Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

AGENT J · Jun 25, 2014

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah | MSNBC

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Less than an hour after a federal judge struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex nuptials, making the Hoosier State the 20th in the nation where gay and lesbian couples can wed, a federal appeals court invalidated a different state ban – in Utah – for the first time in the last year’s historic wave of victories.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver voted 2-1 to overturn Utah’s ban on same-sex nuptials, upholding a lower court’s decision. The ruling marks the first time a federal appeals court has found such a ban to be unconstitutional since 2012, when the 9th Circuit ruled against the now-defunct Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.The 10th Circuit put its ruling on hold, meaning gay and lesbian couples still cannot wed in the Beehive State. Utah officials can appeal either to the entire 10th Circuit, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.“We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws,” the court said. “A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

Minutes earlier, U.S. District Judge Richard Young, a President Clinton appointee, struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex nuptials and did not put his ruling on hold. He joins 13 other federal judges who have ruled in favor of marriage equality since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) exactly one year ago Thursday.
“The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue,” Young wrote in his 36-page opinion, released Wednesday. “In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love.” While many still hold that marriage laws should be dictated by the states, the growing legal consensus suggests the opposite – that the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian citizens are not up for debate.

More bigotry biting the dust and the 6 states under the 10 could all have equality for good soon.
Its so amazing the change we are witnessing right before our very eyes. The ruling in the tenth is HUGE.

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

poweRob · Jun 25, 2014

Its a good thing.

AGENT J · Jun 25, 2014

Changes/Updates in RED
6/25/14 Version 15.0

20 States with Equal Rights and 10 Stayed/Appealed/Pending

20 States with Equal Rights
Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Oregon May 20, 2014
Pennsylvania May 20, 2014
Wisconsin June 5, 2014
Indiana June 25th, 2014

10 Stayed/Appealed/Pending
Utah – December 20, 2013 (Stayed) June 25th 2014 10th upheld banning is unconstitutional. Ruling stayed.
Oklahoma - (Stayed) (10th ruling could impact this)
Kentucky - February 14, 2014 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages which will lead to their ban being defeated)
Virginia - February 14, 2014 (Stayed)
Texas - February 26, 2014 (Stayed)
Tennessee March, 2014 (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Ohio April, 2014 Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.
Arkansas - May 5, 2014 (Stayed)
Idaho - May 13, 2014 (Stayed)

20 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama
Georgia
Kansas (10th ruling could impact this)
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia
Wyoming (10th ruling could impact this)

6 States with Court Cases and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado (10th ruling could impact this)
Florida
Missouri
Nevada

thats 50 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - april/may court case
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- nothing pending, talks of two cases
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")
10-th - June 25 2014: 3 panel judge ruled banning SSM is unconstitutional. Stayed

State Attorney Generals no longer defending the bans due to their unconstitutionality
California (Has equal rights now)
Illinois (Has Equal rights now)
Kentucky
Nevada
Oregon (has equal rights now)
Pennsylvania(has equal rights now)
Virginia(stayed)

THERE ARE NO STATES LEFT NOT FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks[/QUOTE]

TheDemSocialist · Jun 25, 2014

Another step forward. Progress being made.

brothern · Jun 25, 2014

AGENT J said:
Its so amazing the change we are witnessing right before our very eyes. The ruling in the tenth is HUGE.

The ruling was stayed, and is only applicable to Utah.

AGENT J · Jun 25, 2014

brothern said:
The ruling was stayed, and is only applicable to Utah.

Correct thats what the article says along with my post. Still a huge thing.

Deuce · Jun 25, 2014

brothern said:
The ruling was stayed, and is only applicable to Utah.

Pending the full panel, no doubt.

And really, at this point there's no reason to expect that any court will ever uphold a same sex marriage ban. The precedent is set.

AGENT J · Jun 25, 2014

also heres the Indiana ruling/summary:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/de...try-on-cross-motions-for-summary-judgment.pdf

great stuff

once again another ruling referring to:

right to marry
the 14th
Loving V Virgina

Threegoofs · Jun 25, 2014

Are there any rational people who oppose this anymore?

AGENT J · Jun 25, 2014

Threegoofs said:
Are there any rational people who oppose this anymore?

define opposes?

personally may think its wrong? yes im sure

want it illegal and what to deny people equal rights? nope, thats impossible, one negates the other.

cant be rational and against equal rights

Cardinal · Jun 25, 2014

Threegoofs said:
Are there any rational people who oppose this anymore?

I'm actually tempted to take the devil's advocate, just to see if it's even possible.

Deuce · Jun 25, 2014

Cardinal said:
I'm actually tempted to take the devil's advocate, just to see if it's even possible.

Something something TRADITION something something INSTITUTION

Cardinal · Jun 25, 2014

Deuce said:
Something something TRADITION something something INSTITUTION

****. That was kind of my angle.

Deuce · Jun 25, 2014

Instead of explaining why same-sex marriage qua same-sex marriage is undesirable, each of the appellants’ justifications rests fundamentally on a sleight of hand in which same-sex marriage is used as a proxy for a different characteristic shared by both same-sex and some opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage must be banned, appellants argue, because same-sex couples are not naturally procreative. But the state permits many other types of non-procreative couples to wed. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 605 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples . . . ? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”). Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed, appellants assert, because it is better for children to be raised by biological parents.

Another middle finger to Scalia's ridiculous dissent.

Deuce · Jun 25, 2014

Cardinal said:
****. That was kind of my angle.

It's actually really easy to make an argument against same-sex marriage.

All you have to do is give one specific example of how same-sex marriage impacts your life in a negative way. Bam, you've got a start right there.

Deuce · Jun 25, 2014

The judge in question was appointed by President Bush by recommendation from notably anti-LGBT Senator Inhoffe.

