Key links:
		GordonWatts.com	GordonWayneWatts.com	U.S. Dist. Court: Fla. N.D.	11th U.S. Cir. Court of Appeals	U.S. Supreme Court	Brenner v. Scott (Wikipedia)	Pacer.gov

The Register presents:
Selected docket items in the "Florida Gay Marriage" case from The Register's archives: an unofficial (but hopefully accurate) docket:
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F and use the find bar.

Consolidated Appeals Docket: 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Case #: 14-14061 (James Brenner, et al v. John Armstrong, et al) Appeal From: N.D. of Fla. before Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge: 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS
Case #: 14-14066 (Sloan Grimsley, et al v. John Armstrong, et al) Appeal From: N.D. of Fla. before Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS

Date Docketed	Description (Click to view/download)	Filed By	Notes
04/21/2014	ORDER SETTING A PARTIAL SCHEDULE AND CONSOLIDATING THE CASES FOR CASE-MANAGEMENT PURPOSES	Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge	Consolidation of the 2 cases and setting of a time-table, in the lower tribunal.
04/22/2014	Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff First Amendment Intervening Complaint and Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff	Chris Sevier, Esq. Editor's Note: Mr. Sevier implies that he is a lawyer in Florida by virtue of the 'Esq.' title, but a "Find a Lawyer" search of The Florida Bar does not support such an inference, but he has told this reporter that he is a Tennessee lawyer, but inactive with the Tennessee Bar, as a strategy to make himself less of a legal target, and he recited the bar number on his brief by memory, suggesting he was candid and truthful.	RETURNED UNFILED: Amicus brief filed by Chris Sevier is returned unfiled in the lower tribunal by Judge Hinkle, whose strongly-worded ruling: "In these consolidated actions, the plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes on same-sex marriage. Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer." Editor's Note: Sevier does make a weak 'Equal Protection' argument, comparing marriage to his computer with other types of marriage and does somewhat address the open-ended nature of the redefinition of marriage, but I feel that an Amicus brief would have been more appropriate than a motion to intervene, the latter standard being much higher. ASSERTS that a 'sexual orientation' classification did not exist until very recently; CITES: Liu Ye of China and Jennifer Hoes of The Netherlands who both apparently 'married' themselves; examples of people 'marrying' animals, objects, etc. CONCLUSION: Supports Florida Law defining 'marriage' as solely between 1 man and 1 woman. OBITOR DICTUM / EDITOR'S NOTE: Some blogs have called him 'nutty' or words to that effect, for wanting to marry his computer, but he is a talented rapper, in the opinion of this writer; very funny briefs!
04/24/2014	ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR CHRIS SEVIER TO INTERVENE	Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge	In these consolidated actions, the plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes on same-sex marriage. Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer...[and] has alleged nothing that would support intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. More egregiously, Mr. Sevier has tendered—but I have directed the clerk not to file...and it purports to be tendered not just by Mr. Sevier on his own behalf but by the original plaintiffs through their own attorneys. Mr. Sevier should take note: he has no authority to tender a document on behalf of anyone other than himself. Filing a document in someone else’s name without the person’s authority is a serious offense...and doing any of this again will have substantial consequences. Editor's Note: I, Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief of The Register and the writer of this story, have carefully reviewed all three (3) documents downloaded from the N.D. Fla. U.S. District Court, using the PACER service, described above, and I do not see any indication that Mr. Sevier attempted to sign any other parties' name(s), and the closest I can see that might resemble that is the Certificate of Service (listing the original plaintiffs, who he claims were served a copy by email) was near his own signature; perhaps Judge Hinkle misread Sevier's complaint? UPDATE: This reporter contacted The Fla. Northern District court and made a public records request from them for a copy of the “second amended motion..." in question, but they informed me that they were unable to comply due to time limits, as mentioned in the order; Mr. Seiver, in a phone interview, asserts that this filing was no different than the 3 posted herein, implying that the judge probably make a human error in reading, as previously theorised by this writer. ||EndOfNote|| For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Mr. Sevier’s motion to intervene is DENIED. 2. The clerk must hold for 90 days (and make available for inspection by any person on request) but must not file Mr. Sevier’s tendered “second amended motion...
04/25/2014	PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW	Daniel Boaz Tilley of The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter)	Filed in the tribunal below, by Attorney Daniel Boaz Tilley, for Appellees Sloan Grimsley, Joyce Albu, etc. (ECF: Daniel Tilley) Makes 'Equal Protection' arguments about differential treatment of gays, who are not afforded certain benefits that married couples get; asks for an injunction on the Florida Marriage Law in question, using the 4-prong test discussed in Judge Hinkle's subsequent ruling.
08/21/2014	ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND TEMPORARILY STAYING THE INJUNCTION	Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge	U.S. Dist. Judge issues injunction against Florida Constitutional provision voted into law by almost 62% of Fla voters in the 2008 (4,890,883 to 3,008,026; 61.9% to 38.1%) Source: Florida Department of State: Division of Elections, November 4, 2008 General Election. In other words, judge strikes Florida Law enacted by a 'Super Majority' (over 60%) of voters, which is required of proposed amendments. Judge temporarily stays (postpones) injunction pending appeal.
09/05/2014	JOINT NOTICE OF APPEAL	Fla. Surgeon General, Dr. John H. Armstrong, Sec. of Fla. Dept. of Health; Craig J. Nichols, Secr. of Fla. Dept. of Mgt. Svcs.; and Harold Bazzell, Washington County, Fla. Clerk of Court & Comptroller	Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi (R-FL) were removed from the suit by Judge Hinkle, as a 'redundant' defendants, but The State of Florida, through its other officials, appealed Judge Hinkle's ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, GA.
