County clerks in Wyoming did not begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Monday, despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision that opened the door to gay nuptials in five states.

Instead, the immediate future of gay marriage in the Equality State remained murky, with Gov. Matt Mead insisting the high court's decision has nothing to do with a gay marriage case in state court and an attorney for plaintiffs in the state case saying the decision will hasten the inevitability of gay marriages in Wyoming.

Mead said he will proceed with the state case, despite action Monday morning from the U.S. Supreme Court that could ultimately pave the way for same-sex marriage in Wyoming.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has no impact on the case before the Wyoming District Court,” he said in a statement.

The Supreme Court turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, according to The Associated Press. That upholds lower court decisions to allow gay marriage in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Oklahoma and Utah are part of the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Wyoming is also a part. Gay marriage advocates such as the state's only openly gay lawmaker, Rep. Cathy Connolly, D-Laramie, say that since the 10th Circuit’s ruling that marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Wyoming’s ban is also in violation.

Mead, a Republican who is up for re-election Nov. 4, disagrees.

He said the state case, which is before Laramie County District Court Judge Thomas Campbell, needs to move forward. Briefs are due by Nov. 17, and arguments are scheduled for Dec. 15.

“The attorney general will continue to defend Wyoming’s constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman,” Mead said.

Mead is a defendant in the state case, called Courage v. Wyoming. Mead has said he opposes same-sex marriage because of religious beliefs.

Rob Johnston of Casper is one of the plaintiffs in the case, along with his partner of 17 years, Carl Oleson. Johnston was not surprised by Mead’s statement.

Johnston and Oleson married in Canada.

“We would like our marriage recognized in Wyoming,” he said. “We feel gay people are entitled to the same marriage rights as anyone else.”

Under the state’s current marriage ban, if one partner were to get sick, the other partner couldn’t make medical decisions. Family can challenge survivor benefits in a will because same-sex marriage is not recognized, Johnston said.

James Lyman, a Denver-based attorney representing the plaintiffs in the state case, was waiting to hear from the attorney general’s office Monday. He believes the Supreme Court ruling accelerates the conclusion of the Wyoming case.

“I think, given what happened at the Supreme Court today, it is evident that marriage equality is coming to Wyoming sooner than later,” he said.

Lyman criticized Mead’s stance on not allowing gay marriage. He said it’s state law, not the state Constitution, that defines marriage as a civil contract between a man and woman.

“It is unfortunate that the governor is choosing to ignore his oath of office, which requires him to ‘support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States’ as well as the constitution of the State of Wyoming,” he said. “He also appears to be unaware that the Wyoming Constitution does not define marriage between a man and a woman, so his statement that he will ‘continue to defend Wyoming’s constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman’ has no basis in the law.”

Clerks in Natrona, Laramie and Teton counties told the Star-Tribune on Monday they had received calls from couples who wanted to marry but they were not going to issue licenses until they received direction to do so.

“Without a law change, it would have to come from an order from a judge,” Natrona County Clerk Renea Vitto said. “Otherwise we’re just going to wait until the law changes here."

Jackie Gonzales, the Albany County clerk, hasn’t decided what to do.

“I am currently seeking guidance from my county attorney, who is looking into the matter for me,” she said.

Jeran Artery, chairman of Wyoming Equality, had expected that gay marriage wouldn’t be recognized in Wyoming on Monday. But he believes the Supreme Court case might bring gay marriage to Wyoming faster.

“I think today is very exciting, and it sets some wonderful precedent,” he said. “But I don’t want to get cocky or overly comfortable and assume we can rush out and get a clerk to give us a license.”

Jason Marsden, executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation, sent a statement on the 16th anniversary of Shepard's abduction and fatal attack.

"The Supreme Court’s decision shows the progress we have made since Matt was attacked, a tragedy that drastically changed the way our country discussed issues of anti-LGBT hate," he said. "That conversation is ongoing, and the Matthew Shepard Foundation continues to be at the forefront of ending anti-LGBT hate."

Thomas Stanley of Cheyenne called the Laramie County clerk about marrying his partner of four years. He was denied. He plans to continue calling around the state in hopes of finding a clerk who will give them a license.

"I should have gone somewhere else (to another state to marry), but it’s a matter of principle,” he said. “I was born in this state. I will live here all my life. I don’t think I will do it until I can.”

Reach political reporter Laura Hancock at 307-266-0581 or at laura.hancock@trib.com. Follow her on Twitter: @laurahancock.

(102) comments

proteus

I called the Laramie County Clerk to see if they would issue my partner and I a marriage license, however, they were in a meeting (likely about this issue) and I am waiting to hear back. I truly hope that they will issue our license, as a matter of principal I want to be married in my home state and have been waiting for something like this to happen for some time. There is still hope in Wyoming of actually living up to our "Equality State" moniker...

klosternSM

'my partner and me a marriage license,' They would give my partner a license; they would give me a license; they would give my partner and me a license.

commonsnese

Real problems being discussed by real people and you are checking grammar. You and I both have more important things to do. Just say no to judgment unless you are a judge or God.

loquiter

Both are wrong. The state court still has to enter an order, but with the controlling precedent now set by the 10th Circuit CoA, it probably is a foregone conclusion. Although, who knows if Mead will try to resist and draw it out. However, the fact that this is a state case, brought under the state constitution does not mean the state's constitution can trump the liberty right recognized under the U.S. Constitution. State courts must adhere to and recognize the US Constitution as well. This is derived from the 14th Amendment, and basically means no state can under its laws or constitution bestow lesser protections or rights than the US Constitution, although states can afford greater protections. State court judges are also obligated to uphold the laws of the US constitution and recognize and apply US constitutional law in the case of any conflict between state and federal law (this is the Supremacy clause). In other words, state case or not, the state courts must recognize and apply US Constitutional law when it comes to issues like these and they are bound by precedent of controlling federal courts. the floor has been set as far as the right of a state, no matter how they word the law or finesse subtleties, to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples. So I think Coleman is probably not right in that there is still a process for the state court to apply the law and enter and order, and Artery is not right in suggesting that somehow this issue under the state constitution makes the outcome any different.

LearnTeach

6th article of our Constitution...federal law trumps state law no matter what. Wyoming must allow gay marriage.

gw hayduke
gw hayduke

a great day for equal rights under the law.
sad that the "Equality State" had to be forced to by the courts to treat all its citizens equally

Kool Kat

Just as I thought, the lack of truth, innuendos come out by the droves.
(As we now have someone rewriting our forefather's wording)
Article. VI. (US Constitution)
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I suppose the gay community doesn't get it - just cause you want something, does not give you the right, regardless of how rulings are seen.

gw hayduke
gw hayduke

Kool Kat, you seem to have your own, rather personal, interpretation of the constitution.

unfortunately for you the courts see it differently. If anyone doesn't get it, it's you.

There are a couple of things you should get used to Kool Kat, gay marriage is coming to Wyoming and ALL citizens must be treated equally under the law.

Alces alces
Alces alces

The Wyoming Constitution does not even contain the word "marriage." It's Wyoming statute, 20-1-101, that states the requirement for a marriage to be between a man and a woman. Matt Mead is incorrect.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to take on these appeals, has essentially ruled that states' bans for marriage between gay people goes against the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution--the ultimate law of the land.

Clarknt67
Clarknt67

What you aren't getting is this debate isn't going to be won or lost in comment sections of blogs.

It's going to be won in the courts and so far your side is 42 losses to 1 win. But I'm sure would never admit it's possible 50 sitting Federal judges might have a better understanding of law than you.

As the Democratic candidate for Congress and a gay man, I forbid you to vote for me. i want only intelligent people to vote for me -- even if that 's only 5% of the vote in Wyoming.

GOPRealist

Wow, that was actually pretty funny!

Kool Kat

Attn Socialist Grayson, you are welcomed in having people like LearnTeach spreading unconstitutional ignorance in your honor that follow and vote for you. Perhaps that's what "wrong" with the (former) Democrat Party today? The socialist invasion that rebukes this country and what it stands for.

But I do realize that next month, when the socialists lose both Houses in DC. This is the last stand in attempt to further corrupt this nation. Don't forget as you are defeated by Congresswoman Lummis.
The US Constitution is a "living document" that we live by - as a nation of law abiding citizens. Separate from the lies and cover-ups we see from your hero, liar in Chief, Obama.
Finally, even though you "verbally" make me feel unwanted and unwelcome with you, I still welcome you and and call you fellow Wyomingite. Perhaps that's the difference between our philosophical values, you see me as your enemy and I see you as a "fellow citizen". - Just how welcoming and moral are the socialists that call themselves democrats today?

