14 06 09 appellants' er motion for temp stay from relief

8/20/2019 14 06 09 Appellants' ER Motion for Temp Stay From Relief

1/40

No. ______

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Virginia Wolf, et al.

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Scott Walker, et al.

Defendants-Appellants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, CASE NO. 14-CV-64,

THE HONORABLE BARBARA B. CRABB, PRESIDING

STATE DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS’EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY IMMEDIATE STAY

FROM THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE JUNE 6, 2014, OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Defendants-Appellants Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen, and Oskar

Anderson (collectively, “State Defendants”), by their undersigned

counsel, hereby move this Court for an order on an emergency basis to

immediately stay that portion of the district court’s June 6, 2014,

Opinion and Order effectively denying State Defendants’ motion to

immediately stay any relief granted by the district court. (Dist. Ct.

Case: 14-2266 Document: 2-1 Filed: 06/09/2014 Pages: 17


2/40

- 2 -

Dkt. #118; Dist. Ct. Dkt. #114, 115, 116.) An emergency stay order

from this Court is necessary to preserve the status quo and to avoid

widespread public confusion regarding the relief granted by the district

court.

INTRODUCTION

Late in the afternoon on Friday, June 6, 2014, the Western District

of Wisconsin, Hon. Barbara B. Crabb, presiding, entered an Opinion

and Order declaring that provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution and

Wisconsin Statutes restricting the legal status of marriage to opposite-

sex couples violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #118.) The district court ordered further

briefing on the scope of a proposed injunction, but the declaratory relief

went into effect immediately. (Id.) The district court took no action on

State Defendants’ previously filed contingent motion to immediately

stay any relief granted by the district court pending appeal. (Dist. Ct.

Dkt. #114, 115, 116.) The lack of a ruling on the contingent motion to

stay and the subsequent actions of two county clerk defendants in

immediately issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples has caused

precisely the type of confusion and uncertainty that the State

Defendants’ contingent motion sought to avoid.



3/40

- 3 -

Approximately an hour after the district court entered its Opinion

and Order, county clerk defendants Czarnezki (Milwaukee) and

McDonell (Dane) began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.1

(See Samuelson Declaration (“Decl.”) at ¶6.) Both Dane and Milwaukee

Counties waived the standard five-day waiting period for issuing

marriage licenses. (Id., at ¶7.) Between Friday evening (6/6/14) and

Saturday afternoon (6/7/14), 283 same-sex couples obtained marriage

licenses in Dane and Milwaukee counties. (Id., at ¶8.) Other county

clerks, however, have stated that they would await further

clarification, creating a situation where some Wisconsin same-sex

couples may marry while others may not. (Id., at ¶9.)

Within hours after the district court entered its Opinion and Order,

State Defendants filed their emergency motion for temporary stay.

(Dist. Ct. Dkt. #119; Decl., at ¶ 4.) As of the present filing, the district

court has neither ruled upon the emergency motion to stay nor stayed

the relief entered in its Opinion and Order as previously requested in

State Defendants’ contingent motion to stay. (Decl., at ¶ 5.)

1The timing of the district court’s decision at approximately 3:22 p.m. CDT,

together with the County Clerk’s decision to issue licenses starting at 5:00

p.m. CDT, effectively prevented State Defendants from obtaining relief from

this Court over the weekend.



4/40

- 4 -

The district court’s Opinion and Order has thus created a legal

environment in which Wisconsin’s county clerks are deciding on a

county-by-county basis whether to issue marriage licenses to same-sex

couples immediately or wait for the district court to enter injunctive

relief or rule on State Defendants’ motions to stay.

State Defendants therefore request, under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 8 and Circuit Rules 8 and 27, that this Court, on an

emergency basis, immediately stay the relief granted by the district

court’s June 6, 2014, Opinion and Order to maintain the status quo.

BACKGROUND

Following expedited summary judgment briefing, the district court

declared unconstitutional Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 (the “Marriage

Amendment”) and all provisions of the Wisconsin marriage laws (Wis.

Stat. ch. 765) referring to marriage as a relationship between a

husband and wife as applied to same-sex marriage. (Dist. Ct. Dkt.

#118.)

The U.S. Supreme Court, and more recently, the Ninth Circuit and

Sixth Circuit, have issued stays to maintain the status quo after district

courts have found state laws banning same-sex marriage

unconstitutional. See Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014);



5/40

- 5 -

Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, at 5 (9th Cir. May 20, 2014) (Herbert

“provides a clear message— the Court (without noted dissent) decided

that district court injunctions against the application of laws forbidding

same-sex unions should be stayed at the request of state authorities

pending court of appeals review”); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-5297, at 1-2

(6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2014) (“a stay of the district court’s order pending

consideration of this matter by a merits panel of this Court is

warranted”); DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014)

(“[t]here is no apparent basis to distinguish this case or to balance the

equities any differently than the Supreme Court did in [Herbert]”).

Last week, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit postponed

until at least June 12, 2014, the District of Utah’s order requiring the

recognition of marriages conducted after the district court’s Kitchen

decision ( Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013)) but

before the Supreme Court granted its stay. See Evans v. State of Utah,

14-4060 (10th Cir. June 5, 2014).

Given the import of the district court’s decision and order to the

State of Wisconsin, particularly amidst a vigorous and unsettled

national debate on the issue, a stay should be ordered immediately.

Further, a stay is necessary in this case to avoid confusion and to

maintain the status quo while the Seventh Circuit decides how



6/40

- 6 -

Wisconsin, and other states, may define the civil institution of

marriage.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs are eight same-sex couples who claim that the limitation

of the legal status of marriage under Wisconsin state law to opposite-

sex couples violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Dist. Ct.

Dkt. #26.)

Plaintiffs challenged the Marriage Amendment as unconstitutional.

(Id.,¶ 1.) The Marriage Amendment states:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or

recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or

substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals

shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13.

Plaintiffs further challenged as unconstitutional “any and all

provisions of Wisconsin’s marriage statutes (Wis. Stat. ch. 765) that

refer to marriage as a relationship between a ‘husband and wife,’ if and

to the extent that such provisions constitute a statutory ban on

marriage for same sex-couples.” (Id.)

After Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was fully briefed, but

before the district court ruled, State Defendants’ filed a Contingent



7/40

- 7 -

Motion to Stay, asking the district court to immediately stay any relief

in the case at the time such relief is ordered in order to preserve the

status quo for when an appeal is filed. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #114, 115, 116.)

Among other things, State Defendants’ discussed the Supreme Court’s

stay in Herbert, the Ninth Circuit’s stay in Latta, and the Sixth

Circuit’s stays in Tanco and DeBoer. (Id.) State Defendants also

discussed Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) and facts justifying their stay request.

(Id.)

Late in the afternoon on June 6, 2014, the district court granted

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #118.) The

district court issued a declaration that the challenged provisions of

Wisconsin law are unconstitutional, but expressly refrained from

issuing any injunctive relief, and issued a schedule for further

proceedings on any such injunctive relief. (Id.) The district court also

held in abeyance State Defendants’ Contingent Motion to Stay, pending

the outcome of the scheduled proceedings regarding injunctive relief.

(Id.) Within hours after the issuance of the district court’s Opinion and

Order, the county clerks of two Wisconsin counties, Dane and

Milwaukee, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and

over the weekend of June 6-8, 2014, approximately 283 same-sex



8/40

- 8 -

couples obtained marriage licenses, many of whom married. (See Decl.,

¶¶6-8.)

On June 8, 2014, the Rock County clerk stated that she will begin

issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 9, 2014 when

their office opens at 8:00 a.m. (Id., at ¶10.) Other county clerks,

however, have stated that they would await further clarification. (Id.,

at ¶9.) Thus, at present, some Wisconsin same-sex couples may marry

while others may not.

Within hours after the issuance of the district court’s Opinion and

Order, State Defendants filed with the district court an emergency

motion for temporary stay asking the court to temporarily stay the

June 6, 2014, Opinion and Order in order to preserve the status quo on

an interim basis until entry of final relief and a decision on the State

Defendants’ contingent motion to stay. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #119.) As of this

filing, although the Dane and Milwaukee clerk’s offices have held

extraordinary evening and weekend hours, the district court has not

ruled upon2 State Def endants’ contingent motion to stay or emergency

motion for temporary stay. (See Decl., ¶5.) State Defendants have,

therefore, complied with Fed. R. App. P. 8.

2 At 7:40 a.m. on Monday, June 9, 2014, the district court entered a minute

order scheduling a telephonic motion hearing for June 9, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. on

State Defendants’ emergency motion to stay. (Decl., at ¶11.)



9/40

- 9 -

ARGUMENT

The purpose of a stay is to “maintain the status quo pending appeal,

thereby preserving the ability of the reviewing court to offer a remedy

and holding at bay the reliance interests in the judgment that

otherwise militate against reversal.” In re CGI Indus., Inc., 27 F.3d

296, 299 (7th Cir. 1994). If a stay is not granted and action is taken in

reliance on the judgment, “the positions of the interested parties have

changed, and even if it may yet be possible to undo the transaction, the

court is faced with the unwelcome prospect of ‘unscrambl[ing] an egg.’”

Id. (emphasis in original; citation omitted).

Courts “consider the moving party’s likelihood of success on the

merits, the irreparable harm that will result to each side if the stay is

either granted or denied in error, and whether the public interest

favors one side or the other.” See In re A & F Enters., Inc. II , 742 F.3d

763, 766 (7th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

The Supreme Court has already concluded in favor of a stay pending

appeal in same-sex marriage litigation. See Herbert, 134 S. Ct. 893.

I.

State Defendants Are Reasonably Likely To Succeed

on Appeal.

The Supreme Court’s recent stay of an injunction against

enforcement of Utah’s marriage laws suggests State Defendants are



10/40

- 10 -

reasonably likely to succeed on appeal because the standards for

granting a stay in the Supreme Court are substantially similar.

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 189 (2010) (per curiam) (noting

that a stay is appropriate if there is “a fair prospect that a majority of

the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below.”). The Supreme

Court or a Circuit Justice “rarely grant[]” a “stay application,” but they

will do so if they “predict” that a majority of “the Court would . . . set

the [district court] order aside.” San Diegans for Mt. Soledad Nat’l War

Mem’l v. Paulson, 548 U.S. 1301, 1302 – 03 (2006) (Kennedy, J., in

chambers).

On January 6, 2014, after Justice Sotomayor referred the stay

application to all the Justices, the Supreme Court stayed the Herbert

district court’s injunction, thereby signaling the Supreme Court’s belief

that there is at least a fair prospect that it will reverse the District of

Utah’s judgment. 134 S. Ct. 893. The Sixth Circuit and Ninth Circuit

later followed the Supreme Court’s lead. See Latta v. Otter, No. 14-

35420 (9th Cir. May 20, 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-5297 (6th Cir.

Apr. 25, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014).

As discussed more fully in their memorandum in opposition to

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #102) and in

amici curiae’s brief (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #109), State Defendants are



11/40

- 11 -

reasonably likely to succeed on appeal because: (i) Plaintiffs’ claims do

not implicate a fundamental right; (ii) Wisconsin’s marriage laws do

not discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation; (iii) rational

bases exist to support Wisconsin’s marriage laws; and (iv) Plaintiffs’

claims are foreclosed by Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

II. Irreparable Harm Will Result Absent a Stay.

Irreparable harm will result if the district court’s decision is not

stayed pending appeal. “‘[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from

effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers

a form of irreparable injury.’” Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012)

(Roberts, C.J., in chambers) (quoting New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin

W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers));

Aid for Women v. Foulston, 441 F.3d 1101, 1119 (10th Cir. 2006)

(same); Coalition for Econ. Equality v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 718, 719 (9th

Cir. 1997) (same)). Here, the district court has declared a provision of

the Wisconsin Constitution unconstitutional and such a declaration

causes the same harm or a greater harm than if a statute were declared

unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed the states’ unique and historic

interests in regulating civil marriage when it stated that “[t]he



12/40

- 12 -

recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law

applicable to its residents and citizens.” U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

2675, 2691 (2013). Windsor affirmed that “‘[e]ach state as a sovereign

has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons

domiciled within its borders’” and made clear that “[t]he definition of

marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate

the subject of domestic relations with respect to the ‘[p]rotection of

offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital

responsibilities.’” Id. at 2675 (citations omitted). Forcing Wisconsin to

violate its “rightful and legitimate concerns in the marital status of

persons” constitutes irreparable harm to the State’s sovereignty. In

addition, the State will face significant administrative burdens

associated with issuing marriage licenses under a cloud of uncertainty

during appeal.

The Utah same-sex marriage litigation exemplifies the harms that

may occur absent a stay. There, both the district court and the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a stay. See Kitchen v.

Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJS, 2013 WL 6834634 (D. Utah Dec. 23,

2013) (order on motion to stay); Kitchen v. Herbert, 12-4178 (10th Cir.

Dec. 24, 2013) (order denying emergency motion for stay and temporary

motion for stay). Several days later, however, the United States



13/40

- 13 -

Supreme Court granted a stay and Utah’s traditional marriage laws

were reinstituted. See Herbert, 134 S. Ct. 893.

In the 17 days between the district court’s ruling and the Supreme

Court’s stay, roughly 1,300 same-sex couples obtained marriage

licenses and approximately 1,000 were married. See Evans v. Utah,

No. 2:14CV55DAK, 2014 WL 2048343, at *1 (May 19, 2014). Utah

refused to recognize those 1,000 marriages and additional litigation

ensued to determine the legal status of those marriages. Id.

Approximately 300 of the couples who obtained licenses but did not

marry before the Supreme Court’s stay order in Herbert were unable to

marry despite having legally obtained Utah marriage licenses. The

district court eventually enjoined Utah from applying Utah’s marriage

bans retroactively. Id. at 21. The Tenth Circuit, however, has

temporarily stayed the district court’s order in Evans. See Evans v.

State of Utah, 14-4060 (10th Cir. June 5, 2014).

Here, there is a very real risk of harm where both Milwaukee

County clerk Czarnezki and Dane County clerk McDonell have begun

issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and will continue to do so

in the future. The failures of the district courts in Utah (and to a lesser

extent in Michigan) to immediately enter stays to preserve the status

quo pending appeal has led to chaos, confusion, uncertainty, and



14/40

- 14 -

ultimately, further litigation. State Defendants request this Court stay

any injunctive relief to avoid similar results and their associated

administrative burdens. See I.N.S. v. Legalization Assistance Project of

Los Angeles Cnty. Fed’n of Labor, 510 U.S. 1301, 1305-06 (1993)

(O’Connor, J., in chambers) (citing the “considerable administrative

burden” on the government as a reason to grant a stay).

Since State Defendants are reasonably likely to succeed on appeal,

refusal to stay the district court’s injunction pending appeal could

result in injuries similar to those sustained in Utah. Moreover, state

officials and administrative agencies, including Registrar Anderson,

would have to revise regulations and forms to accommodate the

injunction — but may have to re-revise them if this Court, or the

Supreme Court ultimately upholds Wisconsin’s traditional marriage

laws.

The State’s interests in enforcing its own laws and in ensuring

administrative clarity, as well as individual interests in certainty

regarding marriage, demonstrate the irreparable injury that is likely to

occur in the absence of a stay.



15/40

- 15 -

III. Public interests weigh in favor of a stay.

Wisconsin citizens have an interest in deciding, through the

democratic process, public policy issues of societal importance including

the definition of civil marriage. Removing the decision from the people

harms the public interest.

The public also has an interest in certainty and in avoiding

unnecessary expenditures. As discussed above, should a stay not be

granted, marriage licenses would be issued under a cloud of

uncertainty and the State would face heavy administrative burdens. A

stay would, on the other hand, serve the public interest by preserving

the status quo and allowing the appeals process to proceed on an issue

of substantial state and national importance while preventing

irreparable injury to the state and its citizens in the interim.

In reversing the Middle District of Tennessee’s denial of a motion to

stay, the Sixth Circuit found “that the public interest requires granting

a stay.” See Tanco, No. 14-5297 at 2. The Sixth Circuit quoted Henry

v. Himes, No. 1:14-CV-129, 2014 WL 1512541 at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16,

2014):

“[R]ecognition of same-sex marriages is a hotly contested issue

in the contemporary legal landscape, and, if [the state’s] appeal

is ultimately successful, the absence of a stay as to [the district

court’s] ruling of facial unconstitutionality is likely to lead to

confusion, potential inequity, and high costs. These

considerations lead the Court to conclude that the public



16/40

- 16 -

interest would best be served by granting of a stay. Premature

celebration and confusion do not serve anyone’s best interests.

The federal appeals courts need to rule, as does the United

States Supreme Court.”

Tanco, No. 14-5297 at 2. These same public interest concerns are true

here.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, State Defendants respectfully request

that this Court consider the present motion on an emergency basis,

enter an order immediately staying that portion of the district court’s

June 6, 2014, Opinion and Order that effectively denied State

Defendants’ motion to immediately stay any relief granted by the

district court, and for all other and further relief that justice requires.

Dated this 9th day of June, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

J.B. VAN HOLLEN

Attorney General

s/Timothy C. Samuelson

TIMOTHY C. SAMUELSON

Assistant Attorney General

State Bar #1089968

THOMAS C. BELLAVIA


State Bar #1030182

CLAYTON P. KAWSKI


State Bar #1066228



17/40

- 17 -

Attorneys for Defendants,

Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen,

and Oskar Anderson

Wisconsin Department of Justice

Post Office Box 7857

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857

(608) 266-3542 (Samuelson)

(608) 266-8690 (Bellavia)

(608) 266-7477 (Kawski)

(608) 267-2223 (fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]



18/40

No. ______

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Virginia Wolf, et al.

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Scott Walker, et al.

Defendants-Appellants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN

DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, CASE NO. 14-CV-64,

THE HONORABLE BARBARA B. CRABB, PRESIDING

DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY C. SAMUELSONIN SUPPORT OF STATE DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS’

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY IMMEDIATE STAY FROM

THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE JUNE 6, 2014, OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE DISTRICT COURT

I, Timothy C. Samuelson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as

follows:

1. I am one of Defendants-Appellants Walker, Van Hollen, and

Anderson’s (the “State Defendants-Appellants”) attorneys in the above-



19/40

- 2 -

captioned matter. I make this Declaration based on my own personal

knowledge and based upon the sources described.

2. I make this Declaration in support of State Defendants- Appellants’

emergency motion for temporary immediate stay from the relief granted by

the June 6, 2014, Opinion and Order of the district court. (Dist. Ct. Dkt.

#118.)

3.

On Friday, June 6, 2014, at approximately 3:22 p.m., I received an

automatic e-mail message from the Western District of Wisconsin’s CM/ECF

system notifying me of the district court’s electronic filing of the Opinion and

Order declaring that provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin

Statutes restricting the legal status of marriage to opposite-sex couples

violate the substantive due process and equal protection rights of same-sex

couples under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(Dist. Ct. Dkt. #118.) In the Opinion and Order, the district court held in

abeyance its ruling on State Defendants’ contingent motion to stay, field May

23, 2014 (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #114, 115, 116) that sought an immediate stay of any

order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in whole or in part,

to preserve the status quo for appeal.

4.

On Friday, Friday, June 6, 2014, at approximately 6:09 p.m., I filed

State Defendants’ emergency motion for temporary stay. (Dist. Ct. Dkt.

#119.)



20/40

- 3 -

5. At the time of the present filing, the district court has not ruled upon

State Defendants’ emergency motion for temporary stay (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #119)

or contingent motion to stay (Dist. Ct. Dkt. #114, 115, 116).

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an article

titled, “Federal judge overturns Wisconsin’s gay marriage ban,” written by

Jason Stein, Patrick Marley & Dana Ferguson, published by the Milwaukee

Journal Sentinel on June 7, 2014. The article is available electronically at

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-

gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.html, last checked June 7, 2014.

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an

Associated Press article titled “Gay marriages begin in Wisconsin after

ruling,” published by the Washington Post on June 6, 2014. The article is

available electronically at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-

strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-

e17c08f80871_story.html, last checked June 7, 2014.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an article

titled, “Tears flow as 283 couples wed in Milwaukee, Madison,” written by

Karen Herzog, published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 7, 2014.

The article is available electronically at

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-

b99286470z1-262240081.html , last checked June 8, 2014.


http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-b99286470z1-262240081.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-b99286470z1-262240081.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-b99286470z1-262240081.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-b99286470z1-262240081.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-b99286470z1-262240081.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/2014/06/06/1ab5266e-edbe-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_story.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.htmlhttp://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.html


21/40

- 4 -

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an article

titled, “Brown County awaits guidance from state in wake of same-sex

marriage ruling,” written by Nathan Phelps, published by the Green Bay

Press Gazette on June 7, 2014. The article is available electronically at

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/Br

own-County-awaits-guidance-from-state-wake-same-sex-marriage-ruling-, last

checked June 8, 2014.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an article

titled, “Rock county to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” written by

Meg Jones, published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, on June 8, 2014.

The article is available electronically at http://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htm,

last checked June 9, 2014.

11. On Monday, June 9, 2014, at approximately 7:40 a.m., I received an

automatic e-mail message from the Western District of Wisconsin’s CM/ECF

system notifying me of the district court’s electronic filing of a minute order

stating as follows:

Set Telephone Motion Hearing as to [119] Emergency Motion to Stay

Dkt. 118 . Telephone Motion Hearing set for 6/9/2014 at 01:00 PM

before Judge Barbara B. Crabb. Counsel for Defendants responsible

for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5447. (voc)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/Brown-County-awaits-guidance-from-state-wake-same-sex-marriage-ruling-http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/Brown-County-awaits-guidance-from-state-wake-same-sex-marriage-ruling-http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/Brown-County-awaits-guidance-from-state-wake-same-sex-marriage-ruling-http://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htmhttp://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htmhttp://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htmhttp://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htmhttp://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/Brown-County-awaits-guidance-from-state-wake-same-sex-marriage-ruling-http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/Brown-County-awaits-guidance-from-state-wake-same-sex-marriage-ruling-


22/40

- 5 -

Dated this 9th day of June 2014.

s/Timothy C. Samuelson

TIMOTHY C. SAMUELSON



23/40

Federal judge overturns Wisconsin's gay

marriage banBy Jason Stein, Patrick Marley and Dana Ferguson of the Journal SentinelJune 7, 2014

Madison — A federal judge in Madison on Friday overturned Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, strikingdown an amendment to the state constitution approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2006 and promptingan emergency action by the state to halt the scores of weddings that began in the state's two largestcities.

In the 88-page decision, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the prohibition on same-sex vowsin the state violated the rights of gay and lesbian couples to equal protection under the federalconstitution and fair treatment under the law.

She did not stay her ruling but also did not immediately issue an order blocking the enforcement of theban, sparking a heated and hasty debate on whether the ruling meant that couples could immediatelymarry in the courthouses of Wisconsin.

Instead, Crabb asked the gay couples who had sued over the ban to say by June 16 exactly what theywanted done to enforce her ruling, with a further wait of one to two weeks for both sides in the lawsuitto file responses. Crabb, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, said she would then addresswhether to stay her decision while the matter is on appeal.

"Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by theUnited States Constitution," Crabb wrote in her decision.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, said that "current law remains in force" in Wisconsinand took immediate action to try to halt the surge of gay couples seeking to wed, filing an emergencyrequest for a stay from Crabb. Van Hollen could also file a similar motion before the 7th Circuit Courtof Appeals in Chicago.

"The United States Supreme Court, after a referral from Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor, stayed a lowercourt's decision striking down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. There is no reason to believe the

Supreme Court would treat Wisconsin's ban any differently," Van Hollen said in a statement.

Licenses issued quickly

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, began issuing marriage licenses at 5 p.m. Friday asgay couples were married there throughout the night. He said state Department of Justice officialsadvised him not to issue the licenses but McDonell moved forward despite that.

"They don't get to tell me that," he said of DOJ. "A judge gets to....If someone comes to me, how could Isay no to them?"

Page 1 of 5Federal judge overturns Wisconsin's gay marriage ban

6/8/2014http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=Federal+judge+overturns+Wisco ...



24/40

Milwaukee County Clerk Joe Czarnezki, also a Democrat, issued marriage licenses through Friday nightand planned to do so again on Saturday.

"Personally, I'm pleased she struck the ban down," he said of Crabb. "It makes us proud to be inWisconsin and a state that's standing up for marriage equality."

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele said he would personally pay for any overtime costs forkeeping the courthouse open. Cheers erupted at PrideFest in Milwaukee as Abele announced theextended hours to the crowds.

For PrideFest attendee Perry Kaluzny, 24, of Milwaukee, the overturning of Wisconsin's gay marriageban was liberating.

"This is a wonderful thing, and hopefully this will mean marriage one day for me," he said.

Within hours of Crabb's ruling, weddings were taking place in the Milwaukee courthouse and on thestreet outside the Dane County clerk's office as crowds cheered and passing cars honked their horns.

Legal questions

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has been tracking similar casesnationally, said that almost all of the decisions striking down marriage bans in other states have beenstayed by the issuing judge or an appellate court.

"So my guess is the same thing could happen in this case. The question is the timing of this," Tobiassaid.

