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

[Daniel2]

The AP's report highlights some interesting aspects... The judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan...:

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

http://m.apnews.com/ap/pm_5027/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=LLneyQUI

DETROIT (AP) - Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge said Friday, striking down a law that was widely embraced by voters a decade ago in the latest in a series of similar decisions across the country.

But unlike cases in other states, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman did not suspend his decision while the Michigan attorney general pursues an appeal. That means clerks could start issuing licenses Monday unless a higher court intervenes.

Friedman released his 31-page ruling exactly two weeks after a rare trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. The challenge was brought by two Detroit-area nurses originally seeking to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by gay couples.

The judge noted that supporters of same-sex marriage believe the Michigan ban was at least partly the result of animosity toward gays and lesbians.

"Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage," Friedman said. "Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law."

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.

Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, asked a federal appeals court to freeze Friedman's decision and prevent same-sex couples from marrying while he appeals the case.

The decision was filed in Detroit shortly after 5 p.m., when most county clerk offices were closed and couldn't issue licenses.

"We'll be ready to go first thing Monday morning. We open at 8 a.m.," said Barb Byrum, the clerk in Ingham County, home of the state capital.

Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown said she's thrilled.

"It means I'm not forced to discriminate in my office," she said.

The women who brought the 2012 lawsuit, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, are raising three adopted children with special needs at their Hazel Park home. But they can't jointly adopt each other's children because that is tied exclusively to marriage in Michigan.

Attorney Dana Nessel read portions of the decision on live TV at the kitchen table in the DeBoer-Rowse home.

"It's unbelievable," DeBoer said. "We got our day in court. We won."

About an hour later, the couple got a standing ovation and cheers at Affirmations, a community center for gays and lesbians in Ferndale, north of Detroit. DeBoer said she and Rowse won't get married until the case comes to a close in the months - possibly years - ahead.

Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, didn't testify, and the trial had nothing to do with their relationship. In fact, attorneys for the state told the judge that they are great parents.

Instead, the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.

Friedman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, wasn't moved.

"State defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people," the judge said. "No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples."

Experts testifying for Rowse and DeBoer said there were no differences between the children of same-sex couples and those raised by a man and woman. And the University of Texas took the extraordinary step of disavowing the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus, who was a witness for Michigan.

Dave Murray, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, said the state has an "obligation" to defend what voters chose in 2004.

If a "court concludes the provision of the Michigan Constitution cannot be enforced, he'd respect those decisions and follow the rule of law," Murray said of Snyder.

Michigan's Roman Catholic leaders, led by Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron, said gays and lesbians should be "accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity." But the judge, they said, is wrongly redefining marriage.

"This decision ... mistakenly proposes that marriage is an emotional arrangement that can simply be redefined to accommodate the dictates of culture and the wants of adults," seven bishops said.

___

AP reporters Jeff Karoub and Corey Williams in Detroit, Mike Householder in Ferndale, Mich., David Eggert in Lansing, Mich., and Emma Fidel in Mason, Mich., contributed to this report.

Most significantly, IMO, is this:

In his ruling, the judge had this to say about the same researcher, Mark Regnerus, that the Utah Attorney relied on in its current appeal:

"The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 'study' was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it 'essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society' and which 'was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.' While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this 'study,' he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general."

- Judge Bernard Friedman, in his ruling that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

[Stone holm]

The AP's report highlights some interesting aspects... The judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan...:

Most significantly, IMO, is this:

In his ruling, the judge had this to say about the same researcher, Mark Regnerus, that the Utah Attorney relied on in its current appeal:

Ouch! I have always wondered about that study, as it seemed very unlikely to me that SS couples who have to go through the adoption process, and who are likely to be upper middle class, well educated people are not going to do as good or better a job of parenting than the average natural parent. The factors just indicate against the likelihood that such a study would not be flawed in some manner. But the Judge was pretty merciless, Regenerus must have been totally destroyed during cross examination.

[california boy]

Ouch! I have always wondered about that study, as it seemed very unlikely to me that SS couples who have to go through the adoption process, and who are likely to be upper middle class, well educated people are not going to do as good or better a job of parenting than the average natural parent. The factors just indicate against the likelihood that such a study would not be flawed in some manner. But the Judge was pretty merciless, Regenerus must have been totally destroyed during cross examination.

Well if you have read the criteria for the study, it has noting to do with gay couples rasing children.  Even Mark Regnerus has admited that is not what the  study is about and those conclusions should not be drawn.  It was financed by a right wing conservative group that was desperately looking for anything to counter the hundreds of studies that have over and over again reported that gay couple children do just as well as straight couples.  

 

"The bulk of the research on which Applicants rely is outdated, and the current studies they cite by Mark D. Regnerus, Appl. at 15-17, have been wholly discredited by the

scientific community, including the journal which published them. Tom Bartlett, Controversial Gay-Parenting Study is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds, Chron. Of Higher Educ., July 26, 2012. Applicants’ citation to the study by Kristin A. Moore, App l. at 15, is equally misplaced because the authors added an introductory note to

their study explicitly warning that no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex or adoptive parents. Kristin A. Moore, Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It, Child Trends (2002)."

 

 

[Stone holm]

Well if you have read the criteria for the study, it has noting to do with gay couples rasing children.  Even Mark Regnerus has admited that is not what the  study is about and those conclusions should not be drawn.  It was financed by a right wing conservative group that was desperately looking for anything to counter the hundreds of studies that have over and over again reported that gay couple children do just as well as straight couples.  

Is that the only study being referenced by the antis?

[thesometimesaint]

Michigan just joined the list.

[Daniel2]

Interesting to see Smac's recent posts back on the board. Given his vocation and his past participation in threads with this topic, it would be interesting to see his take on things.

[Daniel2]

Federal Judge Plans To Strike Down Ohio Marriage Recognition Ban

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-plans-to-strike-down-ohio-marriage-recognition?s=mobile

A prior decision by the judge was limited to recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages on death certificates.

posted on April 4, 2014 at 12:57pm EDT

Chris GeidnerBuzzFeed Staff

WASHINGTON — Following a hearing Friday, a federal judge in Ohio announced he plans to rule that Ohio has to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples granted out of state.

In a docket entry summarizing the hearing, the court stated, "The Court anticipates striking down as unconstitutional under all circumstances Ohio's bans on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states."

Ohio's 2004 law and constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying also bar the state from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples performed elsewhere. The case is not about whether Ohio must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but only the recognition portion of the state's laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black previously ruled in December 2013 that the state had to recognize out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples for the limited purposes of listing a couple as married on a death certificate of one spouse. The state hasappealed that ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This case, brought in February on behalf of Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers, initially was about birth certificates, and being able to have parents' marriages recognized on them, but, per Friday's docket entry, the decision will be finding the recognition ban unconstitutional "under all circumstances."

Presuming the state will appeal this coming ruling as well, expected by April 14, the case would join the other Ohio recognition case, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky cases about marriage recognition and the Michigan case about full marriage equality in that state, on appeal before the 6th Circuit.

[Daniel2]

Mormon leader reiterates church opposition to gay marriage during biannual general conference

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/f156580215f745ffbd6c4dcd1c1ddaac/US--Mormon-Conference/#.U0FeLVDnbqA

By BRADY McCOMBS

Associated Press

First Posted: April 06, 2014 - 5:30 am

Last Updated: April 06, 2014 - 5:32 am

SALT LAKE CITY — A top Mormon leader reiterated the church's opposition to gay marriage during the church's biannual general conference.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' stance on homosexuality has softened in recent years, but this marks the second consecutive conference in which leaders took time to emphasize the faith's insistence that marriage should be limited to unions between a man and a woman, as God created.

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not," Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve said Saturday. "He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."

In the October 2013 church conference, Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum said human laws cannot "make moral what God has declared immoral."

The church sent a letter to local leaders that includes that message, Andersen said Saturday. "As the world slips away from the Lord's law of chastity, we do not," he said.

During the first day of the weekend conference, LDS leaders on Saturday also encouraged missionaries to stay strong amid the inevitable personal abuse they will encounter and parents to shelter their children from the damaging effects of pornography.

A demonstration outside an all-male meeting by a Mormon women's group advocating for gender equality was uneventful, despite a contentious lead up to the event.

The conference brings more than 100,000 Latter-day Saints to Salt Lake City to find out church news and soak up words of guidance and inspiration from the faith's top leaders. Thousands more will listen or watch from around the world in 95 languages on television, radio, satellite and Internet broadcasts. More than half of all 15 million Latter-day Saints live outside of the U.S., church figures show.

The conference is widely followed and analyzed on social media, with many using the Twitter hash tag, "#LDSconf."

Gay marriage has been an especially hot topic in Utah since December, when a federal judge overturned Utah's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples married until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on marriages pending a ruling from a federal appeals court in Denver. A hearing is set there for Thursday.

Andersen encouraged church members not to buckle under the pressure of a growing movement on social media and elsewhere by advocates who want to make gay marriage legal. He offered the example of a woman who articulated her support for "traditional marriage" on Facebook and refused to take it down despite backlash.

Andersen is a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve, which is the second-highest governing body of the church. Modeled after Jesus Christ's apostles, the 12 men serve under the church president and his two counselors.

Andersen said church members who "struggle with same-sex attraction" should be of special concern. He said he admires people who confront this "trial of faith and stay true to the commandments of God."

"But everyone, independent of their decisions and beliefs, deserves our kindness and consideration," Andersen said.

The church teaches that while same-sex attraction itself isn't a sin, succumbing to it is.

The church's message on homosexuality has evolved since it was one of the leading forces behind California's Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage. A website launched last year encouraged more compassion toward gays, implored them to stay in the faith and clarified that church leaders no longer "necessarily advise" gays to marry people of the opposite sex in what used to be a widely practiced Mormon workaround for homosexuality.

In May, church leaders backed the Boy Scouts' policy allowing gays in the ranks. Some gay Mormons who left or were forced out of the church say they are now being welcomed back — even though they remain in same-sex relationships.

It may seem like negligible progress to outsiders, but Mormon scholars said 2013 was landmark year for the religion on gay and lesbian issues.

[mtomm]

"In May, church leaders backed the Boy Scouts' policy allowing gays in the ranks. Some gay Mormons who left or were forced out of the church say they are now being welcomed back — even though they remain in same-sex relationships."

Anyone with examples that can verify this?

[Stone holm]

"In May, church leaders backed the Boy Scouts' policy allowing gays in the ranks. Some gay Mormons who left or were forced out of the church say they are now being welcomed back — even though they remain in same-sex relationships."

Anyone with examples that can verify this?

Define "welcomed back".

[Daniel2]

This past Friday, the LDS church also quietly filed a joint amicus brief (along with several other religious bodies) in the Virginia appeal case in the Fourth Circuit (believed by many to be the case that heads to the SCOTUS to decide the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans).

The brief can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/216485643#fullscreen

Page 20 of the link above describes the LDS position, including several quotes from the Proclamation on the Family.

Daniel

[emarkp]

Why do you add the adverb 'quietly'?

[Daniel2]

Why do you add the adverb 'quietly'?

I used the word "quietly" because there was little-to-no fanfare, LDS newsroom, or local news coverage, which I think is notably different than the very public and much publicized LDS actions taken in marriage initiatives of the past.

[The Nehor]

"In May, church leaders backed the Boy Scouts' policy allowing gays in the ranks. Some gay Mormons who left or were forced out of the church say they are now being welcomed back — even though they remain in same-sex relationships."

Anyone with examples that can verify this?

 

Don't know. I would ask whoever wrote the article.

