Wolf v. Walker

Last updated

Wolf v. Walker
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
No. 14-2526
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case nameVirginia Wolf, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Walker, et al.,
Defendants.
ArguedAugust 26, 2014
DecidedSeptember 4, 2014
Citation(s)766 F.3d 648
Case history
Prior action(s)District Court (W.D. Wis)

June 13, 2014: Stay ordered, 2014 WL 2693963.

June 6, 2014: Plaintiff same-sex couples' motion for declaratory and injunctive relief granted, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982.
Subsequent action(s)U.S. Supreme Court October 6, 2014: Petition for writ of certiorari denied, [1] 2014 WL 4425163, 83 USLW 3102.
Related action(s)Court of Appeals (7th Cir.) July 11, 2014: Consolidated for argument with Baskin v. Bogan , No. 14-2386.
Holding
The district court's decision invalidating Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban is affirmed.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Richard Posner,
David Hamilton,
Ann Claire Williams.
Keywords
Same-sex marriage

Wolf v. Walker is a federal lawsuit filed in February 2014 that challenged Wisconsin's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions, and related statutes. In June 2014, Judge Barbara Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled for the plaintiffs. In the week before she stayed her decision, county clerks in 60 of the state's 72 counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and some performed marriage ceremonies for them. The state appealed her decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed her opinion in a unanimous decision on September 4. The state requested a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6. Same-sex marriages resumed after the Seventh Circuit issued its mandate the next day.

Contents

Filing

On February 3, 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the law firm of Mayer Brown filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of four same-sex couples, including a lesbian couple married in Minnesota in 2013. It challenged the state constitution's ban on same-sex marriage as well as Wisconsin's marriage evasion law, which makes it a crime to leave the state to establish a marriage that is not valid in Wisconsin punishable with up to nine months in jail and a fine of as much as $10,000. The suit named Governor Scott Walker, several state officials, and two county clerks as defendants. [2] [3]

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Barbara Brandriff Crabb, who scheduled a hearing for March 27. [4] The two county clerks named as defendants supported the plaintiffs' position. District attorneys in Milwaukee and Eau Claire counties agreed not to prosecute the plaintiffs under the marriage evasion law. Prompted by Judge Crabb, who noted that several rulings against state bans of same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions had been stayed, on March 12 the plaintiffs withdrew their request for injunctions against the state's enforcement of both its ban on same-sex marriage and the marriage evasion law, and asked the court to set an expedited schedule. [5]

District court ruling

On June 6, 2014, Crabb concluded that the state's constitutional and legislative ban on same-sex marriage interferes with the fundamental right to marry, violating the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States, and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, violating the equal protection clause. [6]

Crabb concluded that "sexual-orientation discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny" under the equal protection clause based on four factors used by the United States Supreme Court: (1) a history of discrimination, (2) an ability to "contribute to society to the same extent as others", (3) sexual orientation is immutable in the sense that "the law may not require someone to change his or her sexual orientation" and that it is "fundamental to a person's identity", and (4) being politically powerless in the sense of an "inherent vulnerab[ility] in the context of the ordinary political process, either because of...size or history of disenfranchisement." Crabb stated that the state's same-sex marriage ban must be substantially related to an important governmental objective to survive heightened scrutiny, specifically intermediate scrutiny. [7]

The important government interests argued by the state were: "(1) preserving tradition; (2) encouraging procreation generally and 'responsible' procreation in particular; (3) providing an environment for 'optimal child rearing'; (4) protecting the institution of marriage; (5) proceeding with caution; and (6) helping to maintain other legal restrictions on marriage." [8]

The state had argued that, "[t]he traditional view of marriage—between a man and woman...—has been recognized for millennia." Crabb stated, "the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue...Similarly, women were deprived of many opportunities, including the right to vote, for much of this country's history, often because of 'traditional' beliefs about women's abilities...With respect to marriage in particular, there was a time when 'the very being or legal existence of [a] woman [was] suspended' when she married," [9] [10] referring to coverture.

Reaction

Although the ruling did not immediately issue an injunction directing state officials to stop enforcing the ban, [11] clerks in the state's largest two counties, Milwaukee and Dane, began marrying same-sex couples on their own volition based on Judge Crabb's declaration. [12] By the following business day, June 9, forty-two counties were issuing licenses. [13] [14] Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen filed for an emergency stay from Crabb to stop further marriages [12] [15] and also requested a stay from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. [16] Crabb denied the emergency stay because she had not yet issued an injunction that could be stayed. She said that she had yet to decide whether county clerks can issue marriage licenses and that it was for state courts to decide if county clerks were issuing licenses in violation of state law. [17] [18] The Seventh Circuit also denied a stay because Crabb had not yet issued a final ruling. [17] After consultations with the state's department of vital records, Brown and Sheboygan counties began performing same-sex marriages on June 9, though Outagamie and Door counties placed a five-day waiting period on applicants before performing ceremonies. In the case of counties performing ceremonies, the waiting period was waived with a payment of $25 in addition to the license fee to the county clerk. [19] [20] Sixty of Wisconsin's seventy-two counties were issuing licenses during the eight-day window. [21]