Cowboy Joe

Wow! It must be an election year and Mead is still scared. Too bad he sounds just like George Wallace in the wake of Brown v Board of Ed. You'd think Mead would be smart enough as an attorney to let gays get married, side step the issue and move forward, instead he's going to be the last one who comes into the 21st Century and honors the true meaning of equality.

Average Guy

If the newspaper report is correct, our Govenror has just made a huge mistake. Bound as he is to support the Constitution, he is allowing his religious beliefs to trump his constitutional duty.

We are supposed to be a nation of Constitutional Law, not religious beliefs.

TC

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
No Government at any level has the right to stop anyone from getting married!

VOR
VOR

So, cult member Matt Mead says his religious beliefs are why he opposes the civil right of marriage equality. I hope all reasonable Wyomingites will vote for Pete Gosar for governor. The highest elected office in Wyoming is no place for superstitious, cult members who use their powers to keep their foot on the necks of those who are different from them. Please vote Democrat. Vote absentee or vote early as I will do this week, or vote on Election Day. Out with the cultural dinosaurs and in with reason. It is past time.

profbleu

Mead is a fool as a meathead. Love is "humans" not race, nor religious, nor sexual orientations... If someone see a different then he/she must watch too much Mainstream News or have a F*** up narrow minded... so get on with his/her life as Supreme Court has said, equality is here to STAY😜 If she/he doesn't like it, then please move to another country like Russia or North Korea. Boo Hoo that she/he cannot get her/his way. Constitution is the law by the people for the people and not the Bible!!!God is God and he/she could be the same or might be not to many of us. God teaches to love your neighbor regardless of their differences. God hates ugly people who spread hate so watch out😜haters

molonlabe58

Matt Mead is making Pete Gosar look better every time mead opens his mouth.

Cheyguy43

I have voted for Matt Mead in both of his primary contests and his last general election. Because of his actions, or lack thereof, his obvious disregard of the U.S Constitution, and his continued fight to keep Wyoming from truly being the "Equality State" he lost my vote today. This is not a religious issue but a legal one, one that has been ruled on in our Federal District and one the U.S. Supreme Court has denied to hear or overturn. It is time to grant all Wyoming Citizens the same rights and privileges in marriage. Shame on you Governor Mead!

amazonjudy2001
amazonjudy2001

I have witnessed the disregard for OUR constitution in this state by elected officials from our own county commissioners, who continue to try to take your rights away it seems almost at every meeting now. From My case, in which we won a HUGE Victory for land owners all over this state. the county violated our constitutional rights and are once more doing it again with their civility resolution. It so far against your rights that a first year law student could rip it apart in a matter of minutes in a court of law. all the way up to the governor. The Fact is that this will continue as long as we have in charge those who believe they are somehow immune from following it. It would seem most elected officials, while they swear to uphold the constitution, do not even understand its meaning, perhaps we need to send them all a copy of it before election. vote mead out.

Mary Chainie

but most of wyoming is republican controlled, why cant you get your conservatives to do your bidding? oh i forgot they are for the ultra rich and the dum dums keep thinking the repubs will pay attn to the avg voter, who is often under informed and blinded by the right wing faux false gibberish machine and rush OXY bo --- you silly ditto heads.

Mick307

I would like to know specifically in the Constitution where is states we have a constitutional right to get married. To anybody men and women alike. I have read the Constitution and have not found the section pertaining the right to get married. This issue among others I find pertains to the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people. This is one of many issues that supposedly we have a constitutional right to. However, these "rights" are not in the Constitution, they should be left to the States according to the 10th Amendment.
Our Constitution is not a pick and choose document depending on your stance of an issue. Too long now we citizens have decided that the Constitution applies to some issues and not others. We allow certain groups the right of free speech yet other groups, even if we disagree with the issue, we say should be censored. This is not a democracy this is a Constitutional Republic.
I have no stance on gay marriage. Why do we need to have the state/govt say we are married anyway. Is that true liberty? I believe our issues fall much deeper than these States Rights issues we fight about on a daily basis. Maybe we can start with less government invading our personals lives on a majority of issues we continue to fight about.

GOPRealist

Mick,

No one is saying the right to get married is in the Constitution per se.

What the first paragraph of the 14th Amendment does say is we have the right to due process AND to be treated equally before the law.

Laws prohibiting same-sex unions treats a fairly small and insular minority (gay people) differently from those who are not gay. In this case gay people are not being treated equally before the law as straight people might.

That's the argument anyway.

ScreenGoddess

It's not in the text of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held marriage is a fundamental right.

