South Carolina Marriage Ban Struck Down

Freedom to Marry reports:

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Gergel ruled in favor of the freedom to marry in South Carolina, striking down the state's ban on marriage between same-sex couples. This ruling came after the United States Supreme Court denied review in five cases involving the freedom to marry, including a case in Virginia. Because Virginia is in the 4th Circuit, the ruling is binding for the entire circuit, including South Carolina. Since this ruling, West Virginia and North Carolina have secured the freedom to marry. The ruling is stayed until November 20 at noon.

Judge Gergel's ruling reads in part:

The Court finds that [Bostic v. Schaefer] controls the disposition of the issues before this Court and establishes, without question, the right of Plaintiffs to marry as same sex partners. The arguments of Defendant Wilson simply attempt to relitigate matters already addressed and resolved in Bostic. Any effort by Defendant Wilson or others to overrule Bostic should be addressed to the Fourth Circuit and/or the United States Supreme Court.

Full text of the ruling is here.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has already announced he will immediately appeal the ruling.

--And in other news--

Update, 6:45 p.m.: Kansas couples are free to marry. Late this afternoon, the Supreme Court denied a stay of a federal judge's ruling striking down the Sunflower State's marriage ban. SCOTUSblog reports:

Because the judge’s ruling had been on hold only because of a temporary Supreme Court order issued Monday, the Kansas ruling took effect when the Justices’ new order lifted the earlier postponement. State officials are now under a federal court requirement to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Court has issued a series of orders in same-sex marriage cases over the past eleven months, but the Kansas order marked the first time that members of the Court had recorded dissents. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas noted only that they would have granted the delay sought by the Kansas attorney general.

Kansas officials had attempted to show that their case was different from others that the Supreme Court had chosen to leave undisturbed, arguing that the federal judge’s order was an invalid attempt to second-guess a Kansas Supreme Court order delaying the issuance of same-sex marriages. The federal judge had rejected that claim, but it may have been the one that drew the implied support of Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Today's order from the Supreme Court in its entirety.  Click to enlarge.

Marriage News Watch, 11/3/14

Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:




And here's an update on Tim Bostic and Tony London, successful plaintiffs in the lawsuit that brought marriage equality to Virginia last month:

Update, 11/4:   Add Kansas to the list.  Freedom to Marry reports:

Today, United States District Court Judge Daniel D. Crabtree ruled in favor of the freedom to marry in Kansas, issuing a preliminary injunction that forbids state officials from enforcing the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in Kansas. Judge Crabtree placed the ruling on hold until November 11 at 5:00pm - but if the state says it will not pursue an appeal, the stay could be lifted sooner.

This ruling comes less than a month after the Supreme Court denied review of five cases involving the freedom to marry, including cases in Oklahoma and Utah. Because Oklahoma and Utah are in the 10th Circuit, these rulings are binding throughout the circuit, including in Kansas.

Full text of the ruling here.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Marriage Ban in Virginia

In the case of Bostic v. Rainey, U. S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen today struck down Virginia's anti-gay marriage laws on grounds that they violate the U. S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection.  However, no gay wedding bells will ring in the Old Dominion anytime soon:  the ruling is stayed, pending appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Judge Allen, appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2011, began her ruling with this quotation from Mildred Loving, plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court interracial marriage case Loving v. Virginia in 1967:

On page 22 of her ruling, Judge Allen declared:

Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships. Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices - choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.

The judge also deliciously hoisted Justice Scalia with his own petard:

In Windsor, our Constitution was invoked to protect the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens, and the propriety of such protection led to upholding state law against conflicting federal law. The propriety of invoking such protection remains compelling when faced with the task of evaluating the constitutionality of state laws. This propriety is described eloquently in a dissenting opinion authored by the Honorable Antonin Scalia:

As I have said, the real rationale of [the Windsor opinion] is that DOMA is motivated by "bare . . . desire to harm" couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Judge Allen concluded by saying, in part:

The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia’s Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family. . . .

Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.

Read the entire ruling here.

Judge Allen's ruling is the first in a Southern state to uphold marriage equality (Oklahoma, where a similar ruling is pending appeal, is only sorta-kinda Southern in some places, more Western actually). Yesterday, a judge granted partial marriage recognition in Kentucky.  Today, another same-sex marriage lawsuit was filed in Alafuckingbama, of all places; click here for a map of lawsuits in progress or on appeal nationwide.

My word, all these judges across the country suddenly discovering that teh gayz are human, and entitled to the equal protection of the laws just like they was people. Something your Head Trucker brought up 35 years ago, but nobody wanted to listen to me then. Still, better late than never, right boys?

The dominos are piling up with breathtaking speed now. It's all over but the shouting, screaming, and whining from the nasty hardcore bigots on the religious right.

Why Marriage Matters: Tim and Tony, Mary and Carol

Not content to rest on their laurels after the Supreme Court win in June, Olson and Boies are challenging Virginia's sweeping laws against all same-sex unions, not just marriage. The Advocate reports:

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team who successfully argued Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop. 8 case, at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a pending federal case that aims to strike down Virginia's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the American Foundation for Equal Rights announced today.

The Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples who contend that the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples in Virginia from marrying, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One of the couples, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, were denied a marriage license in July, while the secondary plaintiffs, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, married in California in 2008, have a 15-year-old daughter, and are asking Virginia to legally recognize their relationship.

The couples speak for themselves in these clips from AFER:






And Matt Baume reports on AFER's involvement in the case: