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

[Daniel2]

It sounded like it, but I don't trust articles which synopsis the brief, I can't imagine the Church signing onto a blatantly establishment brief, the dangers we as Mormons face from establishment proponents are just too great.

Here's the summary from lds.org:

The CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Newsroom

▼

News Releases

ADDITIONAL RESOURCE

Summary of Amicus Brief

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/summary-of-amicus-brief

SALT LAKE CITY — 10 FEBRUARY 2014

The following are points made in the amicus brief:

The support of religious peoples and organizations for traditional marriage laws by no stretch undermines their constitutionality.

Laws protecting traditional marriage are entitled to be judged on their merits based on settled rules of law — not on a more demanding standard born of suspicion toward religion, religious believers or their values.

Utah’s and Oklahoma’s marriage laws should not be overturned based on the spurious charge that religious organizations support such laws out of bigotry or hatred. We defend traditional marriage out of fidelity to religious beliefs that include but transcend teachings about human sexuality. We seek to protect vital interests in the welfare of children, families and society.

Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, the notion of “animus” holds limited relevance — and none here. Allegations of animus are relevant only if a law can be explained solely by animus with no other possible rationale.

Utah’s and Oklahoma’s marriage amendments are not invalid under the Establishment Clause because they were informed by religious and moral viewpoints. Religion has been a key motivating factor for the most formative political movements in United States history.

The government’s interests in continuing to encourage and support marriage are compelling. No other institution joins together two persons with the natural ability to create children for the purpose of maximizing the welfare of such children. And no other institution strives to ensure that children have the opportunity of feeling a sense of security and being raised in a stable household by the mother and father who conceived them.

Undermining the husband-wife marital institution by redefining it to include same-sex couples will, in the long term, harm vital child-welfare interests that only the husband-wife definition can secure.

The societal ills caused by the deterioration of husband-wife marriage will only be aggravated if the State cannot reserve to marriage its historic and socially vital meaning.

Additional Resources

Faiths File Amicus Brief on Marriage Cases Before Tenth Circuit Court

[Buckeye]

The Church's brief makes the same indefensible mistake as the State of Utah's. It's primary argument is that marriage should be structured to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents. But both the Church and the State grant marriage rights to adopting heterosexual couples who have no biological bonds to their children. And both the Church and the State would deny marriage rights to homosexual couples even if their children are biologically related to one of the parents. Thus, neither party has a leg to stand on for this assertion. Their own actions conclusively show that their preferred definition of marriage is not tied to biological bonds.

 

The brief's fall-back argument is that children should have both male and female parents. But all of the evidence cited speaks to single-parent and out-of-wedlock situations. None of it addresses married homosexual couples.

 

And the assertion that homosexual marriages are inherently selfish and "adult-focused," as opposed to heterosexual marriages which are "child-focused" and sacrificing, is beyond disingenious. This is particularly true considering that many of the people seeking to overturn the marriage restriction have children that are currently denied a marriage environment simply because of Amendment 3.

[california boy]

The Church's brief makes the same indefensible mistake as the State of Utah's. It's primary argument is that marriage should be structured to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents. But both the Church and the State grant marriage rights to adopting heterosexual couples who have no biological bonds to their children. And both the Church and the State would deny marriage rights to homosexual couples even if their children are biologically related to one of the parents. Thus, neither party has a leg to stand on for this assertion. Their own actions conclusively show that their preferred definition of marriage is not tied to biological bonds.

 

Am I the only one that is bothered by the however you want to word this, (dishonest, deceptive, hypocritical, distortion of facts).  I really bothers me that the church would make these claims while clearly practicing and approving of the exact same actions amongst heterosexual couples.  It seems to me, the honest brief would simply state, "we think gay couples are icky and should not be allowed to marry.

[Stone holm]

Am I the only one that is bothered by the however you want to word this, (dishonest, deceptive, hypocritical, distortion of facts).  I really bothers me that the church would make these claims while clearly practicing and approving of the exact same actions amongst heterosexual couples.  It seems to me, the honest brief would simply state, "we think gay couples are icky and should not be allowed to marry.

It may be possible to articulate an argument that would uphold the ban, but they are not going to successfully do so while thinking within the religious box. I suspect they should have recruited an ardent atheist to write the brief since otherwise they always seem to lapse into these religiously based arguments. Perhaps if the Churches had not reduced morality to sexual morality they would have been able to think themselves out of this box, unfortunately religious morality has in modern America become virtually synonymous with sexual morality. It was not always so.

[rockpond]

I haven't read the entire amicus brief yet but possibly the most disturbing line I've read so far is this one under argument I.b. (top of page 24 of the PDF)...

 

"As Massachusetts Justice Robert Cordy observed, while nature forges a link between mother and child, there is “no corresponding process for creating a relationship between father and child. . . . The institution of marriage fills this void by formally binding the husband-father to his wife and child, and imposing on him the responsibilities of fatherhood.”

 

The piece of paper given me by the State of California has absolutely nothing to do with the link and bond between myself and my kids.  Period.

 

It's upsetting to me that the church is using my membership to justify their position in writing this brief and making claims such as this.

[Daniel2]

Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down by federal judge

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140212/NEWS10/302120050/Kentucky-ban-gay-marriages-from-other-states-struck-down-by-federal-judge?nclick_check=1

Feb. 12, 2014 1:47 PM

Written by Andrew Wolfson

The Courier-Journal

In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down Kentucky’s ban on recognizing valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II joined nine other federal and state courts in invalidating such bans.

Ruling in a suit brought by four gay and lesbian couples, Heyburn said that while “religious beliefs ... are vital to the fabric of society ... assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.”

Heyburn said “it is clear that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them.”

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out the Defense of Marriage Act, Heyburn struck down the portion of Kentucky’s 2004 constitutional amendment that said “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

The suit asked only that Kentucky be required to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere; it is unclear whether the ruling also opens the door to allowing gay couples to get married in Kentucky, which the state’s constitution forbids.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers say they believe it may, while the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, which defended the case, is reviewing that question, spokeswoman Allison Martin said.

Heyburn did not rule that Kentucky must allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

In a 23-page ruling, Heyburn said Kentucky’s sole justification for the the amendment was that was it was “rationally related to the legitimate government interest of preserving the state’s institution of traditional marriage.”

But Heyburn noted that over the past 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to allow mere tradition to justify marriage statutes that violate individual liberties, such as the ban on interracial marriages that was once the law in Virginia, Kentucky and other states.

Heyburn also rejected the arguments of the Family Foundation of Kentucky — that recognizing same-sex marriages would undermine the fundamental role of marriage in ensuring procreation.

Heyburn said there is no requirement that opposite-sex couples agree to procreate to get married.

He also said “no one has offered any evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages will harm opposite-sex marriages.”

Responding to the ruling, Martin Cochran, an analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said in a news release that it “nullifies the right of Kentucky to determine policies regarding marriage” and that “Kentucky marriage policy will now be dictated from places like Boston and San Francisco.”

“If a state like Utah were ever to legalize polygamy, Kentucky would be forced to recognize it under this decision,” Cothran added.

Cothran said Kentucky voters will be disappointed with the practical effects of this decision. “This decision puts Kentucky voters on notice that if their reasons for defining marriage as between a man and a woman don’t correspond with the political ideology of liberal judges, their votes don’t count.”

The suit was filed on behalf of Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon of Louisville, who were married in Ontario, Canada, in 2004; Jimmy Meade and Luther Barlowe, who live in Bardstown and were lawfully married in Davenport, Iowa, in 2009; Randell Johnson and Paul Campion, who live in Louisville and were married in Riverside, Calif., in 2008; and Kimberly Franklin and Tamera Boyd, who live in Cropper and were married in Stratford, Conn., in 2010.

The complaint also named their children.

[Buckeye]

Good grief.  Kentucky now?  So the courts or state attorney generals in Ohio, Utah, Oklahoma, Nevada, Virginia, and Kentucky have now expressed support for gay marriage.  Add this to the 17 states where gay marriage has been adopted and you are close to a majority of the states.  Not to mention that the Obama administration has declared full support for every federal right.

 

Is it just me, or does it seem like the dominos are starting to fall so that when SCOTUS takes up the issue this year or next, the public opinion will already be strongly in support of a nation-wide ruling affirming gay marriage?  Maybe the Supreme Court will not have a tough time with this one after all.  The tide hasn't just turned.  It's now a veritable route. 

[Stone holm]

Good grief.  Kentucky now?  So the courts or state attorney generals in Ohio, Utah, Oklahoma, Nevada, Virginia, and Kentucky have now expressed support for gay marriage.  Add this to the 17 states where gay marriage has been adopted and you are close to a majority of the states.  Not to mention that the Obama administration has declared full support for every federal right.

 

Is it just me, or does it seem like the dominos are starting to fall so that when SCOTUS takes up the issue this year or next, the public opinion will already be strongly in support of a nation-wide ruling affirming gay marriage?  Maybe the Supreme Court will not have a tough time with this one after all.  The tide hasn't just turned.  It's now a veritable route.

By the time this reaches the SCOTUS it's not really going to matter how the SCOTUS rules because the political/social/cultural war is lost, regardless of how the Court rules the matter will be resolved politically. The Prop 8 debacle set the stage for a huge sympathetic backlash, whatever were we thinking?

[Daniel2]

COURT GRANTS EXPEDITED HEARING, ALLOWS WITHDRAWAL OF STATE'S DEFENSE IN CHALLENGE TO NEVADA GAY MARRIAGE BAN

A federal appeals court has granted the Nevada Governor and Attorney General's request to withdraw a brief defending the state's ban on gay marriage and granted an expedited hearing in the case, Lambda Legal reports:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today granted Lambda Legal's request to expedite the hearing of Sevcik v. Sandoval, its lawsuit challenging Nevada's discriminatory marriage ban. The decision comes just two days after Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval sought leave to withdraw his brief defending the ban. The Ninth Circuit also granted Gov. Sandoval's request to withdraw his brief.

Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Tara Borelli said:

The fact that the government defendants no longer are defending Nevada's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage makes any delay in these loving and committed couples securing the relief they seek particularly intolerable. The wheels of justice are now on a much faster track.

Gov. Sandoval's request and the earlier decision by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover to withdraw his brief were motivated by the Ninth Circuit's recent ruling in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories that discriminatory classifications based upon sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny and should be presumed unconstitutional. The heightened scrutiny standard is much tougher to meet and rendered the state of Nevada's arguments in its original brief defending the marriage ban "no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit," as Nevada's Attorney General conceded in a statement released last week. The withdrawal of the two government defendants leaves only the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, which the U.S. District Court had allowed to intervene, defending the marriage ban.

POSTED FEB. 13,2014 AT 11:22 AM EST

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz2tEEuchUk

[Buckeye]

By the time this reaches the SCOTUS it's not really going to matter how the SCOTUS rules because the political/social/cultural war is lost, regardless of how the Court rules the matter will be resolved politically. The Prop 8 debacle set the stage for a huge sympathetic backlash, whatever were we thinking?

 

And yet, "we" seem to want the CA10 and SCOTUS to overturn the Utah decision so that we can continue to face even greater backlash. 

[thesometimesaint]

Idaho seems to now want a piece of the action.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/idaho-legalizing-discrimination/

[Gray]

Idaho seems to now want a piece of the action.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/idaho-legalizing-discrimination/

That's unfortunate

[california boy]

Idaho seems to now want a piece of the action.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/idaho-legalizing-discrimination/

Onward christian soldiers.  Let's lead a charge of discrimination in the name of Christ.  I am sure He would be right there holding the placards with this group.  It just sounds like something Christ would rally around.

 

They are shaming their religion and the person they pretend to follow.  It is unfortunate that it is happening in Idaho, another quasi Mormon state.  This is all going in such a bad direction for the church.

[rockpond]

Onward christian soldiers.  Let's lead a charge of discrimination in the name of Christ.  I am sure He would be right there holding the placards with this group.  It just sounds like something Christ would rally around.

 

They are shaming their religion and the person they pretend to follow.  It is unfortunate that it is happening in Idaho, another quasi Mormon state.  This is all going in such a bad direction for the church.

 

I'm hopeful that the LDS lawmakers in Idaho will follow the prophet's admonition of love and quickly reject this legislation.

[thesometimesaint]

Onward christian soldiers.  Let's lead a charge of discrimination in the name of Christ.  I am sure He would be right there holding the placards with this group.  It just sounds like something Christ would rally around.

 

They are shaming their religion and the person they pretend to follow.  It is unfortunate that it is happening in Idaho, another quasi Mormon state.  This is all going in such a bad direction for the church.

 

Especially since the Church has come out against such legislation.

[california boy]

Especially since the Church has come out against such legislation.

Unfortunately not all members are on board with the churches position.

[Daniel2]

Today, Virginia... Happy VALENTINE'S Day!:

Federal Judge Overturns 

Virginia’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/federal-judge-overturns-virginias-same-sex-marriage-ban.html?referrer=

By ERIK ECKHOLM

February 14, 2014

A federal judge on Thursday evening declared that Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, in the strongest legal reversal yet of restrictive marriage amendments that exist throughout the South.

“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. “Surely this means all of us.”

The ruling, which overturned a constitutional amendment adopted by Virginia voters in 2006 as well as previous laws, also said that Virginia must respect same-sex marriages that were carried out legally in other states.