Whether the State *should* sanction marriage is another story, but as long as the State sanctions marriage, it remains a fundamental right.

Cowboy Joe

Ultimately all someone needs to do is apply for a marriage license, if rejected appeal to WY Fed Dist Court---case closed

You are exactly right.

mbudenske

The PTBs in State (and local) Government have a long history of opposing federal law. From 1986 when Gillette tried to secede from the Wyoming over school funding to the continued court battles over water rights in the Platte and Big Horn rivers to the fighting the Fed over listing of the wolf and I could go on and on and on. Why is anyone expecting the state to allow same sex marriage just because the Supreme Court's actions seem to have ordained same sex marriage nation

Clarknt67
Clarknt67

Gov. Mead needs to move on. The party is over for anti-gay politics, the fight to "defend marriage" is over.

wyotruth

kat is wrong again. and so is Mead.

Pigdog

Dear Governor Mead,

You are the Governor of us all. Not just the people who share your religious views. Your religious beliefs belong in your church and home.

Thanks.

Mary Chainie

Keep your religious dogma in your churches of worship and cults of hatred?

Alces alces
Alces alces

Pigdog: I just gotta say I love your post. Too true.

amazonjudy2001
amazonjudy2001

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Im kinda thinking the three would be the umbrella for gay marriage. " its all a matter of angles"

Pdawg
Pdawg

I'm shocked I saw all the comments posted and I was very hesitant to read them. I figured they would be filled with hate speeches and bigot opinions. I'm glad to say I think it's great Wyoming is full of actual intelligent people not just closed minded bigots. We have far bigger things to worry about then who I can or can't unite in a marriage contract with.

Triple BB

Do what you want with you and yours, just keep away from me and mine. We already have enough moral decay in this country...

Comment deleted.
molonlabe58

Well said Lander

Mary Chainie

Immoral Heterosexual decay?

Wyoming MD

Like the sanctity of marriage we see in heterosexual marriages, that are so morally superior to the idea of homosexual marriages, with Kim Kardashian (72 days)or Brittney Spears (lasting 55 hrs) as stellar examples of how great the traditional, heterosexual marriages would be, compared to the "bad" homosexual marriages

RepublicansRock

Completely agree!

wyotruth

It is a really sad that Gov. Mead is either protecting his right flank for a future run for Senate, or his religious beliefs are so warped that they discriminate against couples who want to marry. Either way he is wrong. Thankfully, he is also wrong about the end result, which will be legal gay marriage in the Equality State in a few weeks or months.

molonlabe58

Wyoming has a problem with religious bigotry. It has for decades. Why do you think it took decades to get the lottery? Yet bingo was exempt. Too much of Wyoming is run from Salt Lake City Utah. The LDS Church should not run Wyoming or any state nor should any church run any state.

Bearhead

All rights first start with right to life. Without Mom, bringing these Plaintiffs into this world, Gay marriage is a non~starter. This you cannot dispute.

The Plaintiffs deserve what I have, a happy and committed relationship. If and when they achieve equality, I hope they see their struggle tied to the right to be born.

Wyoming MD

Actually, it is about choice, the choice to marry, the choice of giving birth, the choice of employment, the choice of where to live, a whole bunch of choices. And then some people insisting that they know what is best for you, in your individual life. And nearly always in the un-American rejection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution

IdrahaJe

I can remember watching "And the Band Played On" back in the 90's, and being emotionally moved. It was very apparent that the government had not provided the help that was so desperately needed to those who were dying from HIV/AIDS. It was stirring to listen to Elton John sing at the end, and seeing all the pictures of the people that had died. I can remember tears rolling down my face, and thinking to myself "how could a government withhold money that could have saved lives?"

I had that same reaction when I watched Dallas Buyers Club. How can anyone justify withholding anything that might save someone's life? I don't care if the life was of a homosexual, straight, young, old, anyone. it was wrong. It was upsetting to see the way that people suffered, needlessly.

I keep hearing people talk about hate. If I hated homosexuals, I'd have been rooting for homosexuals to suffer and die, no matter what the cause. Here's a news flash for you: Not every person that is a follower of a religion thinks like Falwell, or the guy from KS. I know you don't believe it, but it bears repeating, people, religious people as well, watched "The Normal Heart" and we're furious. No one should ever suffer in such a way. I've NEVER enjoyed the physical, emotional, psychological, or emotional abuse or suffering, of anyone. Why?Because I am capable of empathy. Because I care.

if you are either incapable, or unwilling to see that people may disagree with homosexual marriage, and yet still care about them, that says more about YOU, than them. I have homosexual friends, and relatives. Do you agree with everything every one of your friends does? Of course not.