Tobias praised Crabb's overall decision but said that it didn't make clear whether gay marriages couldtake place immediately, leaving both sides with "plenty of arguments they can make."

The likelihood of a stay by a higher court cast doubt on the legal status of the marriages on Fridayevening, he said.

"What's clear is they're in limbo (for now). What's not clear is what the courts will do ultimately,"Tobias said. "It's a mess."

Tamara Packard, a Madison attorney who supports the right to marry but was not involved in the case,said she read the decision to mean same-sex couples could immediately marry.

"I think the clerk should comply with the declaration of unconstitutionality — we have a constitutional

right," Packard said. "I think (Crabb has) declared what the law is and the clerks are required to followthe law. Whether there's an order saying you must issue, I don't think that's very relevant."

Larry Dupuis, legaldirector of the ACLU of Wisconsin and attorney for the four same-sex couples whoare the plaintiffs in the case, said Crabb's decision was different from any of the others around thecountry. That's because she struck down Wisconsin's ban against same-sex marriage as unconstitutionalbut she did not immediately issue an order instructing county and state officials on what to do about that.

That left county clerks to decide that question for themselves.





25/40

On Monday, the ACLU plans to present Crabb with a proposed order that would require state officials tostop enforcing the marriage ban, Dupuis said. If she signs it, she also would have the option of grantinga stay, meaning same-sex marriages would end, at least temporarily, until a higher court reviews herdecision.

In that event, Dupuis said he hopes Van Hollen would not "be so small" as to refuse to recognize same-sex couples who have married in the interim.

A similar situation occurred in Utah last winter, when a federal court struck down the marriage banthere. For 17 days in December and January, about 1,300 same-sex couples exchanged vows. The U.S.Supreme Court put the order allowing the unions on hold until after the state's appeal was resolved.

A different federal judge ordered the state of Utah to recognize the 1,300 marriages in the meantime.The state has appealed that decision, as well.

One of the couples involved in Wisconsin's case, Garth Wangemann and Roy Badger, celebrated thevictory Friday night, declaring themselves "speechless" with pride. The couple followed ACLU adviceand did not get married Friday, saying that three more days of waiting wouldn't hurt.

"This way we don't feel like we'll have to rush through," Badger said.

In her decision, Crabb said the state failed to show that the ban is "substantially related" to an importantstate goal. She questioned whether the state could even count as important public interests its statedgoals of tradition, procreation and avoiding a "slippery slope" toward polygamy or incest.

She said that many other policies later found unconstitutional, such as segregation, were longstandingand popular among a majority of a state's voters.

She closed by quoting former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo: "Justice is not to be taken by

storm, but must be wooed by slow advances."

Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-Campbellsport), who is running for the U.S. House in the 6th CongressionalDistrict, initially said Friday that he hoped that some county clerks would refuse to issue marriagelicenses to gay couples despite the ruling. But he pulled back from that after a few minutes' reflection,saying that would be too radical a response.

"It's very sad that something approved by voters and represented as the law in every state for the first200 years of the republic is all of a sudden declared unconstitutional," Grothman said. "...This willfurther the complete lack of respect that the public has for the judiciary."

Former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske said she believes this is the first time a federal judge hasstruck down a Wisconsin constitutional amendment.

"The thing is, we don't have that many new constitutional amendments," said Geske, who spent fiveyears on the state Supreme Court and is now a professor at the Marquette University Law School.

Marquette University Law School professor Alan R. Madry noted that the U.S. Constitution was thehighest law in the nation and trumped anything in the state's statute or charter.

"It is breathtaking that the federal courts would be moving...so rapidly. That would not have happened





26/40

15 or 20 years ago," Madry wrote in an email. "The constitution is obviously alive and growing."

Tobias, who believes there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, called Crabb'sdecision the "most thorough and probably most careful" treatment of the issue and one that other judgeswould look to as they decide similar cases.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, did not comment on the substance of the rulingbeyond backing Van Hollen's decision to appeal it.

"It is correct for the attorney general, on this or any other issue, to defend the constitution of the state ofWisconsin, especially in a case where the people voted to amend it," Walker said.

Walker's Democratic opponent in the governor's race, Mary Burke, was enthusiastic about the decision.

"Every loving couple should have the freedom to marry whomever they choose, and the fact that thisfreedom is now available in Wisconsin is something we all can and should be proud of," Burke said in astatement.

Critics denounce ruling

Julaine Appling, executive director of Wisconsin Family Action, said the issue of same-sex marriagewill ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Appling's group helped lead the effort to putWisconsin's ban in place and filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending it in the case before Crabb.

"We are disappointed but not surprised," she said. "I'm mostly disappointed for the people of this statewho spoke loudly and clearly in 2006. What a travesty of justice to have their vote overridden by thestroke of an appointed federal judge's pen."

She said supporters of gay marriage should have to do what her group did — persuade lawmakers to

back a change to the state constitution in two consecutive legislative sessions and then have votersapprove it in a statewide referendum.

"They took the chicken's way out," she said of the plaintiffs. "They don't want a popular vote."

Milwaukee Catholic Archbishop Jerome Listecki called it "disturbing" that a federal judge wouldoverrule the "manifest will of the people."

"The decision does not change Catholic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman,"Listecki said.

The Rev. Jeff Barrow, bishop of the 91,000-member Greater Milwaukee Synod of the Lutheran Churchin America, said he was pleased by the ruling. However, he expressed some skepticism out of concernthat it could be appealed, and added "laws don't change people's minds."

"I'm happy for the gay couples who have been faithful and unable to access all the benefits that familiesshould be able to access," said Barrow, whose denomination allows same-sex blessings.

Nationwide, same-sex couples have the right to marry in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Judgesin eight — now including Wisconsin —of the remaining 31 states have issued rulings striking downsame-sex marriage bans, with those rulings stayed as they work their way through appellate courts.





27/40

In Wisconsin, voters in 2006 resoundingly approved the same-sex marriage amendment, 59% to 41%.Every county in the state except Dane voted for it.

But the most recent Marquette Law School poll, released May 21, found 55% of registered votersstatewide now favor allowing gay marriage, while 37% oppose it and 6% say they do not know.

Last month, Van Hollen acknowledged he would not be surprised to lose the case. He had asked Crabb

to immediately block her own decision if she struck down the ban. Normally, lawyers wait until a judgerules before asking for a stay.

