Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JAHS

Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Recommended Posts

From KSL:
 

Utah granted more time to file gay marriage recognition appeal

by Dennis Romboy

Aug 26 - 6:18pm

SALT LAKE CITY — The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Utah more time Tuesday to file its appeal in the same-sex marriage recognition case.

The court extended the deadline to Oct. 22 at the state's request.

Utah argued in court briefs that the complexity of the case warranted an additional 30 days to file the appeal.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents three gay and lesbian couples in the case, opposed the extension, saying the state has had plenty of time to research the issues to prepare the appeal. It also argued that delays cause the plaintiffs financial and emotional stress.

The state says it has never disputed that the couples "genuinely feel subjected to hardship" but that their attorneys haven't acknowledged the "equally true proposition" that Utah is harmed by not being able to enforce its laws.

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball ruled in May that Utah must extend marital benefits to about 1,300 gay and lesbian couples who married last winter after another court ruling struck down the state's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban. He put temporary hold on his order and the U.S. Supreme Court extended the stay pending the outcome of the appeal.

JoNell Evans and Stacia Ireland, Donald Johnson and Carl Fritz Shultz, Matthew Barraza and Tony Milner, and Elenor Heyborne and Marina Gomberg sued the state to have their marriages recognized. All were married in Utah between Dec. 20, 2013, and Jan. 6.

The state is appealing the decision that allowed those marriages to the Supreme Court.

Read more at http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/31302588#imr8b8Bxi7PXAgWs.99

 

More time...? What could they possibly come up with that hasn't already been tried and argued before...?

Ironic wording by the state.... those of us in gay and lesbian-headed households only "genuinely feel [our families] are being subjected to hardship"... not like we actually are being subjected to hardship.

I mean, heck...what's forfeiting an extra $240 a month in state taxes?!---taxes that are actually helping fund my own state's discriminatory fight to keep taxing me more heavily than married straight couples...? Just a "feeling of being subjected to hardship"?

Share this post


Link to post

From KSL:

More time...? What could they possibly come up with that hasn't already been tried and argued before...?

Ironic wording by the state.... we just "genuinely feel [our families] are experiencing hardship"... not like we actually are.

I mean, heck...what's forfeiting an extra $240 a month in state taxes?!---taxes that are actually helping fund my own state's discriminatory fight to keep taxing me more heavily than married straight couples...? Just a "feeling of experiencing a hardship"?

 

More times extends the window in which the state of Utah hopes that another court, somewhere, anywhere, will side with their view. So far all the federal courts, and most all of the state courts, have gone against their view. The only exception is a Tennessee state court.

 

Hope springs eternal.

Share this post


Link to post

In an interesting turn of events, Florida's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals kicks Florida's Attorney General's appeal straight to the Florida Supreme Court, speeding up the appeals process, after four different FL judges (three state and one federal) rule in favor of marriage equality:

Florida Supreme Court agrees to rule on state's same-sex marriage ban

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/8/27/supreme_court_same_s.html

By Gary Fineout, Associated Press

Last Updated: Wednesday, August 27, 2014, 3:20 PM

TALLAHASSEE (AP) -- 

Florida's highest court is being asked to decide whether or not the state's ban on gay marriage is constitutional.

In an unusual decision, the state's 2nd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday asked the Florida Supreme Court to settle the question due to "great public importance." If the high court takes up the case, it could result in having the issue settled even before the U.S. Supreme Court acts.

The ruling is connected to a Hillsborough County divorce case involving a same-sex couple who had been married in Massachusetts but since relocated to the Tampa area. Their petition to dissolve their marriage was rejected by a Florida judge who noted that state law does not recognize gay marriage.

"Resolution of the constitutional questions will no doubt impact far more individuals than the two involved here," states the unsigned opinion. "And there can be little doubt that until the constitutional questions are finally resolved by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, there will be a great impact on the proper administration of justice in Florida."

A panel of judges with the Lakeland based appeals court earlier this summer rejected a request to forward the case up the state Supreme Court. But that ruling was overturned in a 10-3 decision by the entire appeals court.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has asked judges to stop ruling on same-sex marriage cases until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether states can ban gay marriage. But her request has not been ruled on yet. Bondi's office was not involved in the Hillsborough County case, but a spokeswoman said the ruling is being reviewed now by the attorney general.

Voters approved Florida's ban in 2008.

But judges in four Florida counties - Palm Beach, Monroe, Miami-Dade and Broward- have overturned the ban. Last week a federal judge also overturned the ban. No marriage licenses have been issued so far as the cases have either been appealed or judges have issued a stay to delay the effect of the ruling.

