Talk:Brenner v. Scott

Photo

Those of us in the Brenner v Scott now Armstrong case would like to ask that the photo located on the web site of the Jax paper be used on this site. This photo was taken BY the plaintiffs and supplied to our attys to be used by the press. We have others that can also be used if you do not want to use the one from the Times Union.

http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2014-12-03/story/gay-marriage-could-be-real-many-jan-6-barring-supreme-court-action

The owner of the photo should add it to Wikipedia's resources. The process may look complicated, but it's not hard to figure out. Working on a computer where you have a copy of the image, start here and use the Upload Wizard. Then give us a link to the file here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

While I am an 'unregistered' editor (too much arguing going on here! is why I ain't registered), and thus can not upload stuff , I would like to thank you, Bmclaughlin9 (talk), for assisting in both matters:

First, the plaintiffs, apparently, are also unregistered editors and can not upload stuff, so thank you for stepping up to the plate and going to bat. (I say this with no conflict of interest: While I oppose any and all mistreatment of gays, I do not support a definition of marriage to include anything other than 'traditional' marriage, but, again, the plaintiffs here should be made to feel welcome and helped out with their upload issues.)

Secondly, I see you were a fair player and placed that one resource link (for selected case data downloads) in a proper place. While I had erroneously placed it in probably a less than optimal place, I did to improve your article here, and I am glad that you helped work out a compromise that works for all.96.59.130.176 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I somehow figured out how to add your photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenner_v._Scott&diff=636852490&oldid=636828809

Problem fixed. :) 96.59.130.176 (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Update

Dear Fireman452 (talk), I see you were able to fix information typos in my previous edit, where I placed the photo; I am sorry if I made some typos, but I was just copying & pasting from wherever and trying to get your photo posted. Good job: I am glad that we could team up and get these things fixed and updated.96.59.172.254 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Judge Hinkle is losing it... (commentary)

I do not mean this with any disrespect towards the judge, but I feel that Judge Hinkle is losing it:

1, he styled the case in Brenner v Scott, a clear typo! (This after the case had been changed to Brenner v Armstrong, with Scott removed, and then it was appealed without Gov Scott as a named defendant.)

2, he made claims that one litigant forged other peoples' names, when a credible news source investigating this found no such evidence that litigant (the guy who wanted to "marry" his computer, probably a vexatious litigant and a bit nutty, but otherwise, following the rules) did this in any of his other filings (and thus was unlikely to do so here).

3, In fact the Judge had the evidence destroyed by the time this reporter came onto the scene to ask for proof of the judge's claims regarding this litigant's forgery. Destroying the evidence is careless at best, and criminal (and immoral) at worst!

4, I do appreciate that Judge Hinkle seems to care about the gay citizens of Florida being deprived of certain financial rights, and that shows he is both paying attention (smart) and also has a good heart and integrity. But, his logic is weak insofar as he is unable to separate the several "intertwined" issues (the financial disparity, which, on the one hand, is a just cause, with the legal recognition of 'Gay Marriage', which, on the other hand, seems sure to fail on Equal Protection grounds, since, as many Amici Curiae litigants have said, even polygamy is illegal).

Therefore, I personally believe that this judge is getting old and senile and losing it. I mean this in no disrespect, and hopes that if he should read this that he is not offended, for I do not mean it in that way, but word up: truth is truth, here.

Thoughts? Feedback? 96.59.130.9 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chatroom. You should find another website for this sort of discussion.

The one detail that matters is this: the case name has not changed in District Court. Hinkle's decision relieving Scott is not yet final. Note that the clerk's filing that prompted Hinkle's latest order also uses Brenner v. Scott. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to waste valuable recurses with useless chat, or to distract or insult my neighbors here. Indeed, the only main thing that we should be discussing is how to make the Online 'Wiki' Encyclopedia article, here, accurate. But that series of events just "jumped out" at me, right in the face, and I thought it more than coincidence. Yes, the motion was styled incorrectly, but the judge could have corrected that. (And he didn't: both the attorney and the judge were wrong here, and 2 wrongs don't make right. Now, you've got me wondering about the attorney who wrote this up!) With regard to your claim that the case name has not yet changed in the District Court, that is a key point, and I'm guessing you are right, but I hope to check on it just to be sure. (It is a 'key' point.) However, if the judge is, in fact, losing grip on reality (or, for that matter, any of the other players), it is a noteworthy tidal wave, and I merely thought I saw the 'leading edge' of said wave. Thank you for your thoughts and reply.96.59.130.9 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015 edits... discussion

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenner_v._Scott&diff=642078955&oldid=642062653

First, the editor states the Fla couldn't be bothered in edit notes... that may (or may not) be true, but one thing we know is this:

The 11th Cir. R.28-1, I.O.P. 4, dealing with waiving your right to reply states: "Waiver of Reply Brief. A party may waive the right to file a reply brief. Immediate notice of such waiver to the clerk will expedite submission of the appeal to the court."(see below)

Secondly, the publisher (of note 30: which stated ' "Oral Argument Calendats". Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Retrieved January 11, 2015.') was not the 11th Circuit as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenner_v._Scott&oldid=642062653#cite_note-30 states: it was the Advcoate.com, an apparently left-leaning, but accurate, news source.

Lastly, it was HELL fixing the formatting; please don't screw with it -- if it works, and it's not broke, don't fix it!! (Besides, the areas in formatting where we disagree are minor, so plz don't sweat the small stuff, kk?) 96.59.161.38 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Florida probably wanted to speed the appeal up, thinking that the circuit appeals court would rule in their favor before the stay expired. In any event, they felt their case was strong and did not need to waste time with a reply. Indeed, both the state an the opposing side, had many, many amici come out of the woodwork, and both sides put on a stellar show!96.59.161.38 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

Just a note to let you know I assessed Brenner v. Scott to B-class per the request at WP:LGBT/Assessment - this is the max a Wikiproject can assess. Do see WP:LGBT/Assessment#Requesting an assessment for links for nominating the article for GA or FA status. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brenner v. Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714220705/http://cdn.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/07/ky-marriage-ruling-070114.pdf to http://cdn.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/07/ky-marriage-ruling-070114.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)