But opponents of same-sex marriage have vowed to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, and Judge Wright Allen stayed the execution of Thursday’s ruling pending the appeal.

This week, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must honor same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, but the ruling did not address Kentucky’s own ban on such marriages.

If the Court of Appeals upholds Thursday’s decision, the repercussions in the South could be wide. Similar amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman would most likely be voided in other states of the Fourth Circuit, including North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. (Maryland, the fifth member, approved same-sex marriage in 2012.)

But many legal experts believe that this case, or another among the dozens now being argued in federal district or appeals courts around the country, will eventually be taken up by the United States Supreme Court.

Last year, as it overturned a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages from states where it is legal, and a majority of justices agreed that discrimination against gay and lesbian couples was unjustified and stigmatized their children. In another decision, it allowed a reversal of California’s ban on same-sex marriage to stand on technical grounds.

But so far, the justices have not decided the basic issue raised by the new decision in Virginia and similar recent decisions by federal district courts in Utah and Oklahoma: whether any sound constitutional reason exists for a state to deny gay and lesbian couples an equal right to marry.

The challenge to Virginia’s ban was argued by the same bipartisan team of legal stars, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, that successfully contested California’s ban in 2010. They argued the case on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a private national group.

When the case was first filed, Virginia’s Republican governor and attorney general strongly defended the state’s ban. But Democrats won the two offices in November, and the new attorney general of Virginia, Mark R. Herring, announced that his office considered the marriage ban unconstitutional and would assist the challenge.

Remaining in court to defend the state law were two court clerks, one of them represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a coalition of conservative Christian lawyers.

The plaintiffs in the case are Tim Bostic, an English professor, and Tony London, a real estate agent, who live in Norfolk and have been together for 24 years.

They are joined by Carol Schall, an autism researcher, and Mary Townley, who also works with special needs youth, from Richmond. The two women have been together for 28 years and have a 16-year-old daughter. They married legally in California in 2008, but Virginia refused to recognize that status.

“I am proud to say that today I am equal under the law in my home state of Virginia,” Mr. Bostic said Thursday. “Tony and I just want to get married like everyone else can.”

Ms. Schall said, “For us, marriage is about love and commitment and our family having the recognition and protection other families enjoy.”

The judge often used lofty language in declaring that Virginia’s marriage ban violated the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. In summing up the decision, she wrote, “We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

[thesometimesaint]

Unfortunately not all members are on board with the churches position.

 

Very unfortunately.

[Stone holm]

Very unfortunately.

 

Which I think was somewhat evident in fumbling the first BSA compromise...

[california boy]

Scalia Has Seen the Future, and Its Name Is Marriage Equality

 

An interesting editorial from the New York Times that points out how much Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion is being used to knock down state bans on SSM.  Here are a few quotes from the article.

 

In December, a federal judge in Ohio, Timothy Black, issued the same order to that state. “It is just as Justice Scalia predicted,” Judge Black wrote. “The lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision [in Windsor], as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot – i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”

 

 

 

And also in December, Robert J. Shelby, a federal judge in Utah, struck down that state’s same-sex marriage ban, noting wryly: “The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.”

 

 

 

It is looking like Justice Scalia has given Federal judges the most concrete reasons to rule in favor of SSM.  I never thought I would be thanking Justice Scalia for his ruling.  

[Daniel2]

And now, Oregon:

Oregon Joins 5 States in Refusing to Defend Gay-Marriage Ban

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-20/oregon-attorney-general-won-t-defend-state-gay-marriage-ban

By Karen Gullo

February 20, 2014 1:13 PM EST

Oregon’s attorney general said she won’t defend her state’s ban on same-sex marriage, joining other top state law enforcement officials in refusing to fight challenges to similar prohibitions.

The law “cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a court filing today in Eugene. She said the state will continue to enforce the ban unless it’s overturned by a court.

Rosenblum followed fellow Democratic attorneys general Kamala Harris of California, Mark Herring of Virginia, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada in refusing to actively defend gay marriage bans.

Litigation over the issue has spiked since a June U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating part of a law that limited federal recognition to heterosexual marriages. Since then, four courts have overturned state bans on same-sex unions. Three of those decisions are on hold pending appeal.

Rosenblum announced her refusal to defend the Oregon ban in an answer to federal lawsuits brought last year against her office, and that of Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber.

“State defendants admit that performing same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship,” she wrote in the filing.

The cases are Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 13-01834, and Rummell v. Kitzhaber, 13-02256, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Eugene).

Clearly, the spread of marriage equality can no longer be blamed on a small number of "activist judges."

In fact, I'm beginning to doubt the existence of a so-called "activist judge." I'm wondering if they even exist...?

[Daniel2]

Router's report is interesting, especially the bonded portion regarding religion losing millenials due to religions' treatment of gay couples:

Majority of Americans now support gay marriage, survey finds Reuters – 29 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.com/majority-americans-now-support-gay-marriage-survey-finds-050732422.html?.tsrc=attmp

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Support for gay marriage has surged in the United States in the decade since it first became legal in Massachusetts, with just over half of Americans now supporting the idea, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

The survey on attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people comes as U.S. lawmakers and courts are increasingly allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Some 53 percent of the 4,509 Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute said they supported gay marriage, up from 32 percent in 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage, with bans overturned in several states after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that legally married same-sex couples were eligible for federal benefits.

Fewer Americans who describe themselves as religious oppose same-sex marriages, the survey found. Negative church teachings or treatment of gay couples was cited by 31 percent of millennials, or people 18 to 33, as a major factor in leaving their childhood religion.

"This new research provides further evidence that negative teachings on this issue have hurt churches' ability to attract and retain young people," said Robert Jones, chief executive of the institute.

Jews were most likely to support gay marriage, with 83 percent saying they did so, followed by 58 percent of white Roman Catholics and 56 percent of Hispanic Catholics. Among Hispanic Protestants, 46 percent favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry and 49 percent oppose it.

By contrast, 59 percent of black Protestants and 69 percent of white evangelical Protestants oppose same-sex marriage.

Nearly three-quarters, or 73 percent, of religiously unaffiliated Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally.

MISCONCEPTIONS

The survey also underscored misconceptions about gay rights. Only 15 percent of Americans correctly said that it is legal to refuse to hire someone because he or she is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

Those polled also overestimate the size of the LGBT population, with a median estimate of 20 percent. Just 14 percent of Americans accurately say that it was 5 percent or less.

Among the U.S. regions, majorities in the Northeast, West and Midwest favor letting gay and lesbian couples marry. Southerners are split, with 48 percent opposing it and 48 percent favoring it.

In an effort to kick-start same-sex marriage in the South, Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group, launched a $1 million campaign on Monday to build support for it in the region.

None of the 17 U.S. states that recognize gay marriage are located in the Southeast, where several states still have bans on the practice in their state constitutions.

Since mid-December, federal judges have ruled bans on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia unconstitutional. Those decisions have been stayed pending appeals.

Court challenges of same-sex marriage bans are pending in several other states. Thirty-three states ban same-sex couples from marrying.

The survey was carried out between November 12 and December 18, 2013, and was funded by the Ford Foundation. The margin of error is 1.7 percentage points.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Scott Malone and Meredith Mazzilli)

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

 

I think it is one thing to be against SSM as a religious tenet, and quite any to wish any legal or physical harm to come to anyone in a SSM.

[Daniel2]

Last night, the plaintiffs in the Utah case filed their response to the Utah Attorney General's appeal:

Via press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights: 

Late Tuesday, attorneys for three couples challenging Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, urging the court to uphold a lower court’s December 2013 decision finding the ban unconstitutional. On December 20, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Utah’s laws denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. That decision is now on appeal before the Tenth Circuit. The State of Utah filed its opening brief in that court on February 3, 2013, arguing that Utah’s marriage ban was justified based on Utah’s interest in giving heterosexual couples “privileged and special status” because they are able to procreate biologically. In the brief filed with the Tenth Circuit last night, the three Utah couples argued that the Constitution requires Utah to treat all families fairly and to ensure that all children, including those being raised by same-sex parents, are equally protected. The case, Kitchen v. Herbert, was brought by Utah couples Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity; Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge; and Karen Archer and Kate Call. The couples are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and the law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C.

An excerpt: 

With respect to the studies authored by Mark Regnerus, Aplt. App. at 67-68 n.32, 76 n.42, Regnerus “did not actually study individuals reared by same-sex partners” and the journal that originally published his study has since published an audit noting that this fact alone should have precluded any publication of his work. While the State admits that Regnerus’ work “is not conclusive” regarding “same-sex parenting,” Aplt. Br. at 76, its citation to this study at all is misleading.

Here's the full brief:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/209266015?width=360

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

 

I think it is one thing to be against SSM as a religious tenet, and quite any to wish any legal or physical harm to come to anyone in a SSM.

I agree, SS--they are two different things. Unfortunately one is often used as a starting point for the other.

I appreciate LDS leadership's emphasis in recent years on treating everyone with kindness and respect, regardless of sexual orientation.