10/08/2014	ORDER: Extension of Time	Hon. Charles R. Wilson, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE	ORDER: All Appellants are GRANTED an extension for filing the following documents. All appellants’ briefs are due November 14, 2014, with the Appellants’ appendices due no later than seven days from the filing of the appellants’ briefs.
10/17/2014	RETURNED UNFILED: Amicus brief filed by Anthony Citro	Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court	RETURNED UNFILED: Amicus brief filed by Anthony Citro is returned unfiled because a motion for leave to file an amicus brief is required. Please see FRAP 29 and 11th Cir. R. 29-1. The brief must be in green covers and comply fully with the requirements of 11th Cir. R. 29-2. (Copy of rules enclosed.) [14-14066, 14-14061] This amicus brief has a historical review of the the Equal rights movement, the Founding Fathers' views on the homosexuality and the 10th and 14th Amendments, and SPARTA, a state-sponsored experiment in homosexuality.
11/14/2014	JOINT INITIAL BRIEF OF ALL APPELLANTS	AG, Pam Bondi; Allen Winsor, Solicitor General; Adam S. Tanenbaum; Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Counsel for the Secretaries; James J. Goodman, Jr., JEFF GOODMAN, P.A., Counsel for the Clerk of Court	Initial Brief of the Appellants, the State of Florida: 10th Amendment / Federalism arguments about States' Rights; a claim that United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972), support States' Rights, and that Baker remains binding precedent; Misc. 14th Am. due Process issues; addressing Rights to Travel, Intimate Association, etc. Addressing Preliminary Injunction Factors
11/18/2014	APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF THIS MOTION	Ibid. I.e., same as above	TIME SENSITIVE MOTION to stay pending appeal filed by John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols. Motion is Opposed. [7326286-1] (ECF: Adam Tanenbaum) TRANSLATION: State of Florida asks Appeals Court to extend the stay on the injunction, thus delaying its enforcement and leaving the Fla. Law intact.
11/19/2014	APPENDIX	Ibid. I.e., same as above	Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols. (ECF: Adam Tanenbaum)
11/20/2014	AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF NORTH CAROLINA VALUES COALITION AND LIBERTY, LIFE, AND LAW FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	North Carolina Values Coalition Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation	APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Deborah J Dewart for North Carolina Values Coalition and Life Life and Law Foundation (ECF: Deborah Dewart). Claim that Gay Marriage advocates beg the question & use circular logic in presupposing a definition of marriage; addressing deeply-rooted Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution; Argument that Gay Marriage advocates' legal approach "has no limiting principle" in the definition of marriage; Arguments: "ALL LAWS ARE GROUNDED IN MORAL PRINCIPLES" and "THE PRESERVATION OF MARRIAGE IS BASED ON BIOLOGY—NOT BIGOTRY..." and: "This case is not about the right to marry a person of the same sex. It is not about equal protection for an existing fundamental right. It is not about who may marry, but what marriage is."
11/21/2014	Brief of Amicus Curiae Florida Family Action, Inc. In Support of Defendants-Appellants, Seeking Reversal	Liberty Counsel	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Mary E. McAlister representing Amicus Curiae Florida Family Action, Inc. (ECF: Mary McAlister) citing States' Rights under case law: “[R]egulation of domestic relations is ‘an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.’” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691; Argument: "The FMPA [Fla. Marriage Protection Act] Memorializes Millennia Of History Which Have Established That Marriage–The Union Of One Man And One Woman–Is The Essential Social Institution"; and: When, as occurred in this case, “a federal court denies the people suffrage over an issue long thought to be within their power, they deserve an explanation,” citing DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 WL 5748990 at *7; "Florida voters properly exercised their democratic power in a way that should not be blithely set aside. DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990 at *7."
11/21/2014	Amicus Curiae Brief of American College of Pediatricians in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal	American College of Pediatricians	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Rachael Spring Loukonen for the American College of Pediatricians. (ECF: Rachael Loukonen) Peer-reviewed scientific research showing that children benefit from the unique parenting contibs of both men & women; addressing methodological errors in another study which came to the opposite conclusion (i.e., that there is 'no difference' in the outcome of gay/lesbian parenting models; contrasting this study with ones with a sufficiently-large sample size, i.e., the largest population-based studies. Addressing lack of monogamy in gay and lesbian relationships compared with heterosexual (straight) relationships, as it relates to marriage and the state's role in promoting it.
11/21/2014	Motion for leave to file Amici Curiae Brief of 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint in support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal	D. John Sauer of Clark & Sauer, LLC, representing Amicii.	MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by D. John Sauer for 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint. [7329287-1] (ECF: Dean Sauer) The motion and brief were filed together: "BRIEF OF 16 SCHOLARS OF FEDERALISM AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS AND REVERSAL." The brief argues: "Seven Principles of Federalism and Judicial Restraint Counsel This Court to Exercise the “Utmost Care” When Considering Novel Constitutional Claims, and These Principles Uniformly Counsel Against Requiring the States to Redefine Marriage." ALSO: "Federalism and Deference to the States...Urge Judicial Self-Restraint, Especially in Matters of Traditional State Concern." AND: "This Court Should Respect the Role of the States as Laboratories of Democracy..." AND: "...Should Not Constitutionalize an Area That Is Currently the Subject of Active Debate and Legal Development..." AND: "...Should Favor Incremental Change Over Sweeping and Dramatic Change In Addressing Novel Constitutional Claims"; AND: "The Scarcity of Clear Guideposts for Decisionmaking in the Unchartered Territory of Substantive Due Process Calls for Judicial Restraint," etc.