It appears that most of the intolerance and bigotry on this particular subject is coming from those who hate any thing to do with any kind of faith. Those of you that are calling others names are acting exactly the way you claim that you don't want to be treated. The irony.

Those of you that aren't homosexual have no idea what has happened today. These same anti faith, name calling folks are the same ones that will try to get the Bible declared hate speech, and they will certainly end up suing a church for the "right" to be married there. Yes, I heard you say "no self respecting homosexual would have anything to do with you." (Whose intolerant??)) Don't tell me that "no self respecting homosexual would be caught dead in your church!" Several of you on here now, along with the other tried and true faith haters, are seething with so much hatred, TRUE HATRED, against anyone of faith, that you sue a church in a flash. (If you say "oh no, not me", guess what?? You're a liar!!!)

What you call me, and say about me, says more about you, than it does me. If you are blinded by your beliefs, then you are a fool. I am a man of deep faith. The difference between you, and me? If I saw you stranded on the side of the road in a snowstorm, I'd stop and pick you up, and take you where you needed to go. If you saw me on the side of the road, you'd drive by laughing at my situation. Whose the real bigot, and hater? It's not always the person of faith.

Mary Chainie

wonderful post

WYO KID

"Argumentum Ad Hominem"-Dr. Frank Burns

Wyoming MD

No, Idraha, it is about the anti-American violating the US Constitution through attempting to legislate a certain politicoreligious view at the detriment of the freedom of other tax payers.

Your Church doesn't have to perform homosexual marriages. But you seeking to deny others doing this is bigotry, and no amount of "but some of my best friends are.." will cover that. I hope you can look in your heart and realize that keeping others in a cage, gilded or not, while you enjoy freedom, that simply is wrong, and so directly opposite of Jesus' message to us. So your faith is not that different than that expressed by Falwell. Is it that of the haters at Knights Of Columbus, who loves sin, because it gives them sinners to hate, as strongly as the worst of Falwell's crowd of Evangelicals?

WYO-BILL

The US Supreme court is eroding what is left of the 10th amendment of the US Constitution.

The Supreme court is supposed to make sure the US Constitution is followed - not legislate as they are doing in this issue and others. Choosing not to act is the same as allowing the lower courts ruling to stand.

If WY citizens don't want gay marriage it should not be forced down our throats by some perverse reasoning of the 14th amendment designed specifically for freed slaves. Same thing for California by passing a proposition to define marriage between a man and woman.

Is this what our country is becoming - no matter what the citizens want or vote for, if the minority does not agree - they litigate and have the courts override the will of the people?

Wyoming MD

Man, i get it. I feel for you. Things being forced down your throat. Civil rights, interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, women in the workplace. Pretty soon, there will be no legal way to discriminate anymore.How can you have "sinners" to hate, if there is no law against sin. Without sin, who can we hate? We will be left proclaiming the sin of those eating shellfish, or wearing clothes of blended fabric. Maybe, we can get those prohibitions in the State Constitution. Are you with me, Wyo-Bill?

WYO KID

Wow, two Argumentum Ad Hominem. Impressive lack of issue Doogie Howser MD

Wyoming MD

Heh, interesting, that you don't know what that means. ;)

Robotoad

So Bill, you say it is Ok to discriminate as long as you have a majority??? Yup, the WWII Germans felt the same way. Shame on your bigotry. Homosexuals deserve the same rights you have. If you don't like same sex marriages, don't go to the wedding.

Mary Chainie

wyo bill, what is your position on three way hetero's wife and husband swapping? and I guess the mile high club is morally acceptable? or elected republicans hiking the appalachian trail with his mistress while his/the governors wife was at home -- what great solid hetero values and morals, oh, i remember its hypocrisy!

Alces alces
Alces alces

The ultimate will of the people is in the U.S. Constitution. By refusing to hear the states' appeals, the Supreme Court has done its job to ensure the U.S Constitution is followed. That you don't like it is irrelevant.

The Wyoming Constitution (the ultimate will of Wyoming people--are you listening Matt Mead?), Article 1, Section 2 states: "Equality for all. In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal."

And for further reading enjoyment, I encourage everyone to check out Article 1, Section 3 about the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or any circumstance or condition.

