ Americans will face strict scrutiny in federal courts. And yes, this is a big f**king deal. Even though SCOTUS didn't enact nationwide marriage equality today, the days of marriage discrimination in America are likely numbered.

Because "The Supremes" decided to make a broad anti-discrimination statement in striking down much of DOMA while also letting stand the trailblazing Prop 8 trial court ruling (overturning California's marriage ban), the future is looking bright for Nevada's own marriage equality law suit. (This is now working it's way through federal courts while SJR 13 is awaiting a second round of passage at the state legislature.) And not only that, but the SCOTUS decisions also set good precedent for the Utah and Ohio cases. It's no longer a question of if nationwide civil marriage equality becomes a reality, but when.

This is why the TEA fueled religious right is now scrambling. And this is why it's making last ditch efforts to halt progress on LGBTQ civil rights by picking fights over transgender students, meeting space for H8 groups, LGBTQ workers' rights, and duck hunting reality TV stars. This year, even some G-O-TEA "leaders" acknowledged their days of "winning the Culture War" are over.

And really, this is something to quack about.

WoW Is DOA in ABQ?

This past January, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and remembered how far we've come since then. Of course, we also noticed the challenges that remain as women’s reproductive rights face more attacks.

In recent weeks, a new line of attack emerged. What made this (even more) surprising is that it emerged in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Anti-choice activists from across the nation descended upon The Duke City to push a citywide referendum on late-term abortion. This was part of their new "all politics is local" strategy... But this first test didn't go so well for them.

Albuquerque voters on Tuesday defeated a measure to ban abortion at 20 weeks, issuing a major blow to antiabortion activists who had hoped to use the city to test a new strategy to restrict the procedure at the municipal level.

As Salon has previously reported, the effort to get the measure on the ballot was led by Bud and Tara Shaver, two self-described Christian missionaries and extreme antiabortion activists who moved from Kansas to New Mexico with the sole intent of shuttering the Southwestern Women’s Options clinic, one of two late-term abortion providers in the area. [...]

“The voters of Albuquerque showed that they care about women’s health and respect the private medical decisions they make,” Physicians for Reproductive Health Board Chair Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“They saw through this deceptive initiative and defeated a measure that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks, with only the narrowest of exceptions, legislation that would have stripped women of the ability to make the best decision for themselves and their families. … With the defeat of this ballot measure, the voters of Albuquerque affirm that women deserve the best care and deserve privacy and respect.”

OK, so Albuquerque voters rejected a late-term abortion ban yesterday. Why are we talking about it here and now? Perhaps because this has major national implications?

It’s not just about one city though. Albuquerque is home to the only late-term abortion clinics in the state, including Southwestern Women’s Options, one of just a handful of clinics left in the whole country that do very late abortions. (The clinic has become the target of some scary anti-choice harassment and the providers there are featured in the new documentary After Tiller, which you should definitely see.) So a ban there would affect all the folks who travel to the city for abortion care from rural areas elsewhere in the state–and across the US. Micaela Cadena, who is part of the Respect ABQ Women campaign fighting the measure,explained, ”Albuquerque voters are voting for the whole state of New Mexico and also for the rest of the country.” No wonder anti-choice groups have been spending big bucks to get this ban passed."

In recent years, anti-choice G-O-TEA Culture Warriors have been waging the War on Women in Congress and in state legislatures across the nation. And they've succeeded in passing epic hurdles to reproductive health care in a number of states while directing the US House to spend seemingly endless amounts of time on proposed abortion and contraception restrictions. It's forced pro-choice activists to play defense across the nation.

But last night, Albuquerque voters delivered a direct rebuke of this attempt to surreptitiously expand the War on Women into New Mexico. So not only do public opinion pills show a pro-choice majority, but we're finally seeing real election results demonstrating this as well.

So why is Congress still wasting time on attempts to limit abortion and contraception access? Why are the likes of Senator Dean Heller (R-What?) and Rep. Joe Heck (R-Why?) ignoring what's happening in their own backyard? Why is the War on Women continuing despite mounting opposition?

What happened in Albuquerque may very well be a turning point... But it will likely take more public rebukes like this one to end the War on Women once and for all.

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.