—the court cited Baker for the proposition that "the Constitution does not require States to permit same-sex marriages."

The court of appeals noted at the close of a string cite that the sole case at that time to have ruled differently on Baker after Windsor failed to consider whether doctrinal developments had deprived Baker of precedential force. Id

—the lay plaintiff failed to sue an appropriate defendant and the district court accepted a recommendation by the magistrate judge to dismiss the case after the plaintiff failed to file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Unlike the defendants in many of the other same-sex marriage cases before other federal courts, however, defendants here do not contend that Baker forecloses this Court's review or mandates the disposition of this case.

As relevant to the issue at hand, the court relied on a single proposition—that Baker v. Nelson was controlling

One federal court adhered to Baker in a pro se prison inmate's case without addressing whether subsequent doctrinal developments have rendered Baker no longer binding.

—the court considered a pro se, in forma pauperis, plaintiffs lawsuit challenging Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriages.

[CITATION] SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AFTER OBERGEFELL: THE STATE OF THE UNION IN THE US AND …

[BOOK] Wisconsin and the Shaping of American Law

[CITATION] Marriage Equality 2.0: What LGBT Couples Have and What Lawyers Hold