SUSAN LATTA v. C. L. OTTER

FILED FOR PUBLICATION JAN 09 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSAN LATTA; TRACI EHLERS; LORI No. 14-35420 WATSEN; SHARENE WATSEN; SHELIA ROBERTSON; ANDREA D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD ALTMAYER; AMBER BEIERLE; District of Idaho, RACHAEL ROBERTSON, Boise Plaintiffs - Appellees, ORDER v. C. L. OTTER, 'Butch'; Governor of the State of Idaho, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellant, And CHRISTOPHER RICH, Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, in his official capacity, Defendant, STATE OF IDAHO, Intervenor-Defendant. SUSAN LATTA; TRACI EHLERS; LORI No. 14-35421 WATSEN; SHARENE WATSEN; SHELIA ROBERTSON; ANDREA D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD ALTMAYER; AMBER BEIERLE; District of Idaho, RACHAEL ROBERTSON, Boise Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. C. L. OTTER, 'Butch'; Governor of the State of Idaho, in his official capacity, Defendant, And CHRISTOPHER RICH, Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellant, STATE OF IDAHO, Intervenor-Defendant - Appellant. BEVERLY SEVCIK; MARY No. 12-17668 BARANOVICH; ANTIOCO CARRILLO; THEODORE SMALL; KAREN GOODY; D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ-PAL KAREN VIBE; FLETCHER District of Nevada, WHITWELL; GREG FLAMER; Las Vegas MIKYLA MILLER; KATRINA MILLER; ADELE TERRANOVA; TARA NEWBERRY; CAREN CAFFERATA- JENKINS; FARRELL CAFFERATA- JENKINS; MEGAN LANZ; SARA GEIGER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BRIAN SANDOVAL, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Nevada; DIANA ALBA, in her official capacity as the County Clerµ and Commissioner of Civil Marriages for Clarµ County, Nevada; AMY HARVEY, in her official capacity as the County Clerµ and Commissioner of Civil Marriages for Washoe County, Nevada; ALAN GLOVER, in his official capacity as the Clerµ Recorder for Carson City, Nevada, Defendants - Appellees, And COALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE, Intervenor-Defendant - Appellee. Before: REINHARDT, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. The panel has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. FILED Latta v. Otter, Nos. 14-35420, 14-35421; JAN 09 2015 Sevciµ v. Sandoval, No. 12-17668 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:: One month after the panel in these cases strucµ down the traditional marriage laws of Idaho and Nevada, the Sixth Circuit upheld the essentially identical laws of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucµy. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). Clearly the same-sex marriage debate is not over. Indeed, not only does the debate now divide the federal circuit courts and state legislatures, but it continues to divide the American public.1 And, of course, 1 See, e.g., http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/US/house/exitpoll (showing that in exit polling at the November 2014 election, respondents were equally divided, 48û-48û, on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legally recognized in their state). The debate even divides the globe--and the DeBoer majority is in agreement with one of the world's most prominent human rights' tribunals. Only a few months ago, the European Court of Human Rights, hardly a hotbed of hardline conservatism, made clear that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom 'enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman,' and 'cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.' H