11/21/2014	AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MARRIAGE LAW FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	MARRIAGE LAW FOUNDATION	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by William C. Duncan for Marriage Law Foundation. (ECF: William Duncan) Argues that Fla. voters acted reasonably in retaining the same definition of marriage that is shared by nearly all cultures through all times and eras. Argues that traditional marriage promotes procreation and retains other benefits, which advances the State's interests. ALSO: "THE FLORIDA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ALSO ADVANCES AN IMPORTANT STATE INTEREST IN PRESERVING CITIZEN SELFDETERMINATION IN AN AREA OF TRADITIONAL STATE CONCERN." ALSO: "The state, in recognizing marriage, does not write on a blank slate. Specifically, when Florida voters ratified the Marriage Amendment, they were not creating a new legal arrangement to accomplish novel purposes, and specifically not trying to send a message of stigma or exclusion. Rather, they reaffirmed an understanding of marriage consistently accepted across nearly all cultures throughout recorded history. Such remarkable consensus [exists and] is due to the need for societies to advance important child-centered interests by encouraging the potentially procreative relationships of men and women to take place in a setting where the children who may result have the opportunity to know and be reared by a mother and father firmly bound to one another. As amici Scholars of the Institution of Marriage have shown, a large body of research demonstrates that marriage in fact advance these crucial interests."
11/21/2014	BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE RYAN T. ANDERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	Michael F. Smith of The Smith Appellate Law Firm	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Michael F. Smith for Amicus Curiae, Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, (A.B., Princeton University, M.A., University of Notre Dame), who is Editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, online journal of the Witherspoon Institute, and a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame. (ECF: Michael Smith) SUMMARY: There are moral, political, and jurisprudential implications of redefining marriage to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity, e.g., the conjugal husband-wife union. "After all, law shapes culture, which shapes people’s behavior. Marriage law shapes what people expect of themselves and others with respect to marriage. So if the law defines marriage as, essentially, romantic-emotional union, people can be expected to internalize this view." AND: "...Windsor’s logic and holding affirm the States’ prerogative to define civil marriage." ALSO: "Intellectual and cultural history corroborates the idea that male-female sexual unions have special value, and refutes the charge that only Jewish or Christian theology or animus against those identified as gay or lesbian could motivate this view."
11/21/2014	AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF HELEN M. ALVARÉ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	EDWARD H. TRENT, ESQ., of the Wimberly Lawson Law Firm	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Amicus Curiae, Professor Helen M. Alvare, B.S., Villanova University; M.A., The Catholic University of America; J.D., Cornell University. (ECF: Edward Trent) ARGUMENT: "The state has a substantial interest in recognizing and encouraging marriage between opposite-sex pairs of adults who commit to one another for exclusive, long-run, sexually intimate relationships, on the grounds of these pairs’ intrinsically procreative capacity, and their fitness for childrearing [because as] The Supreme Court has repeatedly described the state’s interests in marriage as the interweaving of three benefits to society: (1) stable commitment between intimate, opposite-sex pairs of adults, (2) the procreation and rearing of children, and (3) the formation of a decentralized, democratic society." CITING: United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) in support of States' Rights to regulate marriage: "There, the majority did not devote even a single line of its opinion to any state’s interests in marriage recognition. Instead, the Court disclaimed what it found to be the federal government’s interest in directing states’ policy on marriage, a subject within the states’ “virtually exclusive province” and over which they “possess[] full power.” Id. at 2691." QUOTE: "In the United States, especially over the last 50 years, the emphasis between sex, marriage, and procreation have weakened considerably in both law and culture, with negative repercussions for adults, children, and society as a whole." [Editor adds: "negative repercussions" such as divorce, poverty, etc.] AND: "Rather, the most vulnerable Americans—those without a college education, the poor, and minority groups— have suffered more: they marry less, divorce more, experience lower marital quality, and have far more nonmarital births."
