Supreme Court Extends Marriage Equality

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

....add America's Last Frontier as another state where marriage equality is now the law of the land...

A federal judge struck down Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage on Sunday evening.

The court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Writing for the U.S. District Judge Timothy M. Burgess wrote that any relationship between the ban and government interests was "either nonexistent or purely speculative."

"Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are a prime example of how “the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only
conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational,” Burgess wrote.

"Refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded by legal marriage sends the public a government-sponsored message that same-sex couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits, and dignity given to couples of the opposite sex."

The state has the option of appealing to the 9th Circut, which is has already struck down similar bans in Idaho and Nevada.

When voters passed the amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 1998, it was the first of its kind.

Nice nice, the list is getting shorter & shorter...

 

[Webster]

...add Alaska & Arizona to the list...
Excerpt...

Gay couples won the right to wed in Alaska and Arizona on Friday, after separate court decisions ended bans in those states.

The rulings close two weeks of legal wrangling, triggered by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last week that effectively legalized gay marriage in more than two dozen states. The list of holdouts has become smaller and smaller, after a series of rulings, many involving the federal appeals court for the West, brought down marriage bans.

After the recent decisions, gay couples have the right to marry in more than 30 states.

Here are some recent developments:

ALASKA
The U.S. Supreme Court has tersely denied the state of Alaska's request to put a stop to gay marriages pending an appeal. "The application for stay presented to Justice (Anthony) Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied," the one-sentence paragraph from the court said. The denial means gay couples in Alaska who have licenses could marry immediately. A District Court judge struck down the 1998 gay marriage ban Sunday, ruling that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Several gay couples applied marriage licenses Monday, staring the clock on a three-day wait period until ceremonies could be held. Some judges, however, waived the requirement, and a handful of gay couples married right away.

ARIZONA
Gay couples have stated getting married after a federal judge struck down Arizona's ban on gay marriage and the state's conservative attorney general said continuing to fight the case would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. The District Court ruling Friday overturns a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage.(MSN News)

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

"a federal judge struck down"

Keep striking them bans down Mr. Federal Judge! ...You're like a super hero!

 

[Webster]

...Wyoming announces it will not appeal federal court ruling allowing same-sex marriages in that state...

Gov. Matt Mead says the state will not appeal a federal judge’s ruling that ordered Wyoming to allow same-sex marriage. Mead’s office released a statement late Friday afternoon saying that the ruling is contrary to the governor’s personal beliefs but any appeal would likely fail.

That means gay marriages can take place in Wyoming as soon as the state formally notifies Skavdahl.

Updated: 3:30 p.m. MDT

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A federal judge has ordered Wyoming to allow same-sex marriage but has stayed his decision so that the state can appeal if it wants.

Despite the delay, advocates for gay marriage were rejoicing Friday. “It’s a bit of legal maneuvering but make no mistake the freedom to marry is here in Wyoming,” Jeran Artery, executive director of Wyoming Equality, declared.

U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled Friday that the state must comply with a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that permits same-sex marriage.

But he says his ruling will not take effect until next Thursday in order to allow time for the state to appeal. Skavdahl said his ruling will take effect immediately if the state decides before Thursday not to appeal.

Gov. Matt Mead, who has defended the state law, said during a debate Thursday night he would be opposed to appealing a decision against the state.
There was no immediate comment from Mead or the attorney general’s office Friday afternoon.

Denver lawyer L. James Lyman, who represents same-sex couples who filed the federal lawsuit against Mead, said Friday that his side would ask the state attorneys to “file a notice with the court so folks can start getting married sooner than the end of next week.”

Wyoming is among the most conservative states politically and its law defines marriage as between a man and woman.

But the number of states fighting gay marriage is dwindling thanks to a slew of court rulings in recent weeks.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review several federal court rulings that upheld gay marriage as a constitutional right. The rulings include the one from the 10th Circuit, which covers Wyoming and five other states.

Wyoming county clerks have been unwilling to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the legal issues have been resolved.

The couples include Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery of Carpenter, who applied for a marriage license the day after the Supreme Court decision not to take up gay marriage upheld gay marriage in the 10th Circuit and elsewhere.

Barth and Montgomery are among the couples who filed the federal lawsuit.(LGBTQ Nation)

 

[+paradox]

looking good for the gays...

 

[Webster]

AmericaBlog: GOP Using Increasingly Racist Arguments Against Marriage Equality

Republicans really need to come out with a consistent position on inter-racial marriage. Because the way the GOP talks, it seems they’re a dead-set against the Supreme Court’s famous decision in Loving v. Virginia, where the court ordered the state of the Virginia to recognize the marriage between a black woman and a white man.

At the time, the late 1960s, 17 states (all southern) had laws banning marriages between blacks and whites. The Supreme Court in Loving ruled that such “anti-miscegenation” laws were unconstitutional, overruling the racist will of the Southern people.

So I find it troubling, and have for a long while now, that Republicans keep explaining their opposition to pro-gay-marriage court decisions in language that would have prevented the Supreme Court from ruling as it did in Loving. Republicans are, in essence, making arguments in favor of banning the mixing of the races. And that’s rather messed up.

Here’s the latest example from Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who is upset that a federal judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages: In 2008, Arizona voters approved a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Now, with their rulings, the federal courts have again thwarted the will of the people and further eroded the authority of states to regulate and uphold our laws.

It is not only disappointing, but also deeply troubling, that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states, create rights based on their personal policy preferences and supplant the will of the people in an area traditionally left to the states for more than two hundred years. As Justice Scalia opined, such action is tantamount to ‘an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’ and is an image of the judiciary ‘that would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter.’

Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas. It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that same-sex marriages should be allowed. Historically and traditionally, that power belongs to the states, and to the people. If society wants to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, that decision should be made through our elected representatives or at the ballot – not the courts.

Now let’s edit Brewer’s statement, as it would have read in 1967: In 1924, Virginia voters, through their duly-elected legislators, approved legislation to define marriage as a union of one white man and one white woman. Now, with their rulings, the federal courts have again thwarted the will of the people and further eroded the authority of states to regulate and uphold our laws.

It is not only disappointing, but also deeply troubling, that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states, create rights based on their personal policy preferences and supplant the will of the people in an area traditionally left to the states for more than two hundred years. As Justice Scalia opined, such action is tantamount to ‘an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’ and is an image of the judiciary ‘that would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter.’

Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas. It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that inter-racial marriages should be allowed. Historically and traditionally, that power belongs to the states, and to the people. If society wants to recognize inter-racial marriage, that decision should be made through our elected representatives or at the ballot – not the courts.

Kinda racist, no?

There is no way to argue that “the will of the people” is what sets the agenda for marriage laws in the states without opposing the court’s decision in Loving.

And the entire notion of “unelected judges dictating laws of the individual states” in an “area traditionally left to the states for more than two hundred years” is exactly what the court did in both Loving and Brown v Board of Education as well.

It is a supremely racist argument for Republicans to be making. Per se civil rights decisions are counter to the will of the people. So if the Republican party has a problem with courts ruling on civil rights, then the Republican party has a problem with the most important advancements in the history of American civil rights.

Now, Brewer and Republicans generally like to trot out the “it’s not the same thing being back and being gay!” argument whenever people point out that their party’s latent intolerance is showing. But the question at hand is not whether being black is the same thing as being gay. The question is whether a federal court ever has the right to tell a state how to run its marriages; and Jan Brewer, and much of the Republican party, say “no.”

That means that if the Republican party had its druthers, blacks and whites would still not be permitted to marry in America today.

Keep that in mind when you vote in November.

FWIW, AmericaBlog's John Aravosis makes a damn good point above: in arguing for "the will of the people" against marriage equality, they are essentially playing from the same bigoted playbook that Republicans and conservatives - yes, I said conservatives there - were playing from back in the 60's prior to the Loving decision...and they're still playing that same bit of tortured logic as was played back then.

Thoughts?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

dear lord even the wishy washy republicans can't say it. this is not about marriage. anyone at anytime can get married. I wish the republicans would just call it for what it is and the government hand outs expansion act or something snappy like that.

 

[Webster]

dear lord even the wishy washy republicans can't say it. this is not about marriage. anyone at anytime can get married. I wish the republicans would just call it for what it is and the government hand outs expansion act or something snappy like that.