On June 12, Attorney General Van Hollen suggested that county clerks issuing same-sex marriage licenses could be prosecuted by their county's individual district attorneys for issuing them against the advice of the attorney general's office. [22] [23]

Hearing on injunctive relief

The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, submitted proposed language for injunctive relief, as directed by Judge Crabb in her original ruling. The state Office of the Attorney General, while requesting that the court "expedite its ruling and enter final judgment without further hearing or oral argument," has filed an objection to it. On one hand, attorneys for the defendants stated that the proposed injunction "is not sufficiently specific" and "hopelessly vague," and on the other hand, objected to it as "expansive in scope" and described it as "judicial legislation." [24] [25]

On June 13, 2014, Crabb adopted the injunction proposed by the plaintiffs, rewording it to address the concerns of vagueness expressed by the state defendants. [26] [27] She enjoined the defendants from enforcing the ban but stayed "all relief in this case", meaning the injunction and declaration of unconstitutionality (despite her previous finding that defendants could not cite authority to stay a declaration); this effectively ended same-sex marriage even under county clerks' own volition in Wisconsin, pending appeal. The judge expressed the view that she was bound by Supreme Court precedent to enter the stay: [28]

After seeing the expressions of joy on the faces of so many newly wedded couples featured in media reports, I find it difficult to impose a stay on the event that is responsible for eliciting that emotion, even if the stay is only temporary. Same-sex couples have waited many years to receive equal treatment under the law, so it is understandable that they do not want to wait any longer.

Appeal

The state appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10. [29] In response to a request by the original plaintiffs, the Court has combined the case for the purposes of briefing and oral argument with a similar Indiana case, Baskin v. Bogan . [30] [31] Judges Richard Posner, David Hamilton, and Ann Claire Williams heard arguments on August 26 in this case and Baskin v. Bogan . [32]

On September 4, the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, upheld the district court decision. [33] He wrote: [34]

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction–that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended–is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents.

On September 9, Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. [35] The court stayed its decision before it could take effect. [36] On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to the combined appeal, letting the circuit court decision stand. [37] Attorney General Van Hollen subsequently issued a statement saying that, "the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision holding Wisconsin's Marriage Protection Amendment unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has declined the opportunity to examine that decision. It is now our obligation to comply with those court decisions." [38]

Same-sex marriages resumed after the Seventh Circuit issued its mandate the next day. [39] [40]

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Florida since January 6, 2015, as a result of a ruling in Brenner v. Scott from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on August 21, 2014. The order was stayed temporarily. State attempts at extending the stay failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court denying further extension on December 19, 2014. In addition, a state court ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Miami-Dade County on the afternoon of January 5, 2015. In another state case challenging the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, a Monroe County court in Huntsman v. Heavilin stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal and the stay expired on January 6, 2015.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, upon the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of an appellate court ruling in Wolf v. Walker that had found Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The appellate court issued its order prohibiting enforcement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage the next day and Wisconsin counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately. Wisconsin had previously recognized domestic partnerships, which afforded limited legal rights to same-sex couples, from August 2009 until they were discontinued in April 2018.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made similar rulings with respect to such bans in Utah on June 25 and Oklahoma on July 18, which are binding precedents on courts in Colorado. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Tenth Circuit cases, and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay. On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Utah since October 6, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a result of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's ruling in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, which found that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the U.S. Constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of January 6, 2014 until October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal in a case that found Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Alabama since June 26, 2015, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Not all counties immediately complied with the ruling, copying behavior from the civil rights era when they had refused to perform interracial marriages. A year after the Supreme Court ruling, twelve counties would either issue licenses to no one or only to opposite-sex couples. By 2017, this number had dropped to only eight counties, with all eight refusing to issue licenses to anyone. In May 2019, the Alabama Legislature passed a bill replacing the option that counties issue marriage licenses and perform marriage ceremonies with the requirement of counties to record marriage certificates. Subsequently, all counties complied and announced on August 29, 2019 that they would record marriage certificates for interracial and same-sex couples. Previously, Alabama had banned the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of such marriages from other jurisdictions by executive order in 1996, by statute in 1998, and by constitutional amendment in June 2006.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Nebraska since June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Following the court ruling, Attorney General Doug Peterson announced that the state of Nebraska would comply and recognize same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Kansas following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, which found the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples unconstitutional. By June 30, all 31 judicial districts and all 105 Kansas counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples or had agreed to do so. Kansas state agencies initially delayed recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes including but not limited to changing names, ascribing health benefits and filing joint tax returns, but began doing so on July 6.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Previously, the U.S. state of Texas had banned same-sex marriage both by statute since 1973 and in its State Constitution since 2005. On February 26, 2014, Judge Orlando Luis Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Texas's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. On April 22, 2014, a state court came to the same conclusion. Both cases were appealed. The district court's decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could issue a ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the United States in Obergefell on June 26, 2015. Within a few months of the court ruling, all counties had started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, except for Irion County, which announced in 2020 that it would begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples, making it the last county in the United States to comply with the ruling.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2014.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Kentucky since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, was handed down on June 26, 2015, and Governor Steve Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway announced almost immediately that the court's order would be implemented.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Mississippi since June 26, 2015. On November 25, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled that Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Enforcement of his ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution. On June 29, Attorney General Jim Hood ordered clerks to comply with the court ruling and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Fifth Circuit lifted its stay on July 1, and Judge Reeves ordered an end to Mississippi's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban. However, until July 2, 2015, several counties in Mississippi continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses, including DeSoto, Jasper, Jones, Newton, Pontotoc, Simpson and Yalobusha.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arkansas since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, striking down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. Prior to this, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as a result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza striking down the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage as violating the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

<i>Wright v. Arkansas</i>

Wright v. Arkansas is a same-sex marriage case pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court. An Arkansas Circuit Court judge ruled the Arkansas Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on May 9, 2014. He clarified his opinion to include state statutes that interfered with allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage as well. The state Supreme Court issued a stay in the case on May 16, 2014, but approximately 450 same-sex marriage licenses were issued before the stay went into effect.

<i>Whitewood v. Wolf</i>

Whitewood v. Wolf is the federal lawsuit that successfully challenged the Pennsylvania Marriage Laws, as amended in 1996 to ban same-sex marriage. The district court's decision in May 2014 held that the Marriage Laws violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Same-sex couples immediately sought and received marriage licenses and the decision was not appealed. One county clerk sought repeatedly without success to intervene to defend the law.

<i>Brinkman v. Long</i>

Brinkman v. Long, and its companion case, McDaniel-Miccio v. Hickenlooper, are the lead state court cases on same-sex marriage in Colorado. Here, a Colorado district court found on July 9, 2014, that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates same-sex couples' guarantees of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Brinkman and McDaniel-Miccio have been appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, where they were dismissed following the dismissal of similar petitions by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 6, 2014.

<i>Baskin v. Bogan</i>

Baskin v. Bogan, the lead Indiana case challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, was filed in federal district court on March 12, 2014, naming several government officials as defendants. Chief Judge Richard L. Young found for the plaintiffs on June 25. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court ruling in a unanimous decision on September 4.

<i>Burns v. Hickenlooper</i>

Burns v. Hickenlooper is a lawsuit filed on July 1, 2014, in federal district court in Colorado, challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the fundamental right of marriage. The defendants agreed with the substance of the plaintiffs' case, but asked the district court to stay implementation of any order requiring Colorado to alter enforcement of its ban pending the outcome of other litigation. After the district court declined to grant more than a one-month stay on July 23, the state's governor and attorney general appealed and won a stay from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21. Following U.S. Supreme Court action in other cases, on October 8 they asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss their appeal and lift the stay, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in Colorado.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

In the United States, the history of same-sex marriage dates from the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.