11/21/2014	Amici Curiae Brief of Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal	David C. Gibbs, III, President of National Center for Life and Liberty	MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by David C. Gibbs III for Professor Robert P. George, B.A., Swarthmore College; J.D., M.T.S., Harvard University; D.Phil., University of Oxford, Of Counsel, Robinson & McElwee; and: Sherif Girgis {alt: profile: (link)}, A.B., Princeton University; B.Phil., University of Oxford-Rhodes Scholar, scholars on the redefinition of marriage, whose book, What Is Marriage? Man And Woman: A Defense, was cited twice by Justices Alito and Thomas in U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), and whose article, "What Is Marriage?," appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. ARGUES for Marriage as a conjugal union. AFFIRMS the dignity of Plaintiffs and gay people in general. ARGUES that redefinition deprives The State of any "limiting principle" for its marriage law. CITES: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, which lists children's right to be reared by biological parents and lists other risks and damages associated with undermining redefinition of marriage. Shows how polyamorous households would have legal rights if marriage were redefined by removing the present limits of marriage. Addresses deficiencies in 'Civil Marriage' and obligations of The State to serve social purposes. Advances a novel "marriage-neutral' solution, similar to that of Amicus, Gordon Wayne Watts' brief, to meet the needs of gay citizens. ASSERTS that Floridians can still be free to conduct romantic lives free of governmental interference even if Florida Law is upheld as Constitutional. [7329469-1] (ECF: David Gibbs)
11/21/2014	BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, INC. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL	Stephen C. Emmanuel of The Ausley McMullen Law Firm	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Stephen C. Emmanuel Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. (ECF: Stephen Emmanuel) CITES: Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), which dictates that a state’s limitation of marriage to male-female unions must be subject only to deferential rational-basis review: "The unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate is a rational basis for Florida’s definition of marriage...As Justice Kennedy recently cautioned in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014) (plurality opinion), the judiciary should not unnecessarily remove such issues from the hands of voters, as voters are capable of deciding sensitive social issues on “decent and rational grounds.” Id. at 1637." QUOTE: "Though no party to this litigation argues that three consenting adults in a committed polygamous relationship have a constitutional right to marry, it is not evident why they would not be entitled to marry under Appellees’ legal theories. Given Appellees’ disdain for history, tradition, and culture as bases for limiting marriage to one man and one woman, on what legal basis would or could Appellees oppose polygamists the right to the benefits of marriage? If the meaning of marriage is so malleable and indeterminate as to embrace all lifelong and committed relationships, then marriage collapses as a coherent legal category. Certainly, the net result of adopting Appellees’ arguments is to prevent any principled argument against polygamy or any other non-traditional marriage. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 648 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[U]nless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals.”)." EDITOR'S NOTE: There are some who favour polygamy; Atty. Emmanuel's novel argument here puts polygamy on equal ground with Gay Marriage, but doesn't quite go as far as Amicus, Gordon Wayne Watts' argument, which puts polygamy one-step higher, making a valid Equal Protection argument. QUOTE: "This Court Should Defer to the Definition of Marriage Duly Enacted by the Florida Legislature and Approved by Florida Voters. Marriage is a matter left to definition by the States."
11/21/2014	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	Byron J. Babione of ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM	MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Byron J. Babione for Alliance Defending Freedom. [7329553-1] (ECF: Byron Babione) QUOTE: "Because redefining marriage to include same-sex couples severs marriage from its intrinsic link to childbearing and childrearing and undermines the long-established ideal that each child deserves to be raised by her biological mother and biological father in a stable family unit, Alliance Defending Freedom has consistently defended against legal challenges claiming that sovereign States or nations must redefine marriage." QUOTE: "A biological mother and a biological father are the only people who innately show children deeply ingrained aspects of themselves, like their genetically predisposed temperament, manner, and peculiarities. Thus, trying to develop an identity and sense of self without these crucial pieces is like attempting to discern one’s physical appearance without looking in a mirror." QUOTE: "The man-woman-marriage laws...substantially further the State’s compelling interest in connecting children to both of their biological parents ...[because]... redefining marriage to include same-sex couples communicates that the State no longer prefers children to be raised by both of their biological parents..." QUOTE: "Contrary to the assumptions of some, a great relationship with custodial parents generally does not remove a person’s need to seek out her origins. See Marian K. Affleck & Lyndall G. Steed, Expectations and Experiences of Participants in Ongoing Adoption Reunion Relationships: A Qualitative Study, 71 Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry 38, 38 (Jan. 2001) (noting that “the vast majority of adoptees who search have positive relationships with adoptive parents,” and that “the quality of adoptive relationships (either positive or negative) is not associated with a decision to search”)." QUOTE: "People are also exposed to potentially life-threatening harm when they do not know their biological parents’ medical history." CITING: Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 310 (1993), which holds: 'Biological “parents” are those “whom our society and [the Supreme] Court’s jurisprudence have always presumed to be the preferred and primary custodians of their minor children.”'
11/21/2014	AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (Court Copy: scanned image) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION (House Copy: searchable PDF)	Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS, United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register: http://GordonWatts.com and http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com)	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061 and 14-14066; Deficiencies: CIP (lacks a 'Certificate of Interested Parties'). Service date: 11/20/2014 email to numerous recipients (not shown here for brevity, but listed on official court docket). [14-14061, 14-14066]. Main argument, comparing Gay Marriage to Polygamy has been alluded to by many others, but never-before used as a formal 'Equal Protection' argument: "POLYGAMY HAS MORE LEGAL PRECEDENT THAN GAY MARRIAGE, IMPLICATING EQUAL PROTECTION"; This brief, while it while it strongly supports the Florida Marriage Law (defining marriage as solely between 1 man & 1 woman) makes strong arguments against mistreatment of gays: "II.(A) PREJUDICE IS WRONG ((A)) Prejudice against homosexuals (gays) is wrong:," citing several examples and also addresses discrimination against heterosexuals (straights) re: Marriage Penalty in both taxation as well as loss of benefits (disability, retirement, etc.) to straight people who chose to marry. [Brief did not mention this, but it is also true: Gays could also get penalised with a 'Marriage Penalty' in like manner, if 'Gay Marriage' becomes law.] Proposes unprecedented solution that might be amenable to most parties on both sides: Keeping the definition of marriage as solely '1 man and 1 woman,' but mandating that gays be not denied such things as life-insurance benefits. (Making the argument that life insurance beneficiaries can be anyone, and that 'gay' or 'straight' status need not be considered.) Amicus, Watts, was a high-profile litigant in the recent 'Terri Schiavo' lawsuit, almost winning in court on her behalf: In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE 'TERRI' SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing. (Watts got 42.7% of his panel) http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing. (Bush got 0.0% of his panel before the same court) http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal. (Terri Schiavo's own blood family only got 33.3% of their panel on the Federal Appeals level) http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200511556.pdf
11/21/2014	NOTICE: Notice of deficient Amicus	Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court	Notice of deficient Amicus brief filed by Party Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061, 14-14066. Deficiencies: CIP. [14-14061, 14-14066] (I.e., lacks a 'Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement,' in compliance with court rules.') Watts' brief was conditionally filed, pending timely receipt of the missing paperwork.
11/21/2014	AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	Hannah C. Smith for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Hannah C. Smith of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. (ECF: Hannah Smith). Selected ARGUMENTS: "I. According legal recognition to same-sex marriage without robust protections for religious liberty will trigger wide-ranging church-state conflict. A. Leading legal scholars on both sides of the marriage debate recognize the conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty and support legislative exemptions II. State legislatures are better able than federal courts to take into account all of the societal interests at stake, including protecting religious liberty A. Because many of the conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty can be avoided—at least in part—by legislative exemptions, the federal judiciary should allow state legislatures to go first." QUOTE: "There is a consensus among legal scholars that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed." QUOTE: "...Eleventh Circuit states, like many other states, [already] have public accommodations laws that ban discrimination on the basis of gender, marital status, or sexual orientation. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.08 (gender, marital status); § 760.60 (large private clubs); Hillsborough County, Fla., Ordinance 00-37 (gender, marital status, sexual orientation); City of Sarasota, Fla., Ordinance 03-4462 (gender, marital status, sexual orientation);..." CITES: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623, 1636-37 (2014), in which Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion acknowledged an individual’s right “not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power,” but also emphasized that “[o]ur constitutional system embraces . . . the right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times . . . .”
11/21/2014	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF 64 SCHOLARS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	GENE C. SCHAERR, Sutherland Institute	MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Gene C. Schaerr, Amici Curiae 64 Scholars of the Institution of Marriage. [7329901-1] (ECF: Gene Schaerr) QUOTE: "Social benefits of the man-woman understanding and associated norms [:] Marriage is a complex social institution that pre-exists the law, but is supported by it in virtually all human societies. Levi-Strauss(a):40-412; Quale:2; Reid:455; Bracton:27; Blackstone:410; Blankenhorn(a):100. [Note]2 Because of the number of scholarly studies cited, in-text citations are in shortened form, and authors with more than one article have letters following their last names to distinguish publications. All sources appear in the Table of Authorities." RESEARCH: "That study [in the Netherlands], by Mircea Trandafir, has much more statistical credibility than Dillender’s study because it examined the effect of a marriage redefinition over a much longer period—13 years...and...shows a clear decline in marriage rates among man-woman couples in urban areas— which in the Netherlands tend to be less religious than rural areas—in the wake of the adoption of same-sex marriage. Trandafir:28-29. Indeed, the Netherlands study also suggests that the debate surrounding same-sex marriage caused a (likely) temporary increase in marriage rates among the more religious segments of society—which embraced traditional marriage with greater fervor—and that this increase tended to offset the decrease in man-woman marriages among the more urban, less religious segments. Trandafir:28-29." CITES: "By permitting unilateral divorce for any or no reason, no-fault divorce soon undermined the norm of permanence, and thus led directly to an explosion in divorce. Parkman:93-99; Allen(a):967-69." QUOTE: "...a law must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve “compelling governmental interests.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." CONCLUSION: "During argument in the California Proposition 8 case, Justice Kennedy noted that redefining marriage in genderless terms could be akin to jumping off a cliff: It is impossible to see all the dangers lurking at the bottom. Oral Argument at 47:19-24, Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). Justice Alito echoed that concern in United States v. Windsor, where he also noted that any empirical analysis of the effects of a redefinition calls for “[judicial] caution and humility.” 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2715-16 (2013) (Alito, J. dissenting). That is because same-sex marriage in the United States is still too new—and the institution of marriage too complex—for a redefinition’s impact to have fully registered. Id. And the risks associated with a redefinition are a powerful reason not to second-guess the people’s considered judgment—expressed at the ballot box or through elected representatives—that the man-woman definition should be retained. Id. at 2716.
11/21/2014	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF DR. PAUL MCHUGH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	GERARD V. BRADLEY, ESQ., NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL and: KEVIN T. SNIDER, ESQ., Chief Counsel for the PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Dr. Paul McHugh	MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Gerard V. Bradley for Dr. Paul McHugh. [7329906-1] (ECF: Gerard Bradley) ARGUMENT: "I. Sexual Orientation Does Not Define a Discrete and Insular Minority [because] A. Threshold Questions Prevent this Court from Defining a Class Based on Sexual Orientation with Sufficient Clarity." ARGUMENT: "II. Sexual Orientation is Not an Immutable Characteristic [because, for among other reasons] Sexual Orientation Can and Often Does Change Over Time." QUOTE/CITE: " Even ignoring the substantial and growing political power of the LGBT-rights movement, which alone should be sufficient to reject the demand for heightened scrutiny, sexual orientation is neither a “discrete” nor “immutable” characteristic in the legal sense of those terms. Under the Supreme Court’s longstanding jurisprudence, therefore, sexual orientation should not be granted the “extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process” entailed by suspect-class status. Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 (1976) (citing San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 (1973)). QUOTE: Heightened scrutiny applies to certain classifications, such as race, alienage, national origin, and gender, to protect “discrete and insular group[s], in need of extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313 (quotation marks omitted).5 But the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to apply heightened scrutiny where discreteness or insularity is lacking. [NOTE]5 Although religion is often listed as a suspect class for equal protection purposes, see, e.g., Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648, 651 (1992), heightened scrutiny for religious discrimination arises directly from the First Amendment rather than from factors like immutability and political powerlessness that justify suspect-class status under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, once the requirements of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses have been satisfied, any further religious discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause are subject only to rational basis review. See Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 720 n.3 (2004).