Liberty, how is marriage equality a handout?
Please, explain that bit of tortured logic for the rest of us, why don't'cha?
Or do you support the increasingly tortured arguments of those on the opposing side of the issue?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

dear lord even the wishy washy republicans can't say it. this is not about marriage. anyone at anytime can get married. I wish the republicans would just call it for what it is and the government hand outs expansion act or something snappy like that.

Liberty, how is marriage equality a handout?
Please, explain that bit of tortured logic for the rest of us, why don't'cha?
Or do you support the increasingly tortured arguments of those on the opposing side of the issue?

Start from the beginning of this thread and you will have your answer. But if power, influence and money were not a issue government would not have its hands in controlling marriage.

 

[Webster]

Start from the beginning of this thread and you will have your answer. But if power, influence and money were not a issue government would not have its hands in controlling marriage.

Sure, blame it on money, influence and power... *adds deadpan* ..., Liberty. you must've been dropped on your head when you were young, weren't you?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Start from the beginning of this thread and you will have your answer. But if power, influence and money were not a issue government would not have its hands in controlling marriage.

Sure, blame it on money, influence and power... *adds deadpan* ..., Liberty. you must've been dropped on your head when you were young, weren't you?

Just stick with the topics and leave being a Dick to someone who wants to throw personal attacks back and forth with you. I keep it respectful with you please do the same courtesy.

If its not about power and money then why have government controlling it. I would bet you a months salary if the gay people would have pushed for marriage calling it by another name the wishy washy republicans would have been all over it to endorse it into existence to get possible votes with gay unions and all the benefits they could load up to give for there future support. but as long as they push the word marriage the wishy washy republicans can't afford to lose tens of millions of votes.

 

[Webster]

Start from the beginning of this thread and you will have your answer. But if power, influence and money were not a issue government would not have its hands in controlling marriage.

Sure, blame it on money, influence and power... *adds deadpan* ..., Liberty. you must've been dropped on your head when you were young, weren't you?

Just stick with the topics and leave being a Dick to someone who wants to throw personal attacks back and forth with you.

I've been called worse...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Start from the beginning of this thread and you will have your answer. But if power, influence and money were not a issue government would not have its hands in controlling marriage.

Sure, blame it on money, influence and power... *adds deadpan* ..., Liberty. you must've been dropped on your head when you were young, weren't you?

Just stick with the topics and leave being a Dick to someone who wants to throw personal attacks back and forth with you.

I've been called worse...

I do not want to call you anything just debate that is it. This is my version of tension relief or late night insomnia.

 

[Webster]

Start from the beginning of this thread and you will have your answer. But if power, influence and money were not a issue government would not have its hands in controlling marriage.

Sure, blame it on money, influence and power... *adds deadpan* ..., Liberty. you must've been dropped on your head when you were young, weren't you?

Just stick with the topics and leave being a Dick to someone who wants to throw personal attacks back and forth with you.

I've been called worse...

I do not want to call you anything just debate that is it. This is my version of tension relief or late night insomnia.

On that one, welcome to the club...

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

This debate is going in circles now. :s

 

[+paradox]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

 

[Webster]

This debate is going in circles now. :s

No kidding...and Liberty & Smooth think I'm the one with the hive mind mentality?

 

[Webster]

....what, Tillis & Berger haven't thought of enough wasteful things to do with the taxpayer's money?

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina’s Republican legislative leaders plan to appeal a ruling that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban.

Legal experts say any appeal would face an uphill battle.

House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate leader Phil Berger’s appeal would go to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, which ruled this summer that Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. That ruling led the way for North Carolina’s ban to be struck down.

A spokeswoman for Berger, Shelly Carver, confirmed in an email that the lawmakers plan to appeal. Carver says additional details are being worked out.

Two federal judges ruled in recent days that North Carolina’s ban must be struck down because of the 4th Circuit’s ruling earlier this year.(LGBTQ Nation)

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

This debate is going in circles now. :s

No kidding...and Liberty & Smooth think I'm the one with the hive mind mentality?

Have never claimed anything about your mentality.