Sunday, Aug 18, 2019
 
search SGN
SERVING SEATTLE AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOR 40 YEARS!

click to visit advertiser's website


Javascript DHTML Drop Down Menu Powered by dhtml-menu-builder.com

Last Weeks Edition
   
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website




 

 
 

 

 

[Valid RSS]

click to go to advertisers website
to Section One | to Arts & Entertainment
posted Friday, June 27 2014 - Volume 42 Issue 26
One-two punch: Tenth Circuit upholds Utah marriage ruling, judge strikes down Indiana ban
Section One
ALL STORIES
  next story
One-two punch: Tenth Circuit upholds Utah marriage ruling, judge strikes down Indiana ban

by Mike Andrew - SGN Staff Writer

In a one-two punch for equality, the Tenth Circuit Court upheld a Federal District Judge's ruling striking down Utah's ban on same-sex marriages, while a District Judge in Indiana also struck down that state's marriage ban. Both decisions were announced June 25.

In a closely reasoned 65 page decision, the Tenth Circuit upheld the December ruling by Judge Robert Shelby that Utah must allow Gay and Lesbian couples to marry. It was the first time an appellate court ruled on the issue.

The Ninth Circuit's 2013 ruling in the Prop 8 case was decided on narrower grounds. In that case, the circuit court said that California voters could not single out same-sex couples and remove their right to marry once it had been granted by a federal court.

The Tenth Circuit, however, found that same-sex couples have an affirmative right to marry.

'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?' the court asked.

'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,' the justices answered.

'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.'

University of Utah law professor Clifford Rosky called Wednesday's ruling, 'the most important victory of the entire Gay rights movement.'

It is the first time a federal appeals court has recognized that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as all Americans, said Rosky, chairman of Equality Utah's board of directors.

'Very few courts have embraced the fundamental rights argument and this court seems to have completely embraced it and applied 'strict scrutiny,' the highest standard recognized under constitutional law,' Rosky told the Salt Lake Tribune.

To pass 'strict scrutiny' a law must serve a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be the least restrictive method of achieving the desired goal.

In its decision, the Tenth Circuit found that the state of Utah has no compelling interest in preventing Gay and Lesbian couples from marrying and that 'in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right.'

The court also said that there is nothing in the institution of marriage itself that would restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

'[The state of Utah's] assertion that plaintiffs are excluded from the institution of marriage by definition is wholly circular,' the Tenth Circuit said. 'Nothing logically or physically precludes same-sex couples from marrying, as is amply demonstrated by the fact that many states now permit such marriages.

'To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so. One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage.'

The ruling was decided by a three-judge panel with Clinton appointee Carlos Lucero writing the opinion and George W. Bush appointee Jerome Holmes joining him. George H.W. Bush appointee Paul Joseph Kelly dissented.

The court stayed its ruling to allow Utah's attorneys time to ask for an en banc review of the panel's decision, but it is not certain they will grant such review even if the state asks for it.



Indiana
In Indiana, Federal District Judge Richard Young ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

'Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana,' he wrote. '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.'

Since Young did not stay his ruling, couples began to apply for licenses and marry in at least five Indiana counties.

Indiana's Attorney General, Greg Zoeller said he would appeal Young's ruling, and asked the judge for a stay in the case.

'Until the United States Supreme Court determines that traditional marriage laws such as Indiana's are unconstitutional, it is premature to require Indiana to change its definition of marriage and abide by this court's conception of marriage,' Zoeller wrote in the request for a stay. 'Nonetheless, marriages in violation of Indiana's existing law have taken place, are taking place, and will continue to take place pursuant to this court's order.'

Ken Falk, the legal director of the ACLU in Indiana, who brought one of the lawsuits that prompted Young's ruling, said his organization will 'vigorously oppose' a stay in the case, though he acknowledged Zoeller's office has a right to seek one.

'I think the state of Indiana is swimming against the tide of history,' Falk said.

A proposal to ban same-sex marriage by amending the Indiana Constitution failed to advance in the state legislature this year. That means the soonest the issue could reappear would be 2016, when the legislature meets again, but by then the issue may already be settled by court action.

Tell a friend:

Share on Facebook  Share on Facebook

Post to MySpace!Share on MySpace!

    Share on Delicious

Share on StumbleUpon!

One-two punch: Tenth Circuit upholds Utah marriage ruling, judge strikes down Indiana ban
------------------------------
40 years of Seattle Pride
------------------------------
Don't discriminate against Trans patients, Insurance Commissioner tells industry
------------------------------
New York wants to end the AIDS epidemic by 2020
------------------------------
Whose culture is it anyway?
------------------------------
Insights & Perspectives: I 'AM' GAY
------------------------------
BC hospital is not shutting down AIDS ward
------------------------------
International Human Rights Defense Act introduced in U.S. Senate Murray and Cantwell co-sponsor
------------------------------
Southern Baptist Convention condemns Trans people
------------------------------
Wrestling legend Pat Patterson comes out
------------------------------
Commonwealth Games must not discriminate - Glasgow2014 urged to secure pledges from competing nations
------------------------------
Pride in Greece: Thousands march in Athens and Thessaloniki
------------------------------
My Chacha is Gay - First Gay-themed Pakistani children's book
------------------------------
Mongolia to pass LGBT hate crimes law
------------------------------
Luxembourg OKs same-sex marriage
------------------------------
Bisexual men 'at most risk' of HIV infection, CDC says
------------------------------
Dapper D Clothing: 'Menswear' line for women
------------------------------

------------------------------
BREAKING NEWS
------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

click to visit advertiser's website

click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
click to visit advertiser's website
Seattle Gay Blog post your own information on
the Seattle Gay Blog
 

gay news feeds gay news readers gay rss gay
http://sgn.org/rss.xml | what is RSS? | Add to Google use Google to set up your RSS feed
SGN Calendar For Mobile Phones http://sgn.org/rssCalendarMobile.xml
SGN Calendar http://sgn.org/rssCalendar.xml

Seattle Gay News - SGN
1605 12 Ave., Ste. 31
Seattle, WA 98122

Phone 206-324-4297
Fax 206-322-7188

email: sgn2@sgn.org
website suggestions: web@sgn.org

copyright Seattle Gay News 2014 - DigitalTeamWorks 2014

USA Gay News American News American Gay News USA American Gay News United States American Lesbian News USA American Lesbian News United States USA News
Pacific Northwest News in Seattle News in Washington State News