GOPRealist

Alces, your reasoning is terrible. The 14th amendment was used to declare statutes forbidding interracial marriages unconstitutional. No this had nothing to do with slavery as the events to which you are referring and the events to which I'm referring happened roughly 100 years apart.

Do have any doubt that if such a law was in effect today in a state that not only would it be declared unconstitutional, it would be objectively immoral?

Alces alces
Alces alces

GOPRealist: Did you click on the wrong "reply" link?

GOPRealist

It appears I did Alces. I meant to reply to WYO-BILL. Very sorry.

GOPRealist

WYO-BILL, your reasoning is terrible. The 14th amendment was used to declare statutes forbidding interracial marriages unconstitutional. No this had nothing to do with slavery as the events to which you are referring and the events to which I'm referring happened roughly 100 years apart.

Do have any doubt that if such a law was in effect today in a state that not only would it be declared unconstitutional, it would be objectively immoral?

WYVET

It's a shame the Supreme Court was too gutless to take on this case and decide the issue once and for all.

ScreenGoddess

My guess is SCOTUS is waiting to see if any Circuit Courts of Appeal (or state Supreme Courts) go the other way. So far all the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have ruled, have held that one-man-one-woman marriage laws are unconstitutional.

GOPRealist

I think you are correct. This issue isn't "ripe" enough, as the Court might put it.

WYO52

It's a shame the Supreme Court was too gutless to take on this case and decide the issue once and for all." Blah blah blah

On one side of your mouth you scream at the govt to stay out of peoples' lives, through the other side you criticize them for not. Typical hypocrisy that's so plentiful in this state.

Comment deleted.
gw hayduke
gw hayduke

wyojeff, your comment is patently absurd unless you can explain how an extreme minority "the gays" are supposed to get a constitutional amendment requiring ratification from 2/3 of the states passed?
using your logic african americans should have just passed the civil rights act 50 years earlier and wouldn't have had to endure those Jim Crow laws.the people who passed those laws didn't just disagree, they were bigots and those opposing same sex marriage display the same type of thinking

Comment deleted.
GOPRealist

gw hayduke, it takes 2/3 of both houses of congress to pass a constitutional amendment and then 3/4 (not 2/3) to ratify the amendment.

Comment deleted.
GOPRealist

gw hayduke, it takes 2/3 of both houses of congress to pass a constitutional amendment. It then takes 3/4 (not 2/3) of the states to ratify the amendment.

molonlabe58

Will you people hating on gays please tell me. Who is hurt by allowing gays to marry? I say NO ONE is harmed. I am ultra conservative on most things, but I hate BIGOTRY. I believe that is what the anti-gay marriage people are showing.

Bearhead

Which comes first, life or the ability to choose? One of these two will always come first. So we better honor the former if we strengthen the latter.

Mary Chainie

Did the hetero haters go to the store and pick the box of instant mix hamburger Hetero helper, Gay or Bi sexual off the shelf? was it a conscious decision or was it pre ordained as science has mostly proven --- wait, we can't believe in science cuz that invalidates the truth about the earth, climate & voo doo dolls and dinosaurs.

RepublicansRock

I stand with Mead and being a God following Christian! It sickens me to see the lack of morals in people! We were put here to Marry and replenish the earth and there is nothing right about men marrying men or women marrying women. its sick sick sick!

molonlabe58

Who is hurt by gay marriage? No one is. Who is hurt by religious bigotry? Everyone is.

Mary Chainie

What a wonderful day in the neighborhood when atheists can be equal to the zealots who spew please pray for us and god will take care of everything if you make a donation to the golden calf collection plate.

GOPRealist

Replenish the earth? Really??

I think there are 7 billion people on the earth which is probably at least twice what we should have.

Wyoming MD

And therefore, you are adamant that infertile people or seniors can't marry.

But wait. Whether homosexuals can marry or not, that won't bring more children into the world. It matters not, whether they live together or are married, so that really doesn't fit your argument about further over populating the world.

bjohnson1969
bjohnson1969

let's at least try to live up to the motto 'equality state'.

Comment deleted.
Wyoming MD

Your claim doesn't make it so. It is still an excuse for bigotry.

Comment deleted.
Alces alces
Alces alces

Even though the designation "Equality State" may have been referring to women's suffrage, Wyoming should strive to achieve equality in all matters.

James Madison

Matt Mead stands up for Tenth Amendment rights only when it's convenient.

However, Mead sides with the Federal Government when it comes to hunting wolves, pro-second amendment legislation that rejects confiscation and assault bans by federal agencies. In fact, Mead mirrors MSNBC's Mellisa Harris-Perry show in claiming those who want to stop or oppose refugees flooding into the United States from the continent of Africa are racist.

Despite the fact we have a global pandemic in Ebola with no known-cure starting to spread from West Africa into the United States. As recently as August Somalia was listed as vulnerable and at-risk to Ebola.

Mead could be sending infected Ebola Somalians into Wyoming in exchange for federal grants.

http://sabahionline.com/en_GB/articles/hoa/articles/features/2014/08/15/feature-01

Wyoming MD

Still nonsense from unreliable source. There is no Ebola in Somalia, your scare-mongering none withstanding.

Comment deleted.
gw hayduke
gw hayduke

wyokid, you don't seem to have much to say except to attack wyoming md. your attacks might be more effective if you had a point to make.

WYO KID

no attacks necessary hayduke,but thanks for the advice. i just want to make sure the discussion is civil, and trolls like WyoMD are part of the problem and are not part of the solution. Obviously, by the number of posts this is sensitive issue to alot of folk, so my suggestion on decorrum from WyoMD still stands. if you cant say anything nice dont say anything at all? and just because people dont agree with you, doesn't mean you have to resort to name calling, thats play ground mentatlity! shame on you gw hayduke

Da Bear

Ultimately Wyoming is beholden to what the Supreme court has ruled on an appeal from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which we are in. For Governor Mead to say this has no affect on cases in Wyoming is foolishness. It is just a matter of time before Wyoming is forced to cede this issue, and any efforts and public funds used from this point forward are a total waste.

Irregardless of how ones feels about the issue, it is now a done deal. Why fight it any longer? Unless you advocate anarchy, there is nothing more to do at this time.

We are still licking our wounds from the Senate file 104/ Cindy Hill debacle. As laudable as they were (I agree Ms. Hill needed to go), the efforts to oust her were not constitutional. Did we not learn from that? We now have a ruling from the US Supreme court, directed toward the 10th Circuit, that makes it unconstitutional to deny gay marriages. Again, at this point, it is NOT about what you think or believe about the issue, it is about the rule of law. Why does Governor Mead not learn?

Kool Kat

Attn bear, in case you weren't aware.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Therefore, Wyoming is within its jurisdictional power to adhere to the US Constitution on its laws, and not any other form of Government or government appointed Judges. So no, not beholden to a court decision on laws not found unconstitutional by the US Constitution.

Da Bear

Attn Kool Kat, in case you were not aware

The 10th Circuit ruled. The Supreme court, while not choosing to rule, let that decision stand, which makes it now case law in the 10th circuit. Wyoming is in the 10th circuit.

Which all adds up to FACT that regardless of what article X, or anything else in the US Constitution says, any and all appeals from Wyoming will be held to this case law. Right or wrong, that is how it works. To fuss about it does make it go away.

In order to overturn this ruling (in the 10th circuit), someone must once again be turned down on appeal, take it to the supreme court, and then hope they decide to hear the case, which is very unlikely, since they have already balked at the chance. In the mean time, the ruling will stand.

gw hayduke
gw hayduke

wyojeff, your statement that a constitutional amendment is where this is probably headed leaves me wondering if you have any idea what it takes to pass a constitutional amendment. Once again saying that this is what "the Gays" should have done is even more ridiculous given that they have always been and remain a very small minority. Your statement that homosexuals are losing support is even more absurd unless you only listen to extremely conservative pundits and ignore virtually every credible opinion poll on the topic. As far as calling referring to those who advocate discrimination as bigots if the shoe fits wear it.

bigot;a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

WYO KID

Argumentum Ad Hominem

gw hayduke
gw hayduke

wyokid, either you did not read my post or you do not understand what an ad hominem argument is.
I did not attack wyojeff, I pointed out the holes in his arguments.

WyoJeff
WyoJeff

gw hayduke, are we able to edit our post on this site now? I could have sworn you posted it took 3/4 vote to pass an constitutional amendment. Or do you work for the paper and only you can edit posts?

If we all can now edit post, please let me know how. I always find errors in my post I would like to correct if possible.

