Jackley notes State of SD will be appealing today’s court decision

From Tony Mangan at KCCR comes the first note from Marty Jackley that an appeal is forthcoming:

Jackley says the appeal could be heard fairly soon because other states with similar cases, such as North Dakota, also will likely be heard by the same Eighth Circuit panel. Jackley expects some type of ruling this year.

While the U.S. Supreme Court may have the final say on the issue, Jackley says he is compelled to defend the state’s ban because it was approved by the voters. Jackley says the state believes this is an issue best decided by the voters than the courts.

Since most of the briefs and documents are the same in each case, Jackley says the expense to South Dakota for defending the ban has not been expensive. He says an appeal may eventually cost about $1,000.

Read it here.

29 Replies to “Jackley notes State of SD will be appealing today’s court decision”

  1. Jimmy LaSalvia

    Jackley is wrong about the costs. Twice, so far, losing states have been ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. There are dozens of those judgements pending. The cost will amount to millions. The farther Jackley takes this, the more South Dakota will likely have to compensate the plaintiff’s attorneys.

    Reply
      1. Jimmy LaSalvia

        From the National Law Journal –

        States that unsuccessfully ­defended same-sex marriage bans in federal courts are on the hook to pay more than $800,000 in legal fees to the challengers, and requests for millions of dollars more are pending.

        Federal district judges across the country have issued nearly three dozen rulings since late 2013 declaring state same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. Attorney fee petitions haven’t been filed yet in the majority of those cases as they go before circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. The fee awards, agreements and requests to date offer an early snapshot of what these landmark civil rights cases could cost taxpayers.

        Reply
  2. Anne Beal

    What’s going to be costly will be the inevitable lawsuits filed against everybody these couples can blame when they don’t live happily ever after.

    Reply
    1. American Oligarchy

      Anne, I’m sure the gay people are happy to have someone like you looking out for their best interest.

      Reply
      1. Anne Beal

        The people involved believe that the stability and happiness of their personal relationships depend on a piece of paper.

        When you think about it, there’s really no reason for anybody to get married. You will either stay together or you won’t. That’s the one thing that has come out of this whole debate.

        The advocates of same sex marriage keep talking about all the benefits and stability that marriage provides, and the straight couples are left wondering “what are they talking about?”

        Even those of us who are happy together can’t remember why we ever made it legal in the first place.

        Reply
        1. Dicta

          To answer your questions: Partners in a civil union are not entitled to Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, or military spousal benefits. Married couples are. I hope that helps.

          Reply
          1. JimV

            Since those are all government entitlement programs, why couldn’t Congress just bring that parity to civil unions? Or maybe that is just too easy and does nothing to attack religion.

            Reply
            1. Dicta

              Because the Federal Government recognizes same sex marriage and states not getting on board and trying to create “separate but equal” unions similar to marriage won’t cut it. But fair question: Why don’t we have a separate but equal thing for the gays? Why hasn’t someone thought of this separate but equal political edifice before?

              Reply
        2. Anonymous

          Anne, I remember-the Bible says husband and wife, and my saying my vows before God and man fulfilled that directive from a higher power than the Supreme Court.

          Reply
          1. Anne Beal

            And I know couples who church weddings but never filed their completed marriage certificates at the county courthouse so that they could continue to enjoy the financial benefits of being single.

            Reply
  3. Anonymous

    This is a total waste of money for several reasons. The attuide in the US has shifted to a point that the majority of Americans support gay marriage. It doesn’t say that churches must now perform these marriages even though I’m sure Mr Hickey is very exited to do his first gay marriage. Lastly now finally Pat can marry his true love and benefactor Dan Lederman oh how happy they must be. The constitution allows for equal protect and by saying one group of citizen can be married and another can’t violates that.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      other parts of the country where the issue of marriage rights has already been settled in favor of same-sex marriage are fighting a different host of discrimination battles. ultimately the right of conscience for religious americans who oppose same-sex unions on moral grounds will not survive, and cultural diversity in the usa will then be more imaginary than actual via enforced political correctness.

      Reply
      1. Dicta

        I always pause when I see those who oppose gay marriage painting themselves as martyrs by decrying their supposed “right of conscience” being trampled. You understand why this supposed right causes all sorts of problems in a constitutional context, right?

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          if there is no ground upon which to establish rights of conscience, then there is no ground for the private exercise of religious freedom. courts have to draw a clear line where the right of individual religious freedom is protected, and i guarantee you that those who want to reduce religion to a mere component of discrimination as a legal strategy are always going to yell the loudest about it. but that is not at stake in this case so let’s not cross that bridge earlier than we have to.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            the obvious answer is to remove all the special rights and privileges that marriage gives to the participants. then who is going to want to even bother? and one marriage partner will be compelled in court to testify against the other, the two will not become “one” entity for purposes of religious practice and legal standing.

            Reply
          2. Dicta

            You have the right to your ideas, of course. Where the question falls: do your ideas end at my nose? Because the benefits of marriage, from a financial perspective anyway, are clear. So perhaps, as anon said above, let’s yank out all those benefits and you can keep those pesky gays away from the sanctity of your heterosexual marriage and its north-of-50% divorce rates.

            Reply
            1. Anonymous

              the rights and protections of marriage in the american legal system stem from religious tradition in christianity. this is clear. we can certainly adopt a plan to greedily accept what is good and personally beneficial about a religious tradition, and to casually reject the traditions about moral requirements and such. we certainly can. i was simply trying to be consistent on eliminating the religious question entirely by removing whatever discriminatory entitlements are gained by engaging in marriage, and discriminatory exclusions imposed on those who are not protected by entry into a marriage.

              Reply
            2. Anonymous

              i am showing you the bare metal hooks of hypocrisy that the whole argument hangs on when all the layers of nicety are removed. and there is hypocrisy on both sides since the u-s-a isn’t a theocracy.

              Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Jackley had damn well better defend our state’s absolutely essential laws at all costs especially if looking ahead he wants my vote.
    This is a children’s issues. Children need and should have an absolute right to be raised by both a mother and a father and it should be the default position of a decent to do whatever possible to provide that. That means only man-woman marriage as the cultural norm. This is the ultimate purpose of marriage, stability for raising children. It’s not about the state helping to fulfill the sexual desires of adults

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    I’m waiting for the good Reverend Hickey to weigh in on this issue. Can he comment and not jeopardize his “relationship” with Steve Hildebrand? Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.

    Reply
  6. Anne Beal

    The IRS is already sticking it to married couples. Things are okay until you get to the 25% bracket, and then it looks like this, if both work and make equal incomes:
    2 people Married filing jointly: $73,801-148,850

    Married filing separately: $36,901-74,425
    2 people married filing separately:$73,802-148,850

    SINGLE $36,901-89,350
    2 Singles: $73,802-178,700

    The advantage to being an unmarried couple gets even better in the 28% bracket, where the married couple reaches the max at $226,850 but the unmarried couple goes all the way up to $374,700 before hitting the next bracket.

    Reply
    1. Anne Beal

      For those with smaller incomes:
      A married couple with children can only claim the kids once.

      But an unmarried couple gets a bonus: while one claims the kids, the other files as a Head of Household. Saves thousands.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.