11/21/2014	BRIEF OF THE LIGHTED CANDLE SOCIETY, AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	John L. Harmer, Of counsel, The Lighted Candle Society and: George M. Weaver, HOLLBERG & WEAVER, LLP	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by George M. Weaver for The Lighted Candle Society. (ECF: George Weaver) SUMMARY: Although The Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), included blunt dictum characterizing the federal DOMA as an expression of “animus,” the Court emphasized that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages” sanctioned in states where samesex marriage is legal. Id. at 2696. The bottom line is that Windsor held for "States' Rights" (in this case, the State of New York, which opted for a redefinition of marriage), and this would strengthen, not weaken, Florida's right to define marriage. QUOTE: "Several courts have erroneously concluded that the U.S. Constitution delivers a fundamental right to same-sex marriage." ARGUMENT: "III. THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECT OF MARRIAGE LAWS FURNISHES A STRONG RATIONAL BASIS FOR LAWS DEFINING MARRIAGE AS OPPOSITE-SEX IN NATURE. A. The Law Has an Inevitable Educational Effect." QUOTE: "The educational effect is especially strong where the law is seen as carrying a moral imperative. Laws of this type have traditionally been described as regulating “mala in se,” whereas other laws have been described as regulating “mala prohibita.”3 [NOTE]3 Joycelyn M. Pollock, Criminal Law § 1.8 (Anderson Publishing, 2013) QUOTE: "If children are taught starting in kindergarten that marriage is not oppositesex in nature and that same-sex relationships (and perhaps eventually polygamous/polyamorous ones) are fully equivalent and desirable to opposite-sex marriage, the states may reasonably be concerned that the institution of marriage will be irreparably damaged and perhaps destroyed." CONCLUSION: "Some say the “arc of history” bends toward same-sex marriage and polyamory. But, after only 10 years of experience in redefining marriage into a genderless phenomenon in a few states (against 6,000 years of recorded history under the opposite-sex definition), we do not know that."
11/21/2014	Brief of Amici Curiae United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod In Support of Defendants-Appellants and Supporting Reversal	Anthony R. Picarello, General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and other counsel, so listed in brief	MOTION to file amicus brief pursuant to FRAP 29(a) filed by Anthony R. Picarello for U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. [7329930-1] (ECF: Anthony Picarello) SUMMARY: Many religious organisations assert that the allegations of 'animus' and hate towards homosexuals are false allegations and without honour. Affirming that Windsor did not create an independent right to same-sex marriage, but rather, it invalidated DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act) based on an impermissible intrusion into states' rights to define marriage. Asserting that traditional marriage complements our different (male/female) humans natures and promote responsible procreation and welfare of children, with both parents are living and visible role-models. Defense of traditional marriage out of fidelity to religious beliefs, not animus or hatred, citing Genesis 1:27; 2:23; Matthew 19:4-5, of the Christian Holy Bible. Rejecting claims that Florida voters were bigoted when voting for the Marriage Amendment, codified into Art. I, Sec. 27, Fla. Constitution (which then enabled §741.212, Fla. Statutes). Making Federalism and 10th Amendment States' Rights claims for Florida's ability to self-determination of its voters and legislature. Not necessarily invalid, simply because of support by religious voters or organisations, citing Schuette, 134 S.Ct. at 1637.
11/21/2014	BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, in support of Defendants-Appellants, supporting reversal	Steven W. Fitschen, President of The National Legal Foundation, Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by Steven W. Fitschen, Concerned Women for America. (ECF: Steven Fitschen) KEY ARGUMENT: Since homosexuals have attracted the attention of lawmakers, have many powerful allies, as well as wealthy contributors, thus, they are not a powerless class, and therefore can not be classed as a 'protected class' under current case-law. QUOTE/CITE: "Amicus agrees with the district court that under this Court’s decision in Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), homosexuals cannot be considered a suspect or quasi-suspect class. That view is also binding on this Court, since only the Court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel opinion. However, should this Court disagree (believing that a narrow exception to this rule applies), it should still refuse to recognize homosexuals as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, since—among other reasons— homosexuals are not politically powerless. This Brief demonstrates this by documenting... [these claims with ample proof]."
11/21/2014	MOTION OF AMICUS CURIAE DAVID BOYLE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FOR ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ, SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	David Boyle, Yale Univ; New Haven CT (Undergrad school); J.D., Univ of Michigan Law Sch; Ann Arbor MI	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by David Boyle, representing himself pro se as amicus curiae, and also representing Robert Oscar Lopez as amicus curiae in a separate brief. (ECF: David Boyle) ASSERTS: "The Court’s staff (here unnamed for privacy’s sake), when Amicus contacted them by telephone to ask about various brief-filing issues, told Amicus that he could file only one amicus brief, not two, following the “one attorney, one brief” Internal Operating Procedure..." Makes a 'Due Process,' 'Redress,' and 'Free Speech' arguments for his client: "Given the lack of previous written notice against multiple amicus briefs being submitted by one lawyer, Amicus respectfully asserts that it would be fair to allow Lopez to file his brief." EDITOR'S NOTE: Equal Protection is also implicated if either Boyle or Lopez is denied a fair redress of The Courts; probably, the court will accept both briefs for review, as they appear to comply with applicable rules and offer useful insight. KEY QUOTE: "CLIENTS HAVE SOME MORAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE, PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION."
