2014CV30833 ORDER Denying Stay

[William769]

State of Colorado v. Hall (Boulder County) Order: Denying Motion For Stay Pending Appeal/Reconsideration

Marriage equality in Colorado

http://www.scribd.com/doc/234883511/2014CV30833-ORDER-Denying-Stay

Order in it's entirety at link.

[randome]

1. Nice to know that something was unstayed. Too bad no one knows what you're talking about.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[justiceischeap]

2. Marriage equality in Colorado. nt

[William769]

4. Thanks. I justassumed everyone would know what I was talking about.

My fault.

[djean111]

3. Looks like, I think, that Colorado cannot make clerks stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses

until a challenge to the legality in Colorado is decided.
Or the opposite, if I am just not reading it correctly.

[William769]

5. Your first thought is correct.

[djean111]

8. Thanks. Sometimes I doubt myself when something seems so clear! :-O

I start second-guessing.
Think how much time and money would be saved if all the states just accepted gay marriage and went on to actually using that time and money to help people.

[William769]

10. Absolutely!

"Sometimes I doubt myself when something seems so clear! " It happens to the best of us.

[bigtree]

6. bravo, William

On July 21, 2014, two weeks after denial of its request for a preliminary injunction against Clerk Hall, the State filed a notice of appeal and has asked this Court for what it has styled “Forthwith Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.”

In actuality, the State is asking this Court to reconsider its July 10, 2014 ruling and block Clerk Hall from issuing same sex marriage licenses. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the State’s request.

The State has offered no actual support in favor of reconsideration, more cases have found same sex marriage bans unconstitutional since the Court issued its ruling and the State not met its burden to obtain a stay pending appeal under established Colorado law. As mentioned it its ruling denying the State’s request for an order enjoining Clerk Hall from issuing same sex marriage licenses, “this action is one part of a fast moving legal environment that has unfolded in Colorado and nationally on the issue of same- sex marriages.”

more: http://www.scribd.com/doc/234883511/2014CV30833-ORDER-Denying-Stay

[William769]

7. Great news indeed!

[MineralMan]

9. The courts are doing the right thing with this,

and those states that deny marriage equality are going to lose. Huzzah!

[William769]

11. Because we have strong allies like you.

[MineralMan]

12. I've been doing what I can. We succeeded in Minnesota.

I believe that marriage equality is a rolling train that cannot be stopped now. There's still work to do, though, in all of those states that have not recognized the truth, though.

[William769]

13. ...

[RKP5637]

26. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[William769]

14. Kick.

[Glorfindel]

15. Hooray! A ray of good news

Thank you for letting us know.

[William769]

16. My pleasure.

[redqueen]

17. K&R nt

[JackBeck]

18. A little premature, don't you think?

After over 7 hours that you posted this thread and there was no confirmation in the press or LGBT blogs, don't you think you should have deleted?

[William769]

19. What the fuck are you talking about?

If you had bothered to look at the link instead of being a snarky little one you would have seen the court order.

What more fucking confirmation do you want?

And no, I should not have fucking deleted the thread because you are not capable of understanding.

Capiche?

[JackBeck]

20. You should subscribe to the national organizational's emails.

I was one of the first ones to look at your link and have laughed all day long how your story never took off.

You should have had a corroborating reference before posting.

[William769]

21. To begin with it's not my story.

It's a decision from a court.

I can't help it if you need a news organization to tell you what to think, when you can get the information right from the horse's mouth.

What part of "DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302" do you not understand?

[JackBeck]

23. Lazy posting. You didn't look for corroboration but posted anyway.

And none of the press in the LGBT community backed you up.

You should be embarrassed.

[William769]

25. Here is the link with the order

http://www.scribd.com/doc/234883511/2014CV30833-ORDER-Denying-Stay

If you can't read that's not my problem. I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with someone that's PUI!

Take my advice & go sleep it off.

[bigtree]

35. I'm pretty sure I'm reading this right

. . . at the beginning of the order:

DATE FILED: July 23, 2014 8:54 AM CASE NUMBER: 2014CV30833

On July 21, 2014, two weeks after denial of its request for a preliminary injunction against Clerk Hall, the State filed a notice of appeal and has asked this Court for what it has styled “Forthwith Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.”

In actuality, the State is asking this Court to reconsider its July 10, 2014 ruling and block Clerk Hall from issuing same sex marriage licenses. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the State’s request.

The State has offered no actual support in favor of reconsideration, more cases have found same sex marriage bans unconstitutional since the Court issued its ruling and the State not met its burden to obtain a stay pending appeal under established Colorado law. As mentioned it its ruling denying the State’s request for an order enjoining Clerk Hall from issuing same sex marriage licenses, “this action is one part of a fast moving legal environment that has unfolded in Colorado and nationally on the issue of same- sex marriages.”


. . . at the end of the order:


The State has offered no additional evidence that the public interest would be served by denying same sex couples the right to receive marriage licenses in Boulder County. All in all, the State has not met its burden for a stay and its request is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 23d day of July, 2014.


. . . seems straightforward to me.

This JackBeck character is unusually rude. I find that highly offensive and more than a little insensitive. I wonder if he could bother to offer an explanation for this order and what he has to contradict it, other than his inability to find any coroborating press?

[William769]

37. Thank you, Thank you, thamk you!

I don't know what his problem is.

thanks again.

[Sissyk]

36. What exactly is your problem?

I don't understand your laughter and hostility in this thread. Can you explain, please?

[sheshe2]

29. Wow. You must have a lot of time on your hands, Jack.

"I was one of the first ones to look at your link and have laughed all day long how your story never took off."

You spent all day laughing that a "link"/ OP never got off the ground. What is it you find so amusing? Hmmm? Is it about LGBT rights? Or William perhaps?

"You should have had a corroborating reference before posting."

Really? Every damn day things are posted here without "corroborating reference" since this is news unfolding. Why take issue with this one on LGBT rights?!

[JackBeck]

31. Those who know me understand that I work full time in the the LGBT intersectionality space.

My ultimate wish is to meet more persons that work in the same social justice space.

[sheshe2]

34. Well, geez...I don't know you from Adam...eom

[greatauntoftriplets]

32. People post their opinions -- without any kind of link! -- in GD every day.

The OP contains a court document. Oy, some days this place is unreal.

[sheshe2]

38. No kidding, greatauntoftriplets.

Yikes

The preferential OPs here are !@#$%^&* Obama! No links required~ Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Court docs~ meh.

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. Exactly.

Sometimes it's hard to recognize this place.

[JackBeck]

22. Where are all the national marriage equality organizations' press releases supporting your post?

You'd think by now they would have something to say.

[Starry Messenger]

24. You mean like Human Rights Campaign?

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/colorado-marriage-ban-overturned-by-federal-court

Or perhaps this little-known journal called "The Advocate"

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/07/23/breaking-federal-judge-strikes-down-colo-marriage-ban

[JackBeck]

28. LOL. Read the OP. Not the same case.

This cracks me up how uneducated folks are about this.

[William769]

30. Is this link good enough for you.

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2014, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/234883511/2014CV30833-ORDER-Denying-Stay

Your serve.

[bigtree]

44. not sure that's the same case number

need help here. The original order you provided seems clear

[William769]

45. Thanks.

[Starry Messenger]

53. Congrats.

You have literally created the douchiest subthread in DU history.

[sheshe2]

40. You say you are the one in the know,,,,

Where are your links?

Nope not you, ya just say how wonderful you are. You are having a giggle here, you Jack are trying to derail this thread. Personally, I think that sucks.

[herding cats]

42. This may make things more clear for you.

Federal judge declares Colorado ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
By Jordan Steffen
The Denver Post
Posted: 07/23/2014 12:19:27 PM MDT57 Comments | Updated: 97 min. ago

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers lost another round in his fight to defend the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

Federal and state judges have now declared the law unconstitutional, and Boulder's clerk continues to defy him by issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore rejected Suthers' request to halt proceedings in the case, but stayed his decision until 8 a.m. on Aug. 25.

That gives Suthers time to appeal his decision to the 10th U.S. Court of Appeals — the same court that found a similar ban in Utah to be unconstitutional less than a month ago.

Moore's ruling marks the fourth time in two weeks that Suthers' efforts have been thwarted by a judge. The attorney general has repeatedly argued that the issuance of licenses continues to stir legal chaos in the state, even though Gov. John Hickenlooper and others have urged him to stop defending the marriage ban.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26202442/federal-judge-expected-issue-ruling-same-sex-marriage

It's amazingly good news!

[RKP5637]

27. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Sissyk]

33. K&R

Always ready for some good news! No matter what the source, lol, lol! j/k of course.

[sheshe2]

41. Kicking!

[joshcryer]

43. The "success on the merits" part is brilliant.

Three cases since this case came up originally. Basically, the dominoes are falling. By the end of this year perhaps.

[sheshe2]

46. Me...

I don't care what others think, this deal is done and we just have to wait for the ink to dry. Oh yes, we have a little way to go yet...however it is done. As always we can never sit back, we must be forever vigilant. No justice is true justice without truly informed people.

We can never stop fighting William!

Together~One voice.

[bigtree]

47. yes, sheshe2, you are so right

. . . although I realize, for many folks, this can't happen soon enough. I can only imagine how frustrating it is. That's why I have a hard time understanding the ridicule and taunting from JackBeck without so much as an explanation of how he views this case and its outcome.

We have folks trying to fathom this court language and that poster's rudeness has been most unhelpful, and did nothing more than add to the anxiety I'm sure many here feel.

We'll stay strong and I hope we can provide at least some support with our voices here.

[sheshe2]

48. You know what bigtree...

I want this to happen so very much, it is the right thing to do. I am white and as you know female and yes I am straight. I will fight for all the issues because I know what it is like to be dehumanized as a woman. I don't wish that on anyone.

As for JackBeck...his posts were divisive and meant to hurt. They offered nothing and did their best to derail Williams thread.

One voice, always. Together we can make it happen.

[bigtree]

55. heh, here I am, almost 35 years married to a beautiful woman

Last edited Thu Jul 24, 2014, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . wanting so much for everyone to have the opportunity to marry; a right which was never in doubt for us.

I never even had to worry about barriers to my interracial marriage, although I can read about those barriers in history books and have the benefit of some anecdotal accounts of that discrimination. In my own life experience, issues of equality and rights were always broad concepts which centered on race, but weren't limited to that one defense.

To me, equality must be about everyone's rights, or the notion fails on its own logic. Gender rights, disabled rights, LGBT rights are all woven with the same cloth of our humanity that covered and embraced the struggle for racial equality. Equality for all is a natural expectation for me; as much as my own race demands access to the same benefits, privileges, and respect that many others may take for granted.

I am privileged to learn from folks here - expanding my own insular understanding and sensitizing me to their own expectations, and even to my own slights and misunderstandings; appreciating even the harshest criticisms I've received here.

I can't wait until the day that this injustice is relegated to the history books. It shouldn't be too much longer; even less if we all pull and push together.

[sheshe2]

49. Kick! n/t

[sheshe2]

50. Again! nt

[hrmjustin]

51. K&R!

[longship]

52. Again. Another domino falls. The rest are still lined up.

There is no stopping the inevitable.

[Aerows]

54. Hooray!

This is good news!

[rhett o rick]

56. k&r thanks for posting. nm