Daniel Bice, Gina Barton, Bruce Vielmetti, Georgia Pabst, Megan Trimble and Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel staff in Milwaukee contributed to this report.

Find this article at:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-overturns-wisconsins-gay-marriage-ban-b99286138z1-262161851.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.





28/40

Back to previous page

Gay marriages begin inWisconsin after ruling

By Associated Press, Published: June 6

MADISON, Wis. — Same-sex couples begangetting married in Wisconsin on Friday shortly

after a federal judge struck down the state’s gaymarriage ban and despite confusion over theeffect of the ruling.

Clerks in Madison and Milwaukee startedmarrying same-sex couples shortly after 5 p.m. Friday, a little over an hour after the judge released herruling.

It didn’t take long for those who have been fighting the law for years to start celebrating — and getmarried.

“I’m still up in the clouds!” Shari Roll said shortly after completing her ceremony marrying ReneeCurrie just a block from the state Capitol.

Clerks in Milwaukee and Madison began issuing marriage licenses even though Republican AttorneyGeneral J.B. Van Hollen said the ruling did not clear the way for weddings to begin. It wasn’timmediately known whether marriages were happening elsewhere in Wisconsin.

Van Hollen quickly sought an emergency order in federal court to stop the weddings. He said confusionand uncertainty is resulting and the status quo must be preserved.

In the meantime, Jose Fernando Gutierrez and Matthew Schreck were married outside the county clerk’soffice in Milwaukee, in what was possibly the first gay marriage in the state. About 45 minutes later,

Currie and Roll got married in Madison.

Clerks were keeping their offices open until 9 p.m. in Madison and Milwaukee to issue marriagelicenses.

“I have been waiting decades for this day to finally arrive and we won’t make loving couples wait longerthan they want to get married,” said Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declared the gay marriage ban unconstitutional. But she

Page 1 of 3Gay marriages begin in Wisconsin after ruling - The Washington Post

6/8/2014http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban/ ...



29/40

also created confusion by asking the couples who sued to describe exactly what they wanted her to blockin the law. She said she would later decide whether to put her underlying decision on hold while it isappealed.

Opponents of the law didn’t want to wait. The marriages started, even as Van Hollen said theyshouldn’t, leading to his request for an emergency order. He also vowed to appeal.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in February challenging Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on gay marriage. Thelawsuit alleged Wisconsin’s ban violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal protection and dueprocess, asserting the prohibition deprives gay couples of the legal protections that married couplesenjoy simply because of their gender.

Gay rights activists have won 15 consecutive lower court cases since a landmark Supreme Court rulinglast summer, with Wisconsin being the latest. Many of those rulings are being appealed.

“This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent withthe teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they aresomething that should be encouraged or discouraged,” Crabb wrote in the Wisconsin ruling. “It is not

even about whether the plaintiffs in this case are as capable as opposite-sex couples of maintaining acommitted and loving relationship or raising a family together.

“Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by theUnited States Constitution.”

One of the plaintiff couples got the news in Milwaukee, where the gay festival PrideFest opened Friday.Garth Wangemann, 58, and Roy Badger, 56, said they are eager to be married — they have their clothespicked out — but OK with waiting a bit longer.

“We all wanted the day to come where young people (can) now take it for granted, they can marry theperson they love,” Wangemann said.

Voters amended the Wisconsin Constitution in 2006, to outlaw gay marriage or anything substantiallysimilar. The state has offered a domestic partner registry that affords gay couples a host of legal rightssince 2009. The conservative-leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court is weighing whether it violates theconstitution.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 Republican candidate for president, has long opposedgay marriage. But in recent months he’s avoided talking directly about the state’s ban, which hesupported, saying it’s an issue that needs to be decided by the courts and voters.

Walker’s likely Democratic challenger in the governor’s race, Mary Burke, supports legalizing gay

marriage.

___

Associated Press writers Todd Richmond and Taylor W. Anderson, in Madison, and M.L. Johnson inMilwaukee contributed to this report.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.





30/40

© The Washington Post Company

Sponsored Links

4 ODD blood pressure fightersEasily fight high blood pressure naturally with these 4 foods.http://www.bloodpressurenormalized.com

Map Your Flood RiskFind Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!www.floodsmart.gov

Salesforce Desk.comResolve Your Customer Cases 34% Faster with Desk.com. Try it Free!www.desk.com/case_resolution

Buy a link here





31/40

Same-sex weddings continue in Wisconsin afterudge strikes down ban

Tears flow as 283 couples wed in Milwaukee, Madison

By Karen Herzog of the Journal SentinelJune 7, 2014

Overcome with the emotion of the day, Todd Halsey burst into tears as his older sister and her partner of11 years stood on the steps just inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse on Saturday morning, waiting

to obtain a marriage license and exchange vows.

"I look at it as the next civil rights protest, and how you carry yourself is important," Halsey said of thebattle for same-sex couples such as his sister, Jennifer, and her partner, Margaux Shields, to winmarriage equality.

Between Friday evening and Saturday afternoon, 283 same-sex couples in Wisconsin's two largest citiesobtained marriage licenses — 146 in Milwaukee and 137 in Madison. Most of the couples got marriedon the spot by a judge, court commissioner or minister they brought along. Several supporters who didn'tknow any of them showed up and offered to be witnesses, if needed. They also gave the couples ivoryroses and rainbow-colored daisies.

Couples in Milwaukee ranged in age from 23 to their early 80s, said Deputy County Clerk GeorgeChristenson. He estimated that more men than women obtained marriage licenses, and perhaps 10% hadchildren.

Todd Halsey was worried the day might never come that his sister and her partner could be legallymarried like he and his wife, Randee. He was prepared to stand up to any protesters who attempted tospoil their day.

It turned out he didn't have to.

"We've been waiting for a long time; this is well worth it," said Jennifer Halsey, 39, as she and Shields,

36, stood in the courthouse hallway with dozens of other couples and waited nearly an hour for theirnumber to be called to fill out the $110 marriage license paperwork and pay an additional $25 for theseven-day waiting period to be waived.

The couple had a ceremony at the First Unitarian Society of Milwaukee in 2008 and planned to getmarried in Chicago in August. But this day was different: They were part of history in the making.

Jennifer Halsey said they decided to marry in Milwaukee on Saturday before anything could happen infederal court to change U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb's ruling that the prohibition on same-sex vowsin Wisconsin was unconstitutional.

Page 1 of 3Same-sex weddings continue in Wisconsin after judge strikes down ban

6/8/2014http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=Same-sex+weddings+continue+i...



32/40

Crabb's 88-page decision was different from the others around the country because although she ruledWisconsin's ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, she did not issue an order instructingcounty and state officials on what to do about it.

That left county clerks and judges to decide for themselves.

An emergency motion by the state attorney general attempted to halt the scores of weddings that beganFriday evening in Milwaukee and Madison. As of late Saturday, Crabb had taken no action on it.

"It was very demoralizing when the constitutional amendment passed, and we realized how many peoplein Wisconsin didn't support us," Jennifer Halsey said of the 2006 amendment outlawing same-sexmarriage that Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly passed.

"We thought about leaving the state," she said. "When you see other states around you embracingmarriage equality, it's very hard to have your home state not embrace it."

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, who said he tearfully and proudly served as a witness for 10of the Milwaukee weddings, personally footed the bill for employee overtime at the courthouse.

"Whatever it is, it's easily worth it," Abele said of the tab. "You're watching people who've been togetherfor decades, and finally they're getting the same recognition every other loving couple gets. It'shumbling to be part of."

Milwaukee County judges have pretty much seen it all. But on Saturday, about a dozen of them turnedtheir attention from the usual sad and violent circumstances to a procession of weddings marked bylingering hugs, complicated tears and what many said were long-overdue cheers.

Judge William Pocan noted the couples had little time to prepare, since Crabb had overturnedWisconsin's gay marriage ban less than 24 hours earlier.

"On one hand, you could say it was spur of the moment, but when you've been together 20 to 25 years,how spur of the moment is it?" said Pocan, who is used to dealing with felons. "I got a smile or a tearfrom some of them when I said, 'in sickness and in health.' People together that long have probably beenthere in sickness already. It was touching."

In Madison on Saturday afternoon, a violinist playing "The Wedding March" strolled from ceremony toceremony on the lawn of the City-County Building.

In Milwaukee, several weddings also spilled outside, where couples soaked up the sun and posed besidethe decorative fountain for pictures with family and friends.

Jennifer Larson and Nicole Arnott were at the movie "The Fault in Our Stars" with their three kids onFriday night when Larson's phone flashed the news of Crabb's ruling.

The Milwaukee couple, who have been together about 10 years, went to Vermont in 2004 for a civilunion ceremony, filed for domestic partnership recognition in Milwaukee two years ago, and gotmatching "Always and Forever" tattoos on their necks. Still, as parents and homeowners, they wereexcited to make their commitment official in the eyes of the law.

When they got home from the movies, they laid out their wedding clothes — a black-and-white print





33/40

dress for Arnott and a dark gray polo shirt and black pants for Larson. They tossed and turned all night,constantly checking the clock to make sure they didn't oversleep.

They were the first couple to arrive at the Milwaukee County Courthouse at 6:45 a.m. Saturday.

The couple didn't know what to expect. They were relieved not to see an army of poster-wavingprotesters or a long line of people camped out overnight after PrideFest at the Summerfest grounds.

"We wanted to get here early. You never know what might happen Monday," Larson said.

Larson and Arnott exchanged vows with tears welling in their eyes, as a court commissioner remindedthem that love and loyalty are the foundation of a family home.

Arnott kissed Larson's wedding ring before placing it on her finger.

Find this article at:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37535973-mjs_gaymarriage08p1jpg-b99286470z1-262240081.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.





34/40

ADVERTISEMENT

Jun. 7, 2014 |

A A

Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin ban on gay ma...: A federal judge overturns Wisconsin's gay marriage ban,

prompting a rush of same-sex couples to county offices to wed. Vanessa Johnston reports.

Brown County Executive Troy Streckenbach said Brown County will

seek direction from the state in the wake of federal court ruling

Friday that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage was

unconstitutional.

“Right now we’re waiting to see what the state is recommending,”

he said Saturday. “We’ll wait to see what (the county clerk) says

about the process and how she is going to move forward with it.”

Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage

Brown County not ready to issue licenses to gay couples

Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno said Friday

she is not ready to start issuing marriage

licenses and first needs guidance from state

records officials on how to process such

questions as naming a bride and groom on

the license.

Brown County awaits guidance from state in wake of same-sexmarriage ruling

Comments

Written byNathan Phelps Press-Gazette Media

FILED UNDER

Local News

Most Popular Most Commented More Headl ines

1

2

3

4

5

ADVERTISEMENT

Packers double land holdings around

Lambeau Field

Packers backers offer to replace fan'sstolen Super Bowl ring

Wrong-way drunk driver causes major

U.S. 41 crash

Oshkosh native Postl coming up big

as WWE's Hornswoggle

A year after losing everything in

Allouez fire, couple counts blessings

Most Viewed

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED: Calendar Heal th Care Focus On Jobs Entertainment I-Team Elect ions SEARCH

News Packers Sports Business Living Opinion Obituaries Photos/Videos

JO BS CARS HOM ES APARTMENTS SHOPPI NG CL ASSIFIEDS E-NEWSPAPER HELP

Page 1 of 4Brown County awaits guidance from state in wake of same-sex marriage ruling | Press Ga...

6/8/2014http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140607/GPG0101/140607004/



35/40

“Ultimately we’re waiting to what the state is

recommending,” Streckenbach said. “We

want to make sure we’re following the law

and doing it in an appropriate way.”

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen,

who said he plans to appeal the ruling, said

that the state’s current ban on same sex

marriage remains in place.

Dozens of gay couples got married at

courthouses in Milwaukee and Madison early

Saturday, taking advantage of what may be

a small window in which to get hitched before a ruling overturning

the state's same-sex marriage ban is put on hold.

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele said Saturday afternoon

that 146 couples married there before the courthouse closed at 1

p.m.

Milwaukee County Clerk Joe Czarnezki said couples were lined upoutside his courthouse at 6 a.m., three hours before it opened.

Within 30 minutes of opening, about 45 couples had applied for

marriage licenses.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb issued her ruling Friday

afternoon.

Craig Cook and Marshall Draper arrived about 8:30 a.m. Saturday

and found nearly two dozen couples in line ahead of them.

"Had this been legal, we probably would have done this 20 years

ago," Cook said. He said he and Draper would likely have a

reception in a few weeks, but "this was as formal a wedding as I've

ever wanted."

Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt said the city will respect the

decisions made at the county level.

“We will respect any decision by the county,” he said. “The country

is changing, and people are watching this issue, and we’re

interested in the decision made by the county.

“Whatever it is, we’re going to respect and support,” he said.

—The Associated Press

— [email protected] and follow him on

Twitter@nathanphelpsPG or on Facebook at Nathan Phelps(Press-Gazette)

View Comments () | Share your thoughts »

Meghan Connor, left, and Nujemi Champion, both of

Madison, show off their wedding documents after

getting married Saturday in Madison. Dozens of gay

couples got married at courthouses in Milwaukee and

Madison early Saturday, / Andy Manis/AP

ZOOM





36/40

JOIN OURTEAM!

If you are interested in

working for an innovative

media company, you can

learn more by visiting:

Gannett Careers

MOST POPULAR

Packers double land holdings around Lambeau

Field

1.

Packers backers offer to replace fan's stolen Super

Bowl ring

2.

Oshkosh native Postl coming up big as WWE's

Hornswoggle

3.

WIAA state track and field: Seymour's Bloom,

Cohen recover with long jump medals

4.

What We Pay: Technical College salaries5.

Human remains found in 2 suitcases near Lake

Geneva

6.

Brown County clerk not ready to issue gays

marriage licenses

7.

ARCHIVES

View the last seven

days

Yesterday, Jun. 07

Friday, Jun. 06

Thursday, Jun. 05

Wednesday, Jun. 04

Tuesday, Jun. 03

Monday, Jun. 02

Sunday, Jun. 01

See our paid archives

for news older than a

week.

SUN

8MON

9TUE

10WED

11THU

12FRI

13

THINGS TO DO

See all Events

Ashwaubenon Synergy SoccerTryouts

Synergy Fields Ashwaubenon, WI

Best of Summer Competition call forentries

John Michael Kohler Arts Center Sheboygan,

Wisconsin

Country Breeze Farm Tours l i il

ADVERTISEMENT

Site Map | Back to Top

NEWS

Databases

Special reports

Door County Advocate

Oconto County Reporter

Kewaunee County Star-News

Corrections

Wisconsin Politics

National news

LIVINGFood

Religion

Milestones

Yard MD

Event calendar

Submit events to calendar

YOU Magazine

Puzzles

PACKERS

Home page

News

Gameday LIVE!

Roster

Features

Commentary

Chat with reporters

Fan Zone

Schedule

OBITUARIES

Today's obituaries

In memoriams

Door County Advocate

obituaries

Kewaunee County Star-News

obituaries

Oconto County Reporter

obituaries

SPORTS

Packers

Baseball

UWGB/St. Norbert

Clubhouse Live

Youth Sports

Varsity

Hockey

Racing

Outdoors

Other Sports

OPINION

Editorials

Letters to the editor

Submit letter to editor

BUSINESS

Submit a new business

Stock quotes

Manufacturing videos

PHOTOS/VIDEOS

Video library

Livestreams

Photo galleries

Photo reprints

Page reprintsHow We See It blog

Paid article archive

Share photos, videos

HELP

Contact us

Subscribe

Customer Services

Advertise with Press-Gazette

Media

Careers with Gannett

Business Opportunity-

Delivery Routes

Our Commitment

Manage My SubscriptionActivate your subscription

About Us

FOLLOW US

Twitter

Facebook

Mobile

RSS

E-mail Alerts

News | Jobs | Cars for Sale | Homes for Sale | Apartments for Rent | Real Estate | Shopping

Appleton Post-Crescent | Fond du Lac Reporter | Green Bay Press-Gazette | Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter | Marshfield News Herald | Oshkosh Northwestern





37/40

Packersnews | Sheboygan Press | Stevens Point Journal | Wausau Daily Herald | Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune | Door County Advocate | Wisconsin Outdoor Fun

Copyright © 2014 www.greenbaypressgazette.com. All rights reserved.

Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service, Privacy Notice/Your California Privacy Rights, and Ad Choices





38/40

Rock County to start issuing same-sex marriage

licenses

(2)

By Meg Jones of the Journal Sentinel

Updated June 8, 2014

Rock County will become the third in Wisconsin to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Monday morning the Rock County clerk will begin issuing marriage licenses to all

qualified couples after U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb's ruling that the prohibition

on same-sex vows in Wisconsin was unconstitutional. Once Crabb's announcement

was made Friday afternoon, marriage licenses were issued in Milwaukee and Dane

counties.

Rock County Clerk Lori Stottler said in an email that she can only issue marriagelicenses to Rock County residents or out-of-state residents wishing to be married in

Rock County. Proof of residency is required. Also needed: a certified copy of a birth

certificate, photo ID and Social Security number for each applicant, and the name,

address and phone number of the person who will officiate the wedding. Couples who

want to waive the state-waiting period so they can take their marriage license directly

to the officiant to get married on the same day must pay $120 in cash. Otherwise the

marriage license application fee is $95.

If either applicant was previously married, the person must bring a copy of the final

judgment of divorce, annulment or certified death certificate to prove how and when

the last marriage ended. In Wisconsin it's unlawful to get remarried until six months

and one day after a divorce is granted.

Page 1 of 3Rock County to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses

6/9/2014http://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htm



39/40

RiverWalk, condos transformed Milwaukee

riverfront

Deputy who hurt woman in crash was nearly

fired by Sheriff Clarke in 2007

MPS aims to offer free meals at school for all

students

The Rock County Courthouse, 51 S. Main St. in Janesville, is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30

p.m.

(2)

More from the Journal Sentinel

June 8, 2014 - Developers and investors have been attracted by a cleaner river tied to public

improvements — including the RiverWalk. That’s helped spur additional downtown development.

4:00 a.m. - Years before the deputy ran a stop sign and caused a crash that injured a college student in

2013, Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. tried to fire him for falsifying records, but a board suspended him

instead.

DANIEL BICE

Burke fires back 8 months after dust-up with businessman

June 8, 2014 - Mary Burke’s campaign staff released two letters as evidence she played a key role in

bringing the packaging firm Uline Inc. to Wisconsin.


6/9/2014http://m.jsonline.com/262320081.htm



40/40

June 8, 2014 - Rising student poverty in Wisconsin may mean more students will be able to receive free

meals under new rules for applying for federal assistance.

State justices impose time limits on debate to clear backlog

June 8, 2014 - The plan was adopted last month in private by the state Supreme Court as tensions

continue to simmer on a court often marked by personal disagreements.

BACK TO TOP

SUBSCRIPTION

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

© 2014, JOURNAL SENTINEL INC.



14 06 09 appellants' er motion for temp stay from relief

Documents