Gay Marriage | News | Wyoming

Gay Couple Files Suit, Demanding Marriage in Wyoming

David Shupe-Roderick and Ryan W. Dupree of Cheyenne, Wyoming have filed suit, challenging the state's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman after being refused a marriage license, the AP reports:

Wyoming"They're asking U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to stop the state from enforcing any laws that block gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage. Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg declined comment Tuesday, saying he hadn't reviewed the lawsuit yet. Shupe-Roderick and Dupree are acting as their own attorneys in the case."

The suit was filed on August 13, according to Wyoming court records.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I'm all for challenging idiot marriage laws like this, but I'm concerned that they're representing themselves. The Prop 8 suit was won by stellar lawyers (and, of course, decided by a clear-thinking judge).

    Posted by: David R. | Aug 24, 2010 2:34:17 PM

  2. A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
    Had to be said.

    Posted by: Eric26 | Aug 24, 2010 3:26:18 PM

  3. Here's a letter making the rounds in Wyo:

    Homosexual Advocates File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Whether Men & Women Are Really Different

    CHEYENNE, Wyo.-WyWatch Family Action has just learned that a federal lawsuit has been filed against Wyoming, attacking our laws that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The lawsuit declares our state’s definition of marriage to be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

    “We are asking Wyomingites to not be fooled,” said Becky Vandeberghe, President of WyWatch. “This is not about upholding the U.S. Constitution, but about asking more and more federal activist judges to impose their political views on America, and now Wyoming families. The men who filed this lawsuit know that if decisions about our families are left to the people of Wyoming, their radical agenda is stopped every time. Wyomingites are capable of governing ourselves, and the unelected federal judges should not be deciding important issues for us.”

    “Simply put, this lawsuit is about whether men and women are different,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “Men and women are fundamentally different, but these radical activists want a federal court to declare that Wyoming law must pretend as if there’s no difference between men and women. Every mother in Wyoming should be outraged at the two men who filed this lawsuit. As we just saw in California, this lawsuit seeks to declare that mothers are irrelevant for the family and, most importantly, for children. I doubt that too many mothers would agree that their presence makes no difference to their children.”

    WyWatch Family Action routinely supports marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage celebrates diversity by bringing together the two great halves of humanity for a unique social good. No matter whether husband and wife are of different races, of different religions, or of different political affiliation, their union is important to society by bonding together the two wonderful pieces of humanity. For radical activists to pretend as if we’re a unisex society and act as if we’re a society of only one sex, instead of two, is a radical departure from reality that no society should embrace.

    Posted by: Jake Sanders | Aug 24, 2010 4:27:21 PM

  4. This is exactly what Olson and Boies were afraid of. These kids (25 and 22) have a combined income of about $1500 a month. The brief is skeletal; it's barely 10 pages and cites no caselaw. They can't even afford the filing fee, let alone putting on a respectable case. It was filed in Wyoming, where the Obama appointee was recused because her husband, the governor (for several more months) is one of the defendants, and the case is now before a conservative Reagan appointee.

    We better pray the Olson-Boies case goes higher before the Tenth Circuit has the opportunity to create some really bad case law.

    Posted by: Tyler | Aug 24, 2010 4:48:38 PM

  5. so can't the ACLU or whatever step in and defend them?

    Posted by: me | Aug 24, 2010 7:08:00 PM

  6. Yeah, some organization needs to step in NOW because this is crazy.

    Posted by: Joe | Aug 24, 2010 7:49:49 PM

  7. I submitted a comment to this topic earlier. It has not yet posted. This is the third time my submissions have not posted. Frankly I would like to know the reasons why.

    Posted by: Henry Juhala | Aug 24, 2010 8:38:08 PM

  8. You know what? Let the fu**ers have their marriage definition... then just take ALL the perks of law that married individuals have been enjoying since our laws began to include them.

    There's like what, over a thousand laws that protect married individuals...


    Y'all want this to remain a religious sacrament only? Then fine... we take all the laws as pertaining to your marriage away... because after all... it's secular and there is separation between church and state.

    Watch the bigots start screaming then.

    I'm so sick of this.

    Posted by: aleabeth | Aug 24, 2010 10:37:00 PM

  9. Punish those 2 asshats, They know better to come to Red America with that shit!

    Dumb queens sit back and be respectful of the law. This isn't California. It's Wyoming call it off or face it!

    Posted by: RED DEVIL | Aug 25, 2010 5:41:06 AM

  10. I do not understand why gay men in the world can not be treated the way that they are in Wil Adams e-novel To Destroy Mankind (See Amazon) The loving relationships as they are depicted in that novel are so true to life, and Wil Adams is obviously attempting to bring such relationships to light since he also depicts the same kind of relationships in his one act play That Stupid Sombrero. As a gay man myself it is the gay relationships that Mr. Adams depicts that keep my hope alive. We do not have to get married, but really, if we do it will not be To Destroy Mankind.

    Posted by: Berezan | Aug 25, 2010 6:16:33 AM

  11. @Tyler: Why would Olson and Boies be afraid of this case? If you want bad case law, it already exists in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning from the Eighth Circuit where essentially the court simply bought the argument that marriage is for procreation on "rational basis" (so that there would be no need to actually justify the argument).

    If the case goes to the Supreme Court, the precedent already exists and if the case stays in the Ninth Circuit, this case doesn't matter since the Tenth and the Ninth are exclusive.

    Posted by: Patrick Garies | Aug 25, 2010 6:55:45 AM


    Seems as if David one of the Plaintiffs is a jailhouse lawyer who has done time, recently arrested - and brought lawsuits before- exposed by LEZGETREAL

    Posted by: Melanie Nathan | Aug 26, 2010 2:10:26 AM

Post a comment


« «Marine Commandant: Marines May Allow Straight Soldiers to Live Separately from Gays Over 'Moral Concerns'« «