INHOFE: I am also proud of the fact that I have known Jerome Holmes for some 5 years. Frankly, prior to this nomination, I made recommendations to the President that he consider this man because he is so incredibly qualified. We all agree he is a man of great character and undeniably fit for the bench. He has connections with both Oklahoma City and throughout Oklahoma, as well as the District of Columbia, a family history that goes back. … At a time when our Nation is faced with the onslaught of judicial activism, he is a breath of fresh air and I believe he is a man of character and principle; that he will rule justly within the parameters of the law.

Victory for equality feels good. Victory for equality that also makes assholes look foolish is extra-good.

opendebate · Jun 25, 2014

brothern said:
The ruling was stayed, and is only applicable to Utah.

Marriage equality is an inevitability at this point. It may take time, but it will happen. That's an awesome statement to be able to make with such certainty

brothern · Jun 26, 2014

AGENT J said:
Correct thats what the article says along with my post. Still a huge thing.

County officials in both Boulder, Colorado and St. Louis, Missouri issued licences yesterday in order to challenge their respective state's bans.

St. Louis Challenges Missouri Ban on Gay Marriage - ABC News
Boulder County Clerk begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses after historic court ruling - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

CriticalThought · Jun 26, 2014

I do not really see this as a victory. I think the 5th circuit appellate will likely uphold the same-sex marriage ban in Texas on state's rights grounds and SCOTUS will pick it up and side with the limited government arguments. While the arguments against same-sex marriage itself are very weak, the argument that the people of a state have a right to regulate marriage in their state as they see fit is very strong. The language "leave it to the states" has already become the new mantra of the GOP and will likely shape the debate for the next generation in a state by state battle.

Deuce · Jun 26, 2014

CriticalThought said:
I do not really see this as a victory. I think the 5th circuit appellate will likely uphold the same-sex marriage ban in Texas on state's rights grounds and SCOTUS will pick it up and side with the limited government arguments. While the arguments against same-sex marriage itself are very weak, the argument that the people of a state have a right to regulate marriage in their state as they see fit is very strong. The language "leave it to the states" has already become the new mantra of the GOP and will likely shape the debate for the next generation in a state by state battle.

You are wrong about the strength of the legal arguments. "States rights" didn't hold up interracial marriage bans, what makes you think they work for a distinction of gender?

Here's the part that most people don't understand because SCOTUS was sneaky on it: they've already decided in favor of marriage equality in Windsor.

CriticalThought · Jun 26, 2014

Deuce said:
You are wrong about the strength of the legal arguments. "States rights" didn't hold up interracial marriage bans, what makes you think they work for a distinction of gender?

Here's the part that most people don't understand because SCOTUS was sneaky on it: they've already decided in favor of marriage equality in Windsor.

The level of scrutiny is different and SCOTUS is very conservative at this point in history.

Deuce · Jun 26, 2014

CriticalThought said:
The level of scrutiny is different and SCOTUS is very conservative at this point in history.

On the large scale, yes, they've been leaning conservative. But not on this issue.

Same-sex marriage bans do not pass any level of scrutiny. Over and over we see this. Gender leads to intermediate scrutiny, if you think you can argue past that test, go for it. What is the important state interest that a same sex marriage ban is substantially related to?

Seriously, Windsor already decided this. If you don't believe me, ask this guy:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion ante, at 22:

roguenuke · Jun 26, 2014

CriticalThought said:
The level of scrutiny is different and SCOTUS is very conservative at this point in history.

They have also in the past struck down marriage bans on the basis of a person not paying their child support (Zablocki v Redhail) and being incarcerated (Turner v Safley). They were both held to the lowest level of scrutiny. Same sex marriage bans should be held to the heightened level of intermediate if we are holding that interracial marriage bans were based on race because same sex marriage bans are based on sex, not sexuality. That requires an important state interest. "Because the people of the state want this" is not and should not ever be "an important state interest". In fact, it shouldn't even be considered a legitimate state interest since it could easily justify pretty much an violation of people's rights that are not specifically listed within the US Constitution, something that is not supposed to happen.

Deuce · Jun 26, 2014

roguenuke said:
They have also in the past struck down marriage bans on the basis of a person not paying their child support (Zablocki v Redhail) and being incarcerated (Turner v Safley). They were both held to the lowest level of scrutiny. Same sex marriage bans should be held to the heightened level of intermediate if we are holding that interracial marriage bans were based on race because same sex marriage bans are based on sex, not sexuality. That requires an important state interest. "Because the people of the state want this" is not and should not ever be "an important state interest". In fact, it shouldn't even be considered a legitimate state interest since it could easily justify pretty much an violation of people's rights that are not specifically listed within the US Constitution, something that is not supposed to happen.

Yeah, if "it was enacted" is a rational basis, then rational basis scrutiny isnt a test at all.

Helix · Jun 26, 2014

the judge ruled correctly on this one. still, it was pretty surprising. same sex couples began getting married in Marion county yesterday afternoon. watched video coverage of the first one with my GF yesterday when i got home from work. neither of us could really believe it.

here is more info, specific to Indiana :

What it means: Questions about same-sex marriage ruling

from what i've heard, not all counties are playing ball yet, and the AG has filed an emergency motion for a stay until the ruling can be appealed.

if you're a same sex couple wanting to marry in Indiana, it would be a good idea to go to Boone, Hamilton, Hendricks, or Johnson county, and you should do it today. my guess is that they find a judge who will give them the emergency stay pretty soon.

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

"If you ain't first, you're last"

USMC 1988-1996

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Gradualist

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Outer space potato man

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Sophisticated man-about-town

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Respected On All Sides

Outer space potato man

Respected On All Sides

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency