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