11/21/2014	BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DAVID BOYLE SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	David Boyle, Yale Univ; New Haven CT (Undergrad school); J.D., Univ of Michigan Law Sch; Ann Arbor MI	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by David Boyle, representing himself pro se as amicus curiae, and also representing Robert Oscar Lopez as amicus curiae in a separate brief. (ECF: David Boyle) ARGUES: “The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both[.]” Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193, 67 S. Ct. 261, 264 (1946) (Douglas, J.). And, re that difference: “The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S. Ct. 879, 882 (1940) (Frankfurter, J.). These two preceding quotes alone should decide this case in favor of Florida’s People, who seem to recognize the common-sense differences supra between diverse-gender and same-gender couples." ARGUES: Since human sexuality is fluid: "if same-sex marriage were unavailable, then, at least c. 3.15 million more people, if they marry, would marry opposite-sex partners." ARGUES: "C. The Successful Heterosexual Marriages of Some Bisexual Mormons: Further Proof that Gay-Marriage Bans Are Effective." CITE/QUOTE: "There is another socially positive aspect to gay-marriage bans besides increased fertility. That is, Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003)) upholds diversity, including gender diversity, as a compelling state interest, see id. at 325, 123 S. Ct. at 2337. IMPLICATES EQUAL PROTECTION: "Some say that due to the Ban, children being raised by same-sex couples are needlessly deprived of protection. However, polygamous families, too, produce children outside a legal marriage relationship; yet a polygamy ban is legal, and those children are “deprived”, despite Florida’s overall desire to promote children being born into marriage. NOTES that Sodomy is a vector for cancer, AIDS, and injury. ARGUES: "X. MANY ARGUMENTS FOR MANDATORY GAY MARRIAGE WOULD ALSO SUPPORT LEGALIZING POLYGAMY." CITES: Mircea Trandafir's 2009 study which found that same-sex marriages had a negative impact on different-sex marriage.
11/21/2014	BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ SUPPORTING APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL	David Boyle, Yale Univ; New Haven CT (Undergrad school); J.D., Univ of Michigan Law Sch; Ann Arbor MI Brief authored by Professor Robert Oscar López of California State University: Northridge	Amicus Brief as of right or by consent of the parties filed by David Boyle, representing himself pro se as amicus curiae, and also representing Robert Oscar Lopez as amicus curiae in a separate brief. (ECF: David Boyle) QUOTE: "I, Robert Oscar López,1 write this Brief Supporting Appellants and Reversal, to ask that the Court respect Florida’s upholding the original definition of marriage as between one man and one woman... ARGUMENT: "My personal life story is not the main source for my position before the Court. My position against same-sex marriage stems more from my experience as a scholar and archivist compiling the testimonials of people raised by same-sex couples (I affix here a collection of such), and my observations of how academic researchers have collaborated with gay activist organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign to commit character assassinations against such children who come forward with negative feedback." NOTE: "1I wrote the vast majority of this brief without help from any other party or its counsel, though my own counsel gave editing, formatting, or other help at the end; and no party or its counsel gave money to its writing or submission, see Fed. R. App. P. 29. All parties have sent permission to Amicus to write this brief." PERSONAL TESTIMONY: Lopez states that he was raised by a same-sex couple, and that, even though his childhood was still fairly good, nonetheless, he "experienced a great deal of sexual confusion. I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males, which manifested in 1984, when I had my first sexual encounter with two older teenage boys in my bedroom. One of the boys ended up having to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning after my mother discovered us naked and entangled." (Brief, at page 4) "I was exposed to gay culture from an early age because my mother and her lover had a number of lesbian friends." (Next paragraph) CAVEAT: Some details are sexually explicit. CITES researchers, Mark Regnerus and Doug Allen, who found problems in homosexual-based families. CITES Loren Marks’ study published in July 2012, Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on gay and lesbian parenting, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 4, at 735-75. LISTS many testimonials of gay-based families; CONCLUSION: "It is not necessary to do additional research to find that something precious and important has been taken from a child who is forced to live without a mother or father, and the state has no business encouraging such a taking. For these reasons, please abide by the Florida marriage laws."
11/24/2014	CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT	Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS, United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register: http://GordonWatts.com and http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com)	Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts in 14-14061. [14-14061, 14-14066]
11/26/2014	GRIMSLEY APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF MOTION	William J. Sheppard of Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DiMaggio P.A.	[Response to] MOTION to stay pending appeal filed by James Domer Brenner, Charles Dean Jones, Ozzie Russ and Stephen Schlairet. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [7333304-1] (ECF: William Sheppard) CITES: Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 which holds that a stay on an injunction is not a matter of right, but that the party seeking it bears the burden of justifying such relief. ARGUES: (1) Appellants are not likely to succeed on the merits; (2) appellants (State of Florida) will not suffer irreparable harm if stay is lifted (and injunction goes into effect against the Florida Marriage Law) defining marriage as solely 1 man and 1 woman); (3) plaintiffs seeking Same Sex marriage will suffer irreparable harm if stay is not lifted; and, (4) no public interest is served by continuing the stay. Editor's Note-even the issuing judge conceded that: "But at the stay-pending-appeal stage, an additional public interest comes into play. There is a substantial public interest in implementing this decision just once—in not having, as some states have had, a decision that is on-again, off-again. This is so for marriages already entered elsewhere, and it is more clearly so for new marriages. There is a substantial public interest in stable marriage laws. Indeed, there is a substantial public interest in allowing those who would enter same-sex marriages the same opportunity for due deliberation that opposite-sex couples routinely are afforded. Encouraging a rush to the marriage officiant, in an effort to get in before an appellate court enters a stay, serves the interests of nobody." Cite: pages 28-29 of 33 of this August 21, 2014 ruling issued by Judge Hinkle in the tribunal below. Also, the novel Equal Protection argument by Amicus, Watts, can not be denied in a 'fair' court unless polygamy is deemed legal (which seems very unlikely), so appellants, The State of Florida, seem almost certain to win on the merits, even if some portions of Florida Law are struck as unconstitutionally denying certain benefits to citizens -gay or otherwise -who are not married; so, prong (1) above also is questionable: appellants do seem likely to win on the merits -in time. DISCUSSES: The concept of the fundamental right to marry. Implicates (refutes) Stare Decisis in claims that the fact that SSM is a 'new' concept does not render is void as a right; Argues that Lofton has been effectively overturned by Windsor regarding heightened scrutiny; CLAIMS that the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene. Editor's note-This writer feels otherwise: No matter who wins, it seems likely that the matter will be reheard en banc and then appealed -and accepted for review -by the U.S. Supreme Court in light of the 4-2 split in the circuits -it is 4-2, not 4-1, since I count the recent Federal Puerto Rico decision here: Ada Conde-Vidal, er al. v. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla, et al., Civil No. 14-1253 (PG), Case# 3:14-cv-01253-P. There is also a great 'split' insofar as public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of the new Florida Law: it passed with greater than a 60% supermajority needed for proposed Constitutional Amendments; thus given the 'split' in opinion here, it seems all but inevitable that the SCOTUS will take the case.
11/26/2014	BRENNER APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXTEND STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF THIS MOTION	Daniel Boaz Tilley of The A.C.L.U. (Florida chapter)	RESPONSE to Motion to stay pending appeal filed by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols in 14-14066 [7326286-2] filed by Attorney Daniel Boaz Tilley for Appellees Sloan Grimsley, Joyce Albu, etc. (ECF: Daniel Tilley) MAKES similar arguments regarding the 4-pronged test for a stay (delay) on an injunction pending appeal, but cites Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) instead. ARGUES: Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), is not "binding on this Court. But the precedential value of a summary dismissal is not the same as that of an opinion of the Court addressing the issue after full briefing and argument. Edelman v. Jordan,, 415 U.S. 651, 671 (1974). “[I]f the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial, it remains so except when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise[.]” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) (emphasis added)." ARGUES: "Principles of federalism do not insulate the marriage ban from scrutiny." Editor's Note-somewhat true: for example, state's could not implement polygamy under 10th Amendment principles of Federalism and States' Rights. Misc. other Constitutional arguments.
12/03/2014	Order Denying extension of stay	BY THE COURT:	ORDER: Motion to stay pending appeal filed by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols is DENIED. [7326278-2] in 14-14061, Motion to stay pending appeal filed by Appellants John H. Armstrong and Craig J. Nichols is DENIED. [7326286-2] in 14-14066 FMH, CRW and AJ [14-14061, 14-14066] BY THE COURT:     On November 18, 2014, the Appellants in the above appeals, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Health, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services, and the Clerk of Court of Washington County (collectively, Appellants), jointly filed a Motion to Extend Stay of Preliminary Injunctions Pending Appeal and for Expedited Treatment of This Motion (the Motion). Appellees James Domer Brenner, et al., and Appellees Sloan Grimsley, et al., filed separate responses in opposition to the Motion.     Appellants’ request for expedited review of the Motion is granted. Having reviewed and fully considered the Motion, the parties’ briefs, and the orders issued by the District Court in the proceedings below, the Court hereby denies Appellants’ Motion. The stay of preliminary injunctions entered by the District Court expires at the end of the day on January 5, 2015.
12/11/2014	Order granting motions of various Amici for leave to file Amici Curiae briefs	Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE	ORDER: Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Not Parties Robert Oscar Lopez and David C. Boyle is GRANTED. [Likewise for] Amicus Briefs filed by the following Amici Curiae: US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Paul McHugh, Scholars of the Institution of Marriage, Alliance Defending Freedom, Robert P. George, Amicus Curiae 16 Scholars of Federalism and Judicial Restraint, Robert Oscar Lopez RSR [14-14061, 14-14066]
12/12/2014	Order to C. Anthony Citro re tardy motion and deficient brief	Hon. JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court	Public Communication:. [14-14061, 14-14066] Please be advised that your motion to file an amicus brief is out of time. If a motion to file out of time brief is not immediately filed, your motion and brief will be returned. The motion received does not contain a certificate of service which also needs to be filed with the motion. Also, the motion and brief are deficient because neither have been served upon the opposing party.
12/15/2014, pending USPS Priority in transit	Motion for Leave to file out of time “AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION”	Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS, United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register: http://GordonWatts.com and http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com)	Motion for leave to file an out of time Amended Amicus brief to replace current one on docket. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [14-14061, 14-14066]
12/15/2014, pending USPS Priority in transit	AMENDED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS, SUPPORTING PETITION OF DEFENDANT, JOHN ARMSTRONG, RE: FLORIDA LAW, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS' PETITION	Gordon Wayne Watts, BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences; Class of 2000, double major with honours; AS, United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian; editor-in-chief, The Register: http://GordonWatts.com and http://GordonWayneWatts.com * Official Press Release: (Via PRWeb.com)	Amended Amicus brief proper [14-14061, 14-14066]

This research, as protected by Fair Use and International "fair dealing" law, is specifically for non-profit, educational research criticism, review, and newspaper summary.
Learn more. (Alt. 'Learn more' link.) Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F and use the find bar.
Courtesy The Register:  GordonWatts.com - GordonWayneWatts.com