References

  1. ↑ Docket No. 14-278, United States Supreme Court.
  2. ↑ Geidner, Chris (February 3, 2014). "ACLU Filing Lawsuit In Wisconsin Seeking Marriage Equality". Buzz Feed. Retrieved March 12, 2014.
  3. ↑ Johnson, Chris (February 3, 2014). "Wisconsin latest state to face marriage lawsuit". Washington Blade. Retrieved February 3, 2014.
  4. ↑ "Federal judge to hear motion March 27 in Wisconsin marriage equality case". Wisconsin Gazette. February 28, 2014. Archived from the original on March 4, 2014. Retrieved March 12, 2014.
  5. ↑ Hall, Dee J. (March 12, 2014). "Request for injunction in gay-marriage suit withdrawn". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved March 12, 2014.
  6. ↑ Wolf v. Walker, 14-cv-64-bbc, (W.D. Michigan June 6, 2014) p 3
  7. ↑ Wolf v. Walker p 53-59
  8. ↑ Wolf v. Walker p 63
  9. ↑ Wolf v. Walker p 66-68
  10. ↑ Reilly, Ryan J. (June 6, 2014). "Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 7, 2014.
  11. ↑ Jason Stein; Patrick Marley; Dana Ferguson (June 6, 2014). "Federal judge overturns Wisconsin's gay marriage ban". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  12. 1 2 Bauer, Scott (June 6, 2014). "Gay Marriages Begin in Wisconsin After Ruling". ABC News. Associated Press. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  13. ↑ "Gay couples get licenses in 42 Wisconsin counties". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. June 9, 2014. Archived from the original on June 9, 2014. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  14. ↑ Johnson, M.L. (June 7, 2014). "Gay couples rush to marry at Wisconsin courthouses". AP News . Retrieved June 7, 2014.
  15. ↑ "Weddings continue after judge declares ban unconstitutional". Wisconsin State-Journal. June 7, 2014. Retrieved June 7, 2014.
  16. ↑ "Wisconsin attorney general files appeal to halt gay weddings". Chicago Tribune. June 9, 2014. Archived from the original on April 13, 2020. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  17. 1 2 Stein, Jason (June 10, 2014). "U.S. Appeals Court signals gay marriage ruling may be weeks away". Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
  18. ↑ Order on motion for emergency stay Archived July 14, 2014, at the Wayback Machine , 14-cv-64-bbc, (W.D. Michigan June 9, 2014)
  19. ↑ "UPDATE-5: Same-sex couples marrying in Brown County". WBAY-TV, Green Bay. June 9, 2014. Archived from the original on June 9, 2014. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  20. ↑ Kinzel, Mike (June 9, 2014). "Sheboygan County to accept same sex marriage license applications...for now". WHBL, Sheboygan. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  21. ↑ "60 Wisconsin counties now issuing same-sex marriage licenses". Star Tribune . The Associated Press. June 12, 2014. Archived from the original on June 15, 2014. Retrieved June 12, 2014.
  22. ↑ Marley, Patrick; Ferguson, Dana (June 12, 2014). "Van Hollen: Clerks issuing licenses to gay couples could be charged". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . Retrieved June 13, 2014.
  23. ↑ "AG: Clerks could face charges over gay licenses". WLUK-TV, Green Bay. June 12, 2014. Archived from the original on July 12, 2014. Retrieved June 12, 2014.
  24. ↑ Crabb, B. (U.S. District Judge) (June 9, 2014). "Order (Denying Stay), Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc". U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin . No.  PACER Document 125. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
  25. ↑ Samuelson, Timothy (Assistant Attorney General) (June 11, 2014). "State Defendants' Opposition to Proposed Injunction, Wolf v. Walker, No. 3:14-cv-64". U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin . No.  PACER Document 128. Scribd.com. Retrieved June 12, 2014.
  26. ↑ Stein, Jason; Marley, Patrick; Ferguson, Dana (June 13, 2014). "Judge ends gay marriage ban, but stops weddings for now". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
  27. ↑ "Opinion and Order, 14-cv-64-bbc, (W.D. Michigan Jun. 13, 2014)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 17, 2014. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
  28. ↑ Crabb, Barbara (U.S. District Judge) (June 13, 2014). "Opinion and Order, Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc" (PDF). U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin . Scribd.com. PACER Document 134.
  29. ↑ "State appeals ruling allowing gay marriages". Post Crescent. AP. July 10, 2014. Retrieved July 10, 2014.
  30. ↑ Marley, Patrick (July 11, 2014). "Appeals court to fast track state's gay marriage case with Indiana's". Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel. Retrieved July 14, 2014.
  31. ↑ Thomaston, Scottie (July 11, 2014). "Marriage equality updates in the Seventh and Tenth Circuits". Equality on Trial. Retrieved July 14, 2014.
  32. ↑ Disis, Jill; Evans, Tim (August 26, 2014). "Appeals court judges weigh Indiana gay marriage case". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved August 26, 2014.
  33. ↑ Johnson, Chris (September 4, 2014). "7th Circuit rules against marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana". Washington Blade. Retrieved September 4, 2015.
  34. ↑ Snow, Justin (September 4, 2014). "Federal appeals court finds Wisconsin, Indiana same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Retrieved September 4, 2014.
  35. ↑ Geidner, Chris (September 9, 2014). "Indiana, Wisconsin Officials Take Marriage Cases To Supreme Court". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved September 16, 2014.
  36. ↑ Stein, Jason (September 17, 2014). "Wisconsin's gay marriage ban to stay in place until U.S. Supreme Court rules". Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
  37. ↑ Howe, Amy (October 6, 2014). "Today's orders: Same-sex marriage petitions denied". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
  38. ↑ "Statement from Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in the Matter of Wolf, et al. v. Walker, et al". Wisconsin Department of Justice. October 6, 2015.
  39. ↑ "7th Circuit lifts stays, ending Indiana, Wisconsin same-sex marriage bans". LGBTQ Nation. October 7, 2014. Retrieved October 11, 2014.
  40. ↑ Meyer, Holly (October 7, 2014). "Same-sex couples can marry in the Fox Valley". Appleton Post-Crescent. Retrieved October 11, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.