Marriage News Watch, 9/8/14

Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:




Judge Richard Posner, a 75-year-old Reagan appointee, writing for the Seventh Circuit in last Thursday's ruling on marriage cases in Wisconsin and Indiana, made some memorable observations, including this one:

The harm to homosexuals (and, as we’ll emphasize, to their adopted children) of being denied the right to marry is considerable. Marriage confers respectability on a sexual relationship; to exclude a couple from marriage is thus to deny it a coveted status. Because homosexuality is not a voluntary condition and homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world, the disparagement of their sexual orientation, implicit in the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, is a source of continuing pain to the homosexual community. Not that allowing same-sex marriage will change in the short run the negative views that many Americans hold of same-sex marriage. But it will enhance the status of these marriages in the eyes of other Americans, and in the long run it may convert some of the opponents of such marriage by demonstrating that homosexual married couples are in essential respects, notably in the care of their adopted children, like other married couples.

And this hilariously blunt comment:

Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children. The state’s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a “model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women” is impossible to take seriously. . . . Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

Read the full ruling here.

Kentucky Marriage Ban Struck Down

It happened yesterday, Freedom to Marry reports:

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled in favor of the freedom to marry, striking down a constitutional amendment in the state that restricts marriage to different-sex couples. The ruling is stayed pending further action from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .

The ruling reads:

Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct. Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree. Thus, same-sex couples’ right to marry seems to be a uniquely “free" constitutional right. Hopefully, even those opposed to or uncertain about same-sex marriage will see it that way in the future.

In the ruling, Judge Heyburn dismantles the arguments that the defendants asserted in their briefs, most prominently the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry in Kentucky will lower the birth rates in the state. Judge Heyburn wrote:

Perhaps recognizing that procreation-based arguments have not succeeded in any court post-Windsor, Defendant adds a disingenuous twist to the argument: Traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state’s long-term economic stability.

These arguments are not those of serious people. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

Full text of the ruling here.


Also yesterday, in response to an emergency motion filed by Lambda Legal, the 7th Circuit partially lifted the stay of its ruling on Indiana marriages, permitting one lesbian couple to marry; one spouse is terminally ill, but the Indiana Attorney General opposed the motion anyway.


And just for fun, Slate has come up with a create-your-own Gay Marriage Ruling generator.

Landmark Marriage Victories: Indiana, Utah

Another fabulous day for marriage equality.  First up this morning was Indiana, reports Freedom to Marry:

U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young ruled in favor of the freedom to marry, striking down Indiana's ban on marriage for same-sex couples and becoming the latest judge in an amazing year of victories for marriage in every corner of the country. The ruling is the 21st consecutive victory in state and federal court for the freedom to marry since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Windsor v. United States in June 2013. The ruling is the 17th win in federal court for marriage since June and comes just one day before the landmark first anniversary of the Windsor ruling.

The decision was issued in Baskin v. Bogan, a federal marriage case brought by Lambda Legal. Previously, Judge Young granted emergency relief for one same-sex couple by respecting their marriage.

Judge Young wrote in the ruling:

The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.

Full text of the ruling here.

FTM also says, "Judges have struck down marriage bans now in 9 states in the past few months: Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Idaho, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and now Indiana. More limited decisions in favor of the freedom to marry have been handed down in Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, and Ohio. More than 70 cases are currently pending in state and federal court in every single state across the country."

The court did not stay its ruling, and marriages have started in Indiana.

And then a few minutes later, came this big news:

Today the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled in favor of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry, upholding a marriage ruling out of Utah in December. It is the first ruling by a federal appellate court since last year's victory in the Supreme Court and, unless reversed, will pave the way for the freedom to marry throughout the 10th Circuit, including in Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas.

The ruling is stayed pending further action, which could include an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The ruling, written by Judge Lucero, reads:

Our Circuit has not previously considered the validity of same-sex marriage bans. When the seed of that question was initially presented to the United States Supreme Court in 1972, the Court did not consider the matter of such substantial moment as to present a justiciable federal question. Since that date, the seed has grown, however. Last year the Court entertained the federal aspect of the issue in striking down § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), yet left open the question presented to us now in full bloom: May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.

Full text of the Kitchen v. Herbert ruling here.


Update, 9:45 p.m.:  ¡Caramba! The Mexican Supreme Court today struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in the state of Baja California.  Break out the Dos Equis!


Update, 6/27, 8:40 p.m.: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals late this afternoon issued a stay of the Indiana ruling pending appeal.  So no more weddings in the Hoosier State for now.

In Today's News

* The United Kingdom has banned fag-hating Fred Phelps and his daughter from entering that country to protest a college production of The Laramie Project, a play about Matthew Shepherd.

* Indiana legislators have effectively 86'd an anti-gay-marriage amendment in that state. A tiny bit of good news.

* But in Utah, where the Mormon Church said it's not against gay people, just the misuse of the word marriage, legislators have axed every single one of the Common Ground bills, even including the simple right to visit your partner in the hospital.

* A straight married woman is appalled that the state of Florida makes her and her husband check off their sexual orientation status on an adoption application form.

* While a Georgia man is fighting a custody order than forbids him to expose his children to any of his gay partners or friends.

* And finally, Sally Kern's soul sistah in the Georgia legislature wants to fire all faculty and staff at Georgia universities who teach queer studies or the like, which is such a waste of taxpayers' money in these troubled economic times, you know. Here's Rep. Charlice Byrd's priceless video on the subject: