 |
Federal judges struck down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada
on Tuesday, a day after a US supreme court decision signaled an expansion of gay rights deep into the nation’s most conservative states.
A three-judge panel of the ninth circuit US court of appeals ruled that the bans violated the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause. The decision could be a catalyst for same-sex marriage to become legal in Montana, Arizona and Alaska, which also fall under the ninth circuit’s jurisdiction.
On Monday the supreme court cleared the way for a significant expansion of same-sex marriage rights by declining to hear appeals from five states whose bans had been struck down by lower courts. That decision could also affect marriage laws in six other states.
After the ninth circuit decision on Tuesday, same-sex marriage is now legal, or potentially on the road to being so, in 35 states and the District of Columbia.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt sharply criticized the defendants in a 34-page opinion that called state bans on same-sex marriage “cruel” and “repugnant”.
“Plaintiffs are ordinary Idahoans and Nevadans,” said Reindhardt. “One teaches deaf children. Another is a warehouse manager. A third is an historian. Most are parents. Like all human beings, their lives are given greater meaning by their intimate, loving committed relationships with their partners and children.”
“Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values,’” Reindhardt wrote.
As for the argument that same-sex marriage could negatively affect heterosexual marriages, Reindhardt said: “We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.”
Nevada did not defend its own ban after governor Brian Sandoval said in February that he would no longer do so. A local group, The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, intervened in the state’s place.
Since 2009, Nevada has allowed couples to register as domestic partners. In a footnote to his opinion, Reinhardt wrote that this made the state’s case “even weaker than Idaho’s”. He said both states’ cases were also weakened because they both allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
Dan Ortiz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, said that other ninth circuit panels will have to follow the precedent set on Tuesday. “So all the federal district courts in other states in the ninth circuit will now presumably invalidate bans in other states as well,” Ortiz said.
John Barnes, a spokesman for Montana’s attorney general’s office, said in an email that it is reviewing the ninth circuit’s decision. “Until a federal court rules otherwise in a case to which Montana is a party, the definition of marriage in Montana’s constitution remains lawful and valid,” Barnes said.
Niki Zupanic, the public policy director of the Montana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage ban earlier this year, said it plans to file a request for summary judgement immediately.
“We know that this won’t happen overnight,” Zupanic said. “Montana couples are going to have to wait at least a little bit longer for all the legal briefings to be filed and for the judge in our case to issue a file order, but we do see a really clear path now for the judge in our case to be able to grant marriage equality to our couples.”
Angie Rolando, a plaintiff in the Montana case, was excited about the ninth circuit’s ruling. “I’m finally going to be able to marry the woman I love,” Rolando said of her partner Tonya in a statement. “We’ve been dreaming of this day for so long, and now we can start planning our wedding. Here come the brides!”
Oral arguments for Alaska’s same-sex marriage case are scheduled for Friday, though the attorneys for the plaintiffs have contacted the state to see how the ninth circuit’s decision effects the scheduled proceedings.
“We were surprised and delighted that this happened right before because it makes our oral argument on friday a slam dunk,” said Caitlin Shortell, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the Alaska case.
The Alaska attorney general’s office was reviewing the case on Tuesday afternoon and said it would not have an immediate comment.
A ruling on Arizona’s same-sex marriage case is pending. Heather Macre, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Arizona Central that her office planned to immediately file a motion to request to the judge in the case, asking him to provide a quick ruling.
“Obviously the ninth circuit’s opinion will be binding in Arizona, but we still need an order from our court for marriage licenses to be issued,” Macre said.
The state’s attorney general’s office said it was reviewing the ninth circuit’s decision. “Nevada and Idaho still have the opportunity to seek a rehearing or petition the supreme court for review so that’s something that could still happen,” said Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for the Arizona attorney general. “So really today’s ninth circuit decision is certainly not final.”
Same-sex marriage is already legal in four states covered by the ninth circuit: California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.
“It means so much for the courts to recognize our family and say that we must be treated equally,” Lori Watsen, a plaintiff in the Idaho case, said in a statement. “Our son will be able to grow up in a world where the state treats his family the same as other families. Today’s ruling means that we can finally have the same legal protections as other married couples and the security of knowing that our family is legally secure.”
on Tuesday, a day after a US supreme court decision signaled an expansion of gay rights deep into the nation’s most conservative states.
A three-judge panel of the ninth circuit US court of appeals ruled that the bans violated the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause. The decision could be a catalyst for same-sex marriage to become legal in Montana, Arizona and Alaska, which also fall under the ninth circuit’s jurisdiction.
On Monday the supreme court cleared the way for a significant expansion of same-sex marriage rights by declining to hear appeals from five states whose bans had been struck down by lower courts. That decision could also affect marriage laws in six other states.
After the ninth circuit decision on Tuesday, same-sex marriage is now legal, or potentially on the road to being so, in 35 states and the District of Columbia.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt sharply criticized the defendants in a 34-page opinion that called state bans on same-sex marriage “cruel” and “repugnant”.
“Plaintiffs are ordinary Idahoans and Nevadans,” said Reindhardt. “One teaches deaf children. Another is a warehouse manager. A third is an historian. Most are parents. Like all human beings, their lives are given greater meaning by their intimate, loving committed relationships with their partners and children.”
“Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values,’” Reindhardt wrote.
As for the argument that same-sex marriage could negatively affect heterosexual marriages, Reindhardt said: “We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.”
Nevada did not defend its own ban after governor Brian Sandoval said in February that he would no longer do so. A local group, The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, intervened in the state’s place.
Since 2009, Nevada has allowed couples to register as domestic partners. In a footnote to his opinion, Reinhardt wrote that this made the state’s case “even weaker than Idaho’s”. He said both states’ cases were also weakened because they both allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
Dan Ortiz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, said that other ninth circuit panels will have to follow the precedent set on Tuesday. “So all the federal district courts in other states in the ninth circuit will now presumably invalidate bans in other states as well,” Ortiz said.
John Barnes, a spokesman for Montana’s attorney general’s office, said in an email that it is reviewing the ninth circuit’s decision. “Until a federal court rules otherwise in a case to which Montana is a party, the definition of marriage in Montana’s constitution remains lawful and valid,” Barnes said.
Niki Zupanic, the public policy director of the Montana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage ban earlier this year, said it plans to file a request for summary judgement immediately.
“We know that this won’t happen overnight,” Zupanic said. “Montana couples are going to have to wait at least a little bit longer for all the legal briefings to be filed and for the judge in our case to issue a file order, but we do see a really clear path now for the judge in our case to be able to grant marriage equality to our couples.”
Angie Rolando, a plaintiff in the Montana case, was excited about the ninth circuit’s ruling. “I’m finally going to be able to marry the woman I love,” Rolando said of her partner Tonya in a statement. “We’ve been dreaming of this day for so long, and now we can start planning our wedding. Here come the brides!”
Oral arguments for Alaska’s same-sex marriage case are scheduled for Friday, though the attorneys for the plaintiffs have contacted the state to see how the ninth circuit’s decision effects the scheduled proceedings.
“We were surprised and delighted that this happened right before because it makes our oral argument on friday a slam dunk,” said Caitlin Shortell, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the Alaska case.
The Alaska attorney general’s office was reviewing the case on Tuesday afternoon and said it would not have an immediate comment.
A ruling on Arizona’s same-sex marriage case is pending. Heather Macre, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Arizona Central that her office planned to immediately file a motion to request to the judge in the case, asking him to provide a quick ruling.
“Obviously the ninth circuit’s opinion will be binding in Arizona, but we still need an order from our court for marriage licenses to be issued,” Macre said.
The state’s attorney general’s office said it was reviewing the ninth circuit’s decision. “Nevada and Idaho still have the opportunity to seek a rehearing or petition the supreme court for review so that’s something that could still happen,” said Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for the Arizona attorney general. “So really today’s ninth circuit decision is certainly not final.”
Same-sex marriage is already legal in four states covered by the ninth circuit: California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.
“It means so much for the courts to recognize our family and say that we must be treated equally,” Lori Watsen, a plaintiff in the Idaho case, said in a statement. “Our son will be able to grow up in a world where the state treats his family the same as other families. Today’s ruling means that we can finally have the same legal protections as other married couples and the security of knowing that our family is legally secure.”
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment