Reading today's Omaha World-Herald article on Judge Bataillon's ruling, there was something I really liked and a paragraph that was factually incorrect.
I was pleased that the article opened with the judge's primary concern--children of same-sex families. For the last two years this has become a staple of the rulings (which it appears that our opponents never actually read). This section was my favorite part of the ruling.
But then the article has a paragraph full of factual errors. Here is the paragraph:
Bataillon struck down the state’s gay marriage ban Monday but stayed the implementation of his order for a week to give the state time to appeal.
Actually, Judge Bataillon rejected the state's motion for a stay. He did declare when his ruling would go into effect. It is often the case that a ruling does not go into effect immediately in order to give people time to prepare for implementation, which is what the judge did. Here is the relevant paragraph from the ruling:
Because the standards for staying the injunction mirror the standards for issuing the injunction, the court's findings of likely success and severe irreparable harm make the court disinclined to stay the injunction. For the reasons stated herein and in the court's denial of an earlier motion for a stay, the court finds the State's oral motion for a stay should be denied.18 However, in an effort to assuage the State's concerns with respect to administrative turmoil, the court will delay the effective date of the injunction.
Note that he rejected the stay. And unlike the World-Herald article's misleading paragraph, he did not do it in order to give the state time to appeal.
Also, a footnote explains why he did not grant a stay: "That stays have been granted in other cases in this Circuit pending appeal is of no consequence to this determination because those cases did not involve any showing of the sort of irreparable harm these plaintiffs (especially the Waters family) will suffer."