Kool Kat

Attn Jeff, I was told by one of our State Senators that State of Wyoming Amendments require, 2/3 of the Legislature [both houses] and Governor's signature approval for the "ballot vote", first.
Then, should voters approve?
Then it is revisited to assure its Constitutionality [not federal court approval] - once that clears, it goes to the Governor for his final signature as a new or updated Amendment.
Thought you might want to know how the 10th Amendment works in Wyoming.

Comment deleted.
Wyoming MD

Wow, so you don't get common terminology, and even the word "bigot" needs your revisionist demagogery for you to, incorrectly, use it. That is a scary indictment on the educational system.

gw hayduke
gw hayduke

GOP Realist, thanks for the clarification

GOPRealist

Glad to be of service.

propertyrights4life

Wyoming is a Western state founded on the Western values of libertarianism and allowing people to do what they want so long as they don't infringe on others' rights -- including practicing or not practicing religion. As such, it's only natural that the people of Wyoming allow citizens to get married to whomever they wish, regardless of how off-putting one may find it personally.

We are not a religious backwater in Alabama. We are Wyoming, where the libertarian spirit of the West is alive and well.

molonlabe58

You people forget the Commerce Clause. Even if you keep gays from marrying in Wyoming You can not make that marriage to be not valid in Wyoming. You lost get over it.

GOPRealist

I'm sure you mean the "full faith and credit clause," not the "commerce clause."

Adamneve

I agree with Mead on both counts...Wyoming should only accept marriage between one man and one woman; and the fact it is most likely inevitable. However, it is also clear, that if people are going to quote the constitution, AND God's law, then people, this applies to ALL Americans. Without going through the spill of the constitution and amendments that EVERY one already knows; those of us who disagree and oppose gay marriage in Wyoming (or elsewhere), are also entitled to like or dislike when and how we choose. Homosexuals are NOT the only ones with rights. This IS America, NOT a dictatorship. We also have the right to not serve those that are against our religious beliefs. If the inevitability of gay marriage will some day be; then we who do not agree with it, should have the right NOT to do business with whom we choose to or not to because of OUR beliefs. This suing because someone does not agree with your life style, AND is against our religious beliefs is ridiculous, un-fair, and a waste of time and money for everyone. How would those in the gay community like it if one of us decides to sue you because you are making us go against what we believe in? It is time we counter-sue in those types of circumstances. So, just save your money and ours, and all the aggravation that goes along with it. When the inevitable does come about, and even before it does, my suggestion to you is to get your own photographers, wedding planners, clergy, etc., and others in your gay community, open up your own businesses so you can go on with your 'plans' with no interruptions on EVERYONE'S part. We do not HAVE to accept your lifestyle, any more than you have to accept ours.

gw hayduke
gw hayduke

Adamneve,
"We do not HAVE to accept your lifestyle, any more than you have to accept ours."

this statement conveniently ignores the fact that homosexuals are being forced to accept your lifestyle. they are the ones being denied rights, not Christians

you may be entitled to dislike gay marriage but according the US Constitution are not entitled to forbid it

Wyoming MD

You don't have to like or accept anybody or anything. But you can't have laws discriminating against those you disagree with. Or vegetarians can pass laws prohibiting you from eating meat. And, when Muslims become a majority, they can outlaw your church. It is all up to you. Do we live in a society without discriminatory laws, or can I use laws to oppress you?

DontPlayWithYourFood
DontPlayWithYourFood

1. It's none of your business whom somebody wants to marry.

2. Your position is anti-freedom and therefore UNAMERICAN.

3. The US Government needs to step in and regulate people like you who wish to impose your personal discomforts onto individuals whom you do not know or understand.

griz

The question that the SCOTUS has not and needs to answer is this.

Do states have the constitutional authority to define marriage?

If so, the gay marriage ban remains
If not, it evaporates

IdrahaJe

md,

You do not want equal rights. You want special rights. You have the exact same "right" to marry anyone of the opposite sex that you would like.

Homosexuals are ALREADY violating the rights of others. I see the people in your group suing people in the wedding business that decline to hired to be part of homosexual union.

Funny, some of you spout the following statement in some way: "No self respecting homosexual would ever have anything to do with you."

Which, as we all already know, us a complete LIE!!!! If your LIE was true, then you would leave the people that decline to be of service to you alone, instead of hauling them to court.

82901Sparky

Whether one agrees with gay marriage or not, it is a foregone conclusion that it will be happening in Wyoming. Why is the Gov. Mead insisting on spending money on a protracted legal battle that the state is obviously going to lose? I believe our tax dollars could be put to better use.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.