Two More States Get Marriage Equality

A day after the Supreme Court brought marriage equality to 11 more states by leaving appeals court rulings in place that struck down laws against same-sex marriage, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals added two more to the list by striking down such laws in Nevada and Idaho.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled Tuesday that bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional.

The ruling stated that the defendants’ argument that bans on marriage for same-sex couples promotes “the welfare of children, by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite sex families,” had no evidence of to support it.

“Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause,” the ruling states.

Next up is the 6th Circuit, which should rule any day now on laws in Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. I expect them to uphold lower court rulings overturning those laws. It’s the 5th Circuit, which is in the process of hearing appeals on anti-marriage laws in Texas and Louisiana that is most likely to uphold those laws and force the Supreme Court to take those appeals. In the meantime, legal gay marriage in Nevada means quickie marriages at 4 am by an Elvis impersonator. Now that’s equality.

"Good point.The churches themselves are seriously hurting for money these days.They can't even keep up ..."

Republican Tax Bill Will Reduce Charitable ..."
"We have created the most advanced civilization with the greatest opportunity for individual advancement...Oh really? ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Good for them. It's nice that the Papists' are willing to stand up for the ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"Personally, I never found her that appealing anyway.Thanks, I'll be here all week, don't forget ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    Justice Kennedy put a stay on the Idaho case, probably over the issue of the 9th Circuit’s use of “heightened scrutiny” as the basis of its decision. That still has to be watched.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    A day after the Supreme Court brought marriage equality to 11 more states by leaving appeals court rulings in place that struck down laws against same-sex marriage, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals added two more to the list by striking down such laws in Nevada and Idaho.

    ITS EVEN WORSE THAN THAT!!! THE “JUDGES” OF THE SUPREME COURT ALSO MANDATED THAT THE STATE OF IDAHO CHANGE ITS NAME TO IDAHOMO!!!

  • Chiroptera

    … that is most likely to uphold those laws and force the Supreme Court to take those appeals.

    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. As far as I know, there is no requirement that the Supreme Court hear any case, not even if there are discrepencies in rulings at the Circuit Court level. The justices may decide to allow the various Courts decisions stand in the different Circuits. I realize that isn’t a very good situation to have and that would put additional pressure on the Supreme Court to take up the issue, but nothing in any of the analyses on why the Supreme Court punted this week changes just because the 5th Circuit rules differently. I may very well be that the various 6 justices will think that the dangers of a wrong decision outweighs the awkwardness of differing Constitutional law in different regions.

  • John Pieret

    there is no requirement that the Supreme Court hear any case, not even if there are discrepencies in rulings at the Circuit Court level

    Quite true, but highly unlikely in a case involving constitutional rights of such public prominence.

    nothing in any of the analyses on why the Supreme Court punted this week changes just because the 5th Circuit rules differently

    Actually, it does. If you assume that the court is certain that when the issue reaches them (say, perhaps, because Roberts has let it be known that he won’t be the next Roger B. Taney) SSM bans will fall, then they can let SSM go into effect in 11 states without fear of the legal chaos that would result if those marriages were obviated by a ruling upholding such bans. In that scenario, the Supremes are just waiting for some three judge panel that is too blind to see the writing on the wall. If they get one, fine, they’ll have to deal with it. If not, and the Circuits all agree, they can sit on their hands indefinitely.

  • colnago80

    Re John Pieret @ #4

    In fact, the SCOTUS declining to take up any of the appeals may send a message to the 5th Circuit, namely don’t rock the boat.

  • John Pieret

    In fact, the SCOTUS declining to take up any of the appeals may send a message to the 5th Circuit, namely don’t rock the boat.

    I think that was exactly what it was, most directly aimed at the 6th Circuit, but aimed at them all.

  • whheydt

    ACtually…things were a tad confused yesterday. Initially, at the request of Idaho, Kennedy stayed the whole 9th Circuit decision, which affected Nevada as well as Idaho. A few hours later, he realized (or it was pointed out to him) that Nevada made no such request and Idaho couldn’t do it for/to them, so he changed the stay to only apply to Idaho.

    *If* the stay is dissolved, and the decision becomes the “law of the circuit”, then it will also affect Alaska, Arizona and Montana. Expect a certain amount of panic to ensue…

    AS I understand it, Kennedy’s action will be reviewed by the whole court, probably next week. I suspect that whatever they do at that point will be a strong indication of which way it is going to go. If the stay is dissolved, it would be a clear indication that they won’t hear Idaho’s appeal when it actually gets to them…either directly or after a–probably unsuccessful–request for an en banc hearing.

    Logic would suggest that, in the light of Mondays announcement, that they would tell Idaho to get lost, but I find logic to be a poor way to assess what SCOTUS will do.

  • whheydt

    FYI…in defense of my feeble attempts at analyzing what will happen in these cases, I *did* call the SCOTUS treatment of the previous set of cases correctly. Of course, that could as easily have been a “stopped clock” effect rather than cogent analysis.

  • whheydt

    West Virginia has given up, surrendering to the “law of the circuit” (4th).

  • Reginald Selkirk

    This is undoubtedly going to turn into a broken promise:

    Huckabee Threatens To Leave GOP Over Gay Marriage, Abortion

  • whheydt

    The whole of SCOTUS vacated Kennedy’s stay of the Idaho decision.

    In other news, the case in NC where a bunch of ministers filed a case against the anti-SSM laws (they want to conduct weddings for same-sex couples, and–apparently–felt the ban violated their religious beliefs) have won. No stay yet. In the other NC case, the judge says he’ll issue his decision on Monday.