[Daniel2]

Looks like the media is starting to gear up more over the Utah case:

Utah attorneys fighting for gay marriage are used to winning

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57774698-219/tomsic-magleby-utah-marriage.html.csp

As they brace for the next round, attorneys fighting Utah’s same-sex marriage ban look to chalk up another victory.

By Brooke Adams

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Apr 07 2014 01:01 am 

Updated 3 hours ago

When Mark Lawrence asked attorneys James E. Magleby and Peggy A. Tomsic to take on Utah and its ban on same-sex marriage, they had one question for him: Why us?

Lawrence, it turns out, had done his homework. He told the pair he was looking for lawyers with a winning track record of doing hard things "because this is going to be really difficult."

Magleby and Tomsic had squared off against armies of attorneys with endless resources in the face of long odds on behalf of underdogs before. A notable example is the $134 million verdict they won in 2012 for USA Power, a utility firm started by three people, against behemoth PacifiCorp.

But the fight Lawrence proposed seemed incredibly daunting.

This is, after all, Utah, among the most conservative states in the nation and home to a worldwide faith that has thrown sizable support into the defense of man/woman marriage laws. Besides, at that point, everyone envisioned a legal battle akin to California’s Proposition 8, with two years of preparation, a monthlong trial before a judge, scads of witnesses and evidence, and full-on, bare-knuckle litigation.

The price tag, they figured, was at least $3 million — and more if the case went before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as it will this week, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, of course, Lawrence didn’t have any money.

The two attorneys didn’t flinch or tell Lawrence, as nearly everyone else had, that he was crazy. They kept listening.

Lawrence, an information technologist from West Valley City who founded the advocacy group Restore Our Humanity specifically to challenge Utah’s marriage ban, was "really persuasive," Magleby said.

"Nobody I knew had ever heard of him," Tomsic said. "It was like, wow, he’s a real grass-roots guy. He’s coming from nowhere with a big heart and a big vision of how to change the world. It was awesome."

The attorneys realized the risks were substantial and numerous. They had experienced hatred and threats before — Magleby when he represented a former partner of La Caille restaurant — but what about their families, their children in particular? Would the case be a financial hardship for their Salt Lake City firm, Magleby & Greenwood? Would it hurt their ability to attract and retain clients?

"I didn’t care," Tomsic said, "because this was the right thing to do, and I was willing not to get paid. I was willing to take whatever risks there were and work my heart out for this because it needs to happen, and if I can help do it, I’m there."

Still, there was one more consideration — a big one.

"We didn’t just take this case without thinking long and hard about the merits of it," Magleby said. "We knew the worst thing that could happen for our clients or for the bigger picture [of marriage equality] was to take this case and get our a-- kicked."

They devoured court records in other same-sex cases and concluded, as Magleby puts it, "Holy cow, this is a winner. It’s not even close!"

"We didn’t know at which level we would win," he added, "but we knew in the long run we were right."

Sure, the state might go after a big trial, with lots of witnesses and mountains of paperwork, the attorneys figured. But what they knew from PacifiCorp and other big wins is this: "We’re as smart as anybody else and we know we’ll work harder," Magleby said.

And with that, they were on board.

What they never anticipated is that the challenge to Amendment 3, overwhelmingly approved by Utah voters in 2004, would go as quickly and as efficiently as it did.

The attorneys filed the federal lawsuit March 25 on behalf of plaintiffs Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity; Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge; and Kate Call and Karen Archer. On Dec. 4, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby heard oral arguments.

"It was not a hard, intellectual legal argument," said Tomsic, whose opening statement has been described by some as historic. "It was getting across the point it’s time, it’s time now, and do it in this case."

Sixteen days later, pre-empting his own time frame by two weeks, Shelby granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Magleby was out of state when an email popped up on his iPad screen with two words: "We won!"

With dozens of cases pending, he thought, "Oh, good, we won something." Then emails were bing, bing, binging onto his screen one after another and Magleby realized it was the Kitchen v. Herbert case.

Tomsic was back at the office, hard at work on a new case, when an email also sprang up on one of the three monitors on her desk. The subject line said, in all capital letters, "YOU WON, YOU WON, YOU WON!" Scrolling down her inbox, she found the email with the court’s order and quickly clicked to the last page of the 60-page decision "because you always want to know what the end is."

"It was the most amazing day I’ve ever felt in my life in my legal practice," Tomsic said. "Reading that decision and realizing that Judge Shelby had the courage and the integrity to follow the U.S. Constitution in a state where he knew it would be a very unpopular decision ... made me believe more in our system. It doesn’t mean you always win, but if people do the best they can do to follow the law and follow the facts, you cannot ask for anything more than that."

Tomsic’s next move: She texted her partner, Cindy Bateman, with whom she is rearing a son privately placed a decade ago when he was 3 years old, and asked, "Will you marry me?"

Magleby, 47, and Tomsic, 61, are graduates of the University of Utah’s law school — Tomsic was editor of the Utah Law Review — and have worked together so long and so closely they banter like a married couple. Tomsic hired Magleby while a managing shareholder at Berman, Tomsic & Savage. Magleby hired Tomsic in 2009 after she closed her own firm.

They specialize in commercial litigation involving, as Magleby describes it, complicated problems "in fields we generally are not experts in, and we learn it, and we master it, and we win." For Magleby, that has meant learning about brine shrimp driers, polypropylene plants and how to build a chemical manufacturing facility. Tomsic has toured coal mines and power plants and learned how source code is programmed.

"That’s the fun part for us," she said, "because you have to learn things you never thought you’d have to."

In the Amendment 3 case, Tomsic drew on firsthand expertise: her own life.

Tomsic grew up in Moab and came out — more accurately, was outed — when she was 21 years old. It was a dangerous time to identify as gay, given the discrimination and outright physical violence such revelations often triggered. Salt Lake City’s former Sun Tavern and the lesbian bar Sisters were places "people felt safe" because of a shared "no-one-is-going-to-tell-on-you attitude."

Still, security offered escorts to cars to protect patrons from attacks. Customers often returned to their vehicles to find windows shattered.

"It was not unusual," Tomsic recalled, "for men to come in and call us ‘sweat hogs,’ bring boards and try to hit us."

Magleby, a straight man married almost 20 years with five children, said: "Marriage equality was not on the radar." People were just looking to not get beaten, he said. And when it happened, Tomsic chimed in, "nobody dared report it."

Fast-forward to Dec. 20, hours after Shelby rejected Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

"Going down to the county recorder’s office and having bands playing and people singing and people crying and people cheering," Tomsic said. "That was extraordinary."

Added Magleby: "The great thing about being a lawyer is you can make a fundamental, life-changing difference in somebody’s life that they can’t get for themselves. The Kitchen case is just the pinnacle of that."

It’s up to the 10th Circuit — and possibly the Supreme Court — to decide if that difference was fleeting or forever.

brooke@sltrib.com

[Daniel2]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 09, 2014

Utah Files Last Minute Brief: Forget Everything We Said About Mark Regnerus

On the eve of oral arguments before the Tenth Circuit Court, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes filed a last minute brief that totally dismisses the state's previous reliance on the work of discredited researcher Mark Regnerus.

Utah files this supplemental letter in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus, which the State cited at footnotes 34 and 42 of its Opening Brief, and which addresses the debate over whether same-sex parenting produces child outcomes that are comparable to man-woman parenting.

First, we wish to emphasize the very limited relevance to this case of the comparison addressed by Professor Regnerus. As the State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents. The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of heterosexual parents.

Second, on the limited issue addressed by the Regnerus study, the State wishes to be clear about what that study (in the State’s view) does and does not establish. The Regnerus study did not examine as its sole focus the outcomes of children raised in same-sex households but, because of sample limitations inherent in the field of study at this point, examined primarily children who acknowledged having a parent who had engaged in a same-sex relationship. Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/217359315?width=360

(Emphasis added)

Hmmm... it seems to me that Utah just undercut it's entire argument.

