same-sex marriage

Earlier today I posted about how Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by a state-court judge, and I was feeling a complacent sense of happiness that social change was proceeding apace. Well, no more. The Sixth Circuit ruled today in favor of same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The decision reverses the district court judges who struck down the various states' bans as unconstitutional. As a result, there is now a circuit split on same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up same-sex marriage cases earlier this year, but that was when there wasn't a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue. The justices are much more likely to take up cases when there is a split about the circuits, so we may get a same-sex marriage case on the court's docket before June after all. Here's the opinion from the Sixth Circuit:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf

St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison ruled yesterday that denying same-sex couples the right to marry in Missouri denies them equal protection and due process under the law and is unconstitutional, the Post-Dispatch's Doug Moore reports. Moore struck down the ban in the state constitution because of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution.

The Missouri Attorney General will appeal the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court.

New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez kept his seat on the bench despite his ruling in 2013 clearing the way from same-sex marriage, The New Mexican's Phaedra Haywood reports: "Despite being singled out by the New Mexico Center for Family Policy, NM Watchman Jose Vasquez, For God’s Glory Alone Ministries and political blogger Politix Fireball — all of whom advised voters not to retain Chavez because he had co-authored the landmark decision — Chavez easily received the necessary 57 percent of the vote to keep him on the bench — as did all the statewide judicial officeholders."  In contrast, when the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage five years ago, voters ousted three of the justices when they faced a retention election.

Omar G. Encarnación, writing in Foreign Affairs, argues that the recent advance in ensuring same-sex couples can marry in the United States is much more modest progress on LGBT rights than one would think: "the United States lacks not only federal legislation protecting same-sex marriage but also federal laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, better known as ENDA -- a law intended to prevent antigay discrimination in the workplace -- has languished in Congress since it was first introduced in 1974." He notes that conservative parties in countries like Argentina, Chile, France, Portugal, Spain, and Uruguay, have supported same-sex civil unions as an alternative to marriage. Pope Francis supported such a measure when he was archbishop in Buenos Aires, making "the Republican position on gay rights to the right of the pope." The U.S. Constitution also does not lend itself to a "bold court rulings in favor of gay rights," Encarnación argues. "By and large, the U.S. Constitution remains faithful to its eighteenth-century foundations, which includes a very narrow view of social rights."
 

U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl has struck down Wyoming's ban on same-sex marriage, following the cue of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, NBC News reports. The 10th Circuit, which presides over appeals in federal cases in Wyoming, already ruled that same-sex marriage laws in other states are unconstitutional. Thirty-two states now allow same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected several appeals on Monday in cases in which judges have overturned various states' bans on same-sex marriage. That caused a spur of nuptials among happy same-sex couples until "Justice Anthony Kennedy mistakenly blocked the start of same-sex marriage in Nevada in an order that spawned confusion among state officials and disappointment in couples hoping to be wed." Now a court spokesperson says that order was a mistake, according to the Associatied Press: "Kennedy's order issued a day earlier was an error that the justice corrected with a second order several hours later."

SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston reports on the details of the Ninth Circuit's ruling that ended bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada and will likely control the fate of the bans in Alaska, Arizona, and Montana: "First, all three judges on the panel joined in an opinion by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt finding that the Idaho and Nevada bans violate the constitutional guarantee of same-sex couples to be treated the same legally as opposite-sex couples.  Second, Judge Reinhardt issued a separate opinion, for himself only, saying he would also strike down those bans under the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, arguing that the right to marry is a fundamental guarantee and that gays and lesbians have a right to share in that right. Third, Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, in a separate opinion only for herself, said she would have also struck down the bans on the premise that they discriminate on the basis of gender."

Missouri's attorney general announced Monday that his state will not appeal a state-court ruling requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state, Reuters' Kevin Murphy reports: "The decision not to appeal the ruling came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, allowing same-sex couples to marry in five additional states immediately."

Breaking news from the Associated Press: the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected appeals from five states which had their bans on same-sex marriage overturned. The appeals are from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The result? Same-sex marriage will be legal in 30 states and in the District of Columbia.

Adam Liptak, writing in the New York Times, prognosticates that this term of the U.S. Supreme Court could define Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s legacy with possible cases about whether gay Americans have a constitutional right to marry and about federal subsidies to consumers who purchase health-care coverage through federally run insurance exchanges. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is entering his 10th term, and it is one that could define the legacy of the court he leads. Should the court establish a right to same-sex marriage, it would draw comparisons to the famously liberal court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said David A. Strauss, a law professor at the University of Chicago," Liptak reports. The justices have not decided whether to take up cases involving same-sex marriage or Obamacare yet.