Gay marriage proponents have won more than 20 legal decisions against state same-sex marriage restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year.

Copyright 2014 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritt

Share this post


Link to post

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN UTAH POLYGYNY LAW

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah 

Judge Clark Waddoups granted summary judgment in Kody Brown et al v. Gary Herbert et al., Case 2:11-CV-0652-CW, August 27, 2014.

 

What I said, people!!

 

 

Hey, Robert--could you refresh our memories with what it was that you'd previously said?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN UTAH POLYGYNY LAW

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah 

Judge Clark Waddoups granted summary judgment in Kody Brown et al v. Gary Herbert et al., Case 2:11-CV-0652-CW, August 27, 2014.

 

What I said, people!!

 

It should be noted that this ruling has not decriminalized the legal marriage of a man to more than one woman.  But it has decriminalized what we'd probably call spiritual polygamy (legal marriage to the first wife, spiritual marriage to additional wives).

 

It is a victory for religious freedom and should be celebrated by the LDS community but somehow I doubt that Elder Oaks will be heralding the news.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that this ruling has not decriminalized the legal marriage of a man to more than one woman.  But it has decriminalized what we'd probably call spiritual polygamy (legal marriage to the first wife, spiritual marriage to additional wives).

 

It is a victory for religious freedom and should be celebrated by the LDS community but somehow I doubt that Elder Oaks will be heralding the news.

 

 

Well said, Rockpond,

 

As I said on the thread dedicated to the Polygamy news item:

 

 

To keep things clear: this ruling did NOT do anything to legally recognize polygamy.  It does nothing that extends civil benefits, rights, or responsibilities to anyone having multiple spouses.

 

What it did do was decriminalize co-habiting couples, effectively decriminalizing those who may spiritually marry more than one spouse according to the dictates of their religion.  This ruling is a great win for religious liberty.

 

Time will tell whether the laws and courts of our country come to view individuals who want more than one spouse as a matter of equal civil marriage protection and attempt to navigate how to parsel out civil benefits for families consisting of multiple spouses.  They may, or they may not.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that this ruling has not decriminalized the legal marriage of a man to more than one woman.  But it has decriminalized what we'd probably call spiritual polygamy (legal marriage to the first wife, spiritual marriage to additional wives).

 

It is a victory for religious freedom and should be celebrated by the LDS community but somehow I doubt that Elder Oaks will be heralding the news.

Elder Oaks no doubt saw this coming, and takes such things in stride.  Not an excitable man.

Share this post


Link to post

Have always felt that one of the reasons the Church has opposed SSM so aggressively is the likelihood that it might result in a reversal of U.S. v. Reynolds.  I don't think that is the type of religious freedom that Elder Oaks is interested in, the kind he is interested is the freedom to believe basically what we believe, not freedom to believe or do things that we don't believe in or are against current Church policy.  Its like the American myth that the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America to establish religious freedom, no they didn't, they came here to establish freedom to believe exactly what they believed -- the rest could go to Rhode Island or Vermont or someplace else if they weren't burned at the stake first.

Share this post


Link to post

Have always felt that one of the reasons the Church has opposed SSM so aggressively is the likelihood that it might result in a reversal of U.S. v. Reynolds.  I don't think that is the type of religious freedom that Elder Oaks is interested in, the kind he is interested is the freedom to believe basically what we believe, not freedom to believe or do things that we don't believe in or are against current Church policy.  Its like the American myth that the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America to establish religious freedom, no they didn't, they came here to establish freedom to believe exactly what they believed -- the rest could go to Rhode Island or Vermont or someplace else if they weren't burned at the stake first.

 

So you're saying that Elder Oaks is interested in religious freedom for us, but not religious freedom for others?  That would be a little short-sighted on his part, IMO.  Although, I do think you may be correct.  Since he doesn't seem at all interested in religious freedom for those who believe in a God that affirms all marriages, including those of homosexual couples.

 

But all of this was kind of my point (though I admit to being a bit snarky when I tried to make that point).  Elder Oaks is out traveling the country giving speeches on religious freedom.  But I don't think he's actually trying to promote religious freedom for ALL, he's just trying to protect our religious freedoms (as you noted).

Share this post


Link to post

So you're saying that Elder Oaks is interested in religious freedom for us, but not religious freedom for others?  That would be a little short-sighted on his part, IMO.  Although, I do think you may be correct.  Since he doesn't seem at all interested in religious freedom for those who believe in a God that affirms all marriages, including those of homosexual couples.

 

But all of this was kind of my point (though I admit to being a bit snarky when I tried to make that point).  Elder Oaks is out traveling the country giving speeches on religious freedom.  But I don't think he's actually trying to promote religious freedom for ALL, he's just trying to protect our religious freedoms (as you noted).

Yeah, he really isn't in favor of religious freedom, that is incompatible with aggressive promotion of religious based morality. If you really support religious freedom, you support secular government which does not interfere with an individual's free exercise. Requiring others to conform to your religious beliefs. The Puritans wanted a place where the society was united in a single religious belief, they had no tolerance for the beliefs of others. I sustain Elder Oaks as an Apostle, but have no use for his religious politics which verge on going against American principles.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading Life's Lessons Learned, I find it isn't as simple as that. His actions come from experiences where worldly wisdom and revelation were at odds with each other and how he found it best to go with revelation despite his feelings that there were not legal reasons to side with revelation.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading Life's Lessons Learned, I find it isn't as simple as that. His actions come from experiences where worldly wisdom and revelation were at odds with each other and how he found it best to go with revelation despite his feelings that there were not legal reasons to side with revelation.

Yeah a dangerous principle in a country that values religious freedom, as it can justify all kinds of mischief based on incorrect conclusions. Just as Ezra Taft Benson had a firm belief as an Apostle that revelation was on his side as he backed Joe McCarthy and then the Southern racists.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, the 2 stories I remember him talking about he was on the "worldly" side and after considering things he supported his stake president/prophet when they were inspired a different way.

You can tell he didn't and doesn't take his roles as both a legal lawyer and judge verses his church roles lightly. He has spent quite a bit of time juggling where he should stand on each thing and had not always sided with the church matters.

While President Benson was well known, I really don't think you can compare their careers well. Their purposes, as far as I understand, were very different, especially when Elder Oaks became a judge.

Share this post


Link to post

A federal judge in Louisiana breaks the winning streak of federal pro-same-sex marriage rulings:

Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

Posted 5:15 p.m. today

Updated 5:16 p.m. today

By KEVIN McGILL, Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge upheld Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriages on Wednesday, a rare loss for gay marriage supporters who had won more than 20 consecutive rulings overturning bans in other states.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman also upheld the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. His ruling was the first to uphold a state ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year.

Feldman himself acknowledged that his won't be the final word. "Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court," he wrote. "The decision of this Court is but one studied decision among many."

Gay rights advocates said they would carry the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which already has before it an appeal by the state of Texas of another federal judge's ruling that struck down that state's gay marriage ban.

In 2004, 78 percent of Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Isabel Medina, a professor at the Loyola University New Orleans law school, said she didn't see the ruling as a significant road block for gay marriage advocates. Even a 5th Circuit decision upholding Feldman's ruling would affect only three states: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, she noted.

It's likely the Texas case will be the first to go to the 5th Circuit, and cases elsewhere likely will reach the Supreme Court before Louisiana's, said Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia. Nevertheless, he said, Feldman's ruling is significant.

"It is important, because Feldman is a very experienced federal district judge, and no other federal judge has ruled that way at the trial level," Tobias said in a telephone interview. Feldman was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.

Feldman said gay marriage supporters failed to prove that the ban violates equal protection or due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. He also rejected an argument that the ban violated the First Amendment by effectively forcing legally married gay couples to state that they are single on Louisiana income tax returns.

Feldman sided with the state, which had argued that the nation's high court, in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, recognized the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage.

"Although opinions about same-sex marriage will understandably vary among the states, and other states in free and open debate will and have chosen differently, that does not mandate that Louisiana has overstepped its sovereign authority," he wrote.

The conservative Louisiana Family Forum praised the ruling.

"This ruling confirms that the people of Louisiana — not the federal courts — have the constitutional right to decide how marriage is defined in this state," Gene Mills, the group's president, said in a news release.

Gay marriage advocates argued that the ban violated constitutional due process and equal-protection rights.

"Every citizen of the United States deserves protection of their rights, uphill climb or not," said Mary Griggs, chairwoman of Forum for Equality Louisiana.

Feldman said the Supreme Court decision "correctly discredited" the Defense of Marriage Act's effect on New York law legalizing same-sex unions. But he also noted language in the decision outlining the states' historic authority to recognize and define marriage.

He also said that neither the Supreme Court nor the 5th Circuit has defined gay people as a protected class in discrimination cases.

"In light of still-binding precedent, this Court declines to fashion a new suspect class. To do so would distort precedent and demean the democratic process," Feldman wrote.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering arguments over six gay marriage cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Two other appellate courts, the 10th Circuit in Denver and the 4th Circuit in Virginia, have overturned statewide gay marriage bans in Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. However, those rulings and others overturning gay marriage bans have been put on hold while appeals are considered.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/federal-judge-upholds-la-same-sex-marriage-ban/13947324/#uyZYhyztuf5ZERra.99

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, the 2 stories I remember him talking about he was on the "worldly" side and after considering things he supported his stake president/prophet when they were inspired a different way.

You can tell he didn't and doesn't take his roles as both a legal lawyer and judge verses his church roles lightly. He has spent quite a bit of time juggling where he should stand on each thing and had not always sided with the church matters.

While President Benson was well known, I really don't think you can compare their careers well. Their purposes, as far as I understand, were very different, especially when Elder Oaks became a judge.

Careers differed, principle the same and very dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post

Stone holm:

 

The Church and the State are two different constructs. Here in the US we're governed by the will of the people ostensibly through Democratic Representation. The Church is governed by leaders we believe are inspired by and directed by God through Common Consent. Our organizing principles really are as different as night and day.

Share this post


Link to post

thesometimesaint,

True and not only our organizing principles, but also our guiding principles.  Except the Lord knows that His Church could not have been re-established in a country that did not have at least lip service deference to the principle of religious tolerance.  Without it, we would be in the same situation that caused the Church to no longer exist and have to be restored.

Share this post


Link to post

And the next Appeals Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage:

Indiana same-sex marriage ban named unconstitutional

http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2014/09/04/indiana-gay-marriage-ban-7thcircuit/15082173/

Jeremy and Jathan Patterson show their marriage license outside the Delaware County clerk’s office shortly after getting married on June 26, 2014.

CHICAGO (AP) — A U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana violate the U.S. Constitution, in another in a series of courtroom wins for gay-marriage advocates.

The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago criticized the justifications both states gave for the bans, several times singling out the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. There are, the court noted, good and bad traditions.

"Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad — such as trick-or-treating on Halloween," it said. "Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination-regardless of the age of the tradition."

'At the time that we did this, it was perfectly legal'

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts. Since last year, the vast majority of federal rulings have declared same-sex marriages bans unconstitutional.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B Van Hollen said he would appeal Thursday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin and Indiana cases shifted to Chicago after attorneys general in the states appealed separate lower court rulings in June that tossed the bans. The 7th Circuit stayed those rulings pending its own decision on the cases, which were considered simultaneously.

Between the bans being struck down and the order reinstating them as the appeals process ran its course, hundreds of gay couple in both states rushed to marry. Those marriages could have been jeopardized had the 7th Circuit restored the bans.

By standards of the 7th circuit, the decision was unusually fast — coming just nine days after oral arguments — suggesting unanimity came easily to the panel.

Judge Richard Posner, an appointee of Repubican President Ronald Reagan in 1981, wrote Thursday's opinion for the panel. During oral arguments, it was Posner who fired the toughest questions at defenders of the bans, often expressing exasperation at their answers.

The ruling echoes his comments during oral arguments that "hate" underpinned the gay-marriage bans, saying, "Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world."

The states argued that the prohibitions helped foster a centuries-old tradition of marriage between men and women, and that the regulation of the institution of marriage was a tool for society to attempt to prevent pregnancies out of wedlock.

Thursday's opinion went back to that issue repeatedly, noting that some traditions, such as shaking hands or men wearing ties, may "seem silly" but "are at least harmless."

That, though, is not the case when it comes to gay-marriage bans, the court said.

"If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written into law and it discriminates against a number of people and does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection clause," the opinion says.

A constitutional amendment approved in 2006 by voters banned gay marriage in Wisconsin, while state law prohibited it in Indiana. Neither state recognized same-sex marriages performed in others states.

In court filings, attorneys representing Wisconsin and Indiana argued that nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevented them from implementing and enforcing the bans. Gay-marriage advocates said they violated equal protection guarantees.

In addition to Posner — whom Ronald Reagan appointed in 1981 — the judges on the 7th Circuit panel included 2009 Barack Obama appointee David Hamilton and Ann Claire Williams, a 1999 Bill Clinton appointee.

Though Wisconsin says it will appeal, there's no guarantee that the U.S Supreme Court will take up the case.

But the threat prompted Scott McDonnell, the Dane County Clerk in Madison, Wisconsin, who had married gay couples after that state's law was initially struck down by a federal judge, to say he wouldn't resume marrying same-sex couples.

"We're in a little bit of a holding pattern for a couple weeks," McDonnell said.

Below is the ruling from the Court of Appeals. This was not included in the AP wire story, and has been added by The Star Press:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238680396/7th-Circuit-Same-Sex-Marriage

Share this post


Link to post

Today's New York Times ponders the significance of both the Louisiana and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings:

A Blunt Defense of Marriage Equality

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/opinion/a-blunt-defense-of-marriage-equality.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&referrer=

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

As important as the federal appeals court ruling was on Thursday declaring same-sex marriage bans in two states to be unconstitutional, the clarity and blunt reasoning behind the decision was equally momentous.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.”

“Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straightforward to decide,” Judge Posner wrote in the decisionstriking down bans in Wisconsin and Indiana.

“The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

Thursday’s ruling made the Seventh Circuit the third federal appellate court to conclude that state marriage bans violate the Constitution’s promise of equal protection since the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling invalidating core provisions of the discriminatory federal Defense of Marriage Act. This latest victory for marriage equality was foreshadowed by some blistering questions and comments during last week’s hearing in the case.

It was all the more welcome coming just a day after a federal district judge in Louisiana ruled in exactly the opposite direction — upholding that state’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge’s reasons were as flimsy as the arguments rejected by the Seventh Circuit panel.

The Louisiana ruling was an outlier, coming after a remarkable winning streak for marriage equality in more than 20 federal decisions and does not erase the near-consensus so far in federal courts. But it is a reminder that this fight is not over, and of the need for a nationwide ruling by the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2013 U.S. v. Windsor case was based on a conclusion that the federal law against granting benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples violated equal protection and due process guarantees, but did not declare marriage equality a constitutional right across the nation.

Petitions for Supreme Court review of pro-marriage-equality rulings from the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have been filed and are supported by both sides of the issue. There is no reason at this point for the justices to prolong the harm to same-sex couples and their families by waiting for all the remaining state battles to play out.

The 7th circuit ruling offers a very clear rebuttal to claims that same-sex marriage ignores the needs of children and makes marriage less "child-centric." Rather, it offers decisive proof that allowing same-sex couples to marry is fundamentally beneficial for children. I highly recommend reading it--it's in clear, easy to follow language (the link is at the bottom of my last post).

Share this post


Link to post

In two separate briefs addressed to the Supreme Court, 32 states urge SCOTS to resolve the issue once and for all:

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/massachusetts-files-pro-gay-marriage-court-25253660

By The Associated Press

Sep 4, 2014, 8:38 PM

BOSTON — Thirty-two states that either allow gay marriage or have banned it asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to settle the issue once and for all.

Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a "morass" of lawsuits, but didn't urge the court to rule one way or another.

The filing came as a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana are unconstitutional. The unanimous decision Thursday criticized the justifications both states gave, several times singling out the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. There are, the court noted, good and bad traditions.

The experience of Massachusetts — the first state to legalize gay marriage — shows that allowing same-sex couples to wed has only benefited families and strengthened the institution of marriage, said Attorney General Martha Coakley.

"Laws that bar same-sex couples from marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutional," she said. "The time has come for this critical issue to be resolved."

Massachusetts was joined by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

Colorado's brief argued that the definition of marriage faces legal challenges only the Supreme Court can resolve, and that without a Supreme Court decision, states defending bans could be liable for huge legal bills from future lawsuits if they are overturned. It was written by Daniel D. Domenico, the state's solicitor general, and Michael Lee Francisco, assistant solicitor general.

Colorado was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

These are the cases addressed in the briefs:

— In Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that the state's voter-approved ban is unconstitutional. The state has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasn't said whether it will accept the case. But the high court granted a request on Aug. 20 from a county clerk to delay implementation of the ruling, which would have allowed same-sex couples to marry beginning the next day.

— In Oklahoma, an appeals court tossed the state's ban in July but put its ruling on hold pending an appeal, meaning same-sex couples can't marry in Oklahoma for now. Attorneys representing the Tulsa County court clerk — who refused to issue a marriage license for a lesbian couple there — asked the Supreme Court this month to hear the case.

— In Utah, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled this summer that Utah must allow gay couples to marry, though it put the ruling on hold pending an appeal. The state has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the state's ban.

Here is a link to the brief authored by Massachusetts: http://www.scribd.com/doc/238732314/Massachuetts-et-al-Amicus-Brief

Share this post


Link to post

Today's New York Times ponders the significance of both the Louisiana and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings:

The 7th circuit ruling offers a very clear rebuttal to claims that same-sex marriage ignores the needs of children and makes marriage less "child-centric." Rather, it offers decisive proof that allowing same-sex couples to marry is fundamentally beneficial for children. I highly recommend reading it--it's in clear, easy to follow language (the link is at the bottom of my last post).

Judge Posner is an entertaining read

Share this post


Link to post

Judge Posner is an entertaining read

Definitely agree.

Here's the link to the brief authored by Colorado (on behalf of the states that currently have and are defending marriage bans for same-sex couples):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238773373/Colorado-et-al-Amicus-Brief

I apologize for the wait. It took me a bit of Googling to find it.

I find it interesting that the brief doesn't actually ask SCOTUS to uphold the bans--it just asks them to take up the issue and decisively decide it so there's an end to litigation. I read that as many state officials acknowledging, understanding, and/or predicting that the issue will be affirmed in favor of same-sex couples' ability and right to civilly marry--they just want someone else to mandate it, and then move on to bigger and more pressing issues.

Share this post


Link to post

30 businesses file an Amicus Brief with SCOTUS urging it to take up the Virginia Appeals case and mandate same-sex marriage recognition nationwide:

Corporations To SCOTUS: Uneven Marriage Laws Are Burdening Our Business

Thirty major corporations have filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to hear AFER's challenge of Virginia's same-sex marriage ban. On the list:

Amazon,

CBS,

Deutsche Bank,

eBay,

Intel,

General Electric,

Levi Strauss,

Nike,

Oracle,

Pfizer,

Staples,

Target, and

Viacom.

In general, the brief argues that the nation's uneven patchwork of marriage laws places an undue burden on corporations. An excerpt:

Amici include technology, materials, financial services, pharmaceutical, apparel, and entertainment companies; hoteliers and restaurateurs, service providers, consultants, and designers. Amici all share a desire to attract and retain a talented workforce. We are located or operate in states across the country, some of which recognize marriages of those of our employees whose spouses are of the same sex, and others that prohibit marriages between same-sex couples and refuse to recognize existing same-sex marriages. This dual and continuously shifting regime uniquely burdens amici. This legal uncertainty exposes us, as employers, to unnecessary cost, risk, and administrative complexity. In addition, this irresolution hampers our efforts to recruit and retain the most talented workforce possible, placing us at a competitive disadvantage. Our success depends upon the welfare and morale of all employees, without distinction. The burden imposed by inconsistent state laws of having to administer complicated schemes to account for differential treatment of similarly situated employees creates unnecessary confusion, tension, and ultimately, diminished employee morale.

The full brief is here:

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bostic-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Granting-Cert-30-Companies.pdf

I wonder if the church will file an amici brief, as it has done with other cases...

Share this post


Link to post

Ask, and ye shall receive--works even for legal briefs! ;-)

Mormon church, other faiths urge US Supreme Court to intervene in gay-marriage issue

http://m.therepublic.com/view/story/a39a5aab24e84854aaea2f3301de7723/UT--Gay-Marriage-Mormon-Church

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted: September 06, 2014 - 6:04 pm

Last Updated: September 06, 2014 - 6:04 pm

SALT LAKE CITY — The Mormon church and other faiths are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and settle the question of whether states can outlaw gay marriage once and for all.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a statement Friday, said it joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the high court to hear Utah's marriage case.

Also taking part in the filing were the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Each teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Multiple organizations and governmental entities on both sides of the debate have filed similar briefs asking the court to take up the issue.

The relatively short brief is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238775236/Catholic-Bishops-et-al-Amicus-Brief

Sigh. The more things change, the more some stay the same.

The brief is nothing new... and cites Massachusetts' ruling mandating gay marriage (without any religious exemptions) as it's reasons for all their concern about uncertainty affecting the church's religious liberty. The Massachusetts ruling was 10 years ago.

How many Catholic churches have been successfully sued and forced to marry a divorced person without an annulment?

How many synagogues have been forced to celebrated a mixed-faith marriage?

How many Mormon Temples have been forced to conduct a ceremony for persons not in good standing with the church?

Why should this all of a sudden change because same-sex couples are legally allowed to marry?

And what of the religious freedom of those religions who do marry their same-sex congregants?

I hope someone prepares an analogous brief for those religious bodies that approve of same-sex marriage and happily celebrate them in their churches.

The UUs are an obvious example, but there are many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...