[thesometimesaint]

Hmmm... it seems to me that Utah just undercut it's entire argument.

 

Yep.

[Stone holm]

Hmmm... it seems to me that Utah just undercut it's entire argument.

Well there goes the baby out with the bath water.

[Daniel2]

Oral arguments are now done in the Utah appeal case.

Meanwhile, in Indiana, yet another Federal Judge issued a ruling mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage:

INDIANA: Federal Court Orders State To Recognize Marriage Of Ill Woman

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/04/indiana-federal-court-orders-state-to.html?m=1#disqus_thread

Today a federal court ordered Indiana to recognize the Massachusetts marriage of a terminally ill lesbian and her wife. Lambda Legal responds via press release:

Lambda Legal filed suit on behalf of Amy Sandler, Niki Quasney and their two children, seeking immediate relief from Indiana's ban on marriage for same-sex couples as Ms. Quasney battles stage four cancer. Ms. Quasney wants to be recognized as married in her home state while she is still alive, and cannot wait any longer for the protections of marriage. "We're greatly relieved for Amy, Niki and their two young children. They are a loving family coping with a terminal illness.

The State of Indiana has no justification for denying them dignity, legitimacy, and respect as a family during this inexpressibly difficult time," said Paul Castillo, Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal. "They're married, they love each other and they are doing their best to protect their family. The local hospital defers to state law to determine whether a couple is validly married, and Niki worries that she won't be able to be with Amy when it counts. Niki also wants to make sure Amy has the protections of a surviving spouse under Indiana law."

Lambda filed the emergency request last month.

[Stone holm]

Hmmm... it seems to me that Utah just undercut it's entire argument.

 

What is exactly left of the Utah argument after Regenerus?  Last night in a lecture I indicated that the Michigan case was likely to be the most influential due to Regenerus taking the stand in Michigan and getting shredded, was unaware of Utah pulling the plug on the Regenerus argument at the time.  http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/10/3425146/utah-regnerus/

[Daniel2]

What is exactly left of the Utah argument after Regenerus? Last night in a lecture I indicated that the Michigan case was likely to be the most influential due to Regenerus taking the stand in Michigan and getting shredded, was unaware of Utah pulling the plug on the Regenerus argument at the time. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/10/3425146/utah-regnerus/

 

The only other argument that I believe could be attempted is the "States' Rights" one--that states have a right to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples.

Of course, it goes without saying that "states' rights" don't trump "individuals' civil rights." 

 

The big question here is do citizens have the civil right to choose their legal spouse, irrespective of gender?

 

I think it's clear that it's a logistical and legal mess to have a patchwork approach--when same-sex couples are married in one state, move to another state for a job, and are legal strangers to one another and their children.  It's not sustainable and it won't last long, IMO. 

I found the following summary from today's hearing insightful:

 

Thursday's oral arguments in Utah's same-sex marriage legal battle focused on states rights, Utah's claims on same-sex marriage's impact on children, and the Loving v. Virginia case that ended interracial marriage, according to multiple early reports form what appears to be a split 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel just after the arguments ended in Denver.

Some early takeaways:

• The state's most convincing defense is state's rights. Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. seemed to go the hardest against the case challenging Utah's ban, on the grounds of state's rights. "Judge Kelly really went after the plaintiffs over state's rights issues," Fox 13's Ben Winslow tweeted upon leaving the courtroom. Writer Brooke Adams wrote that "Kelly appeared squarely on state side and got testy with [plaintiff attorney] Tomsic."

• The three-judge panel is split, but leaning towards the plaintiffs. Of the three-judge panel, Kelly is apparently with the state, with Judge Carlos F. Lucero siding with the plaintiffs. Judge Jerome A. Holmes appears to be a swing, to some degree. Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner's early take is that Holmes is "leaning toward heightened scrutiny based on sex."

• Overall, Holmes appears to be leaning more towards the plaintiffs. Attorney and writer Michelle Olsen noted that "Holmes, being called swing, already voted to deny UT stay request on Christmas Eve. I would be surprised if he doesn't vote w plaintiffs."

• The state's use of a discredited parenting study harmed their case. Judge Holmes reportedly asked whether the state even had a case following their acknowledgement that their citation of the controversial Regnerus study.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/what-to-expect-from-todays-oral-arguments-in-the-utah-same-sex-marriage-case/360464/

[Daniel2]

FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 2014

VIRGINIA: AG Mark Herring Files Brief In Support Of Gay Marriage Plaintiffs

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring today filed a briefwith the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of AFER's marriage equality lawsuit. Herring's brief argues that heightened scrutiny is applicable in the suit:

Virginia’s same-sex-marriage ban violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the ban substantially interferes with the right to marry, it is subject to strict scrutiny. The ban also discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, triggering at least heightened scrutiny. All of the considerations apply here for the judiciary to be suspicious of laws that discriminate against gay people. And the Clerks’ claim that the ban treats men and women equally is like saying that interracial-marriage bans treat blacks and white equally, an argument rejected by the Supreme Court.

...

"In writing its opinion, this Court should reject the pejorative phrases 'genderless marriage' and 'marriage-mimicking construct' that McQuigg (but not Schaefer) uses to describe the core freedom at stake here. (McQuigg Br. 6-7.) Marriage between gay people is no more 'genderless' than marriage between heterosexuals; gender plays a vital role. And Plaintiffs do not seek to mimic marriage; they seek to marry. Calling it 'genderless' and 'marriage mimicking' is insulting, 'just as it would demean' heterosexuals to say that their marriage is 'simply about' opposite-sex 'intercourse.'"

...

"The ban cannot satisfy the rational-basis test, let alone more demanding scrutiny. McQuigg’s claim that the purpose of marriage is to channel couples into a procreative relationship for the benefit of children is belied by controlling Supreme Court authority that marriage protects those choosing not to procreate and those who are unable to. And the Clerks’ argument fails the rational-basis test because it is irrational to think that prohibiting gay people from marrying will make heterosexual couples more like to marry and have children."

The full brief can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/217646061?width=360

[Stone holm]

The only other argument that I believe could be attempted is the "States' Rights" one--that states have a right to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples.

Of course, it goes without saying that "states' rights" don't trump "individuals' civil rights." 

 

The big question here is do citizens have the civil right to choose their legal spouse, irrespective of gender?

 

I think it's clear that it's a logistical and legal mess to have a patchwork approach--when same-sex couples are married in one state, move to another state for a job, and are legal strangers to one another and their children.  It's not sustainable and it won't last long, IMO. 

I found the following summary from today's hearing insightful:

 

Regardless of the SCOTUS opinion, I think that the bans on SSM are pretty much doomed politically.  The backlash against Prop 8 doomed the bans politically out of everywhere except the old Confederacy.  The State's with Constitutional provisions which are hard to modify will linger longer, but as the younger people come online for voting those will be repealed.  It is simply amazing to me how quickly the Prop 8 debacle changed public opinion.

[Daniel2]

Regardless of the SCOTUS opinion, I think that the bans on SSM are pretty much doomed politically. The backlash against Prop 8 doomed the bans politically out of everywhere except the old Confederacy. The State's with Constitutional provisions which are hard to modify will linger longer, but as the younger people come online for voting those will be repealed. It is simply amazing to me how quickly the Prop 8 debacle changed public opinion.

I agree, Stoneholm. As painful as it was and as damaging as it has been to family relationships, Prop 8 did more to advance marriage equality than any campaign that guys and lesbians could have mounted on their own. The resistance of Prop 8 focused the spotlight and began a national dialogue that has resulted in such rapid change, IMO.

I think it's also fascinating how silent the opposition on this board has become.

[guerreiro9]

I think it's also fascinating how silent the opposition on this board has become.

The board (and the church) has only become silent if you have your fingers in your ears.

-guerreiro9