I had just sat down to write a second posting on the Supreme Court's action—or non-action, if you prefer—on same-sex marriage when this appeared on my screen:
Wow!
When same-sex couples in Idaho and Nevada awaken this morning, they can head to their courthouses to apply for marriage licenses.
I'm sure the Ninth Circuit was ready to issue it ruling without waiting for the Supreme Court's guidance. The circuit, which is one of the most liberal in the country, was widely expected to strike down the Idaho and Nevada laws.
The judges' decision in the Nevada case was a snap. Nevada's governor and attorney general chose not to defend the state law. An anti-gay group limped into the appeals court hoping to keep the state's ban alive. They failed.
Idaho officials were determined to enforce their ban. But they trotted out the usual tired arguments: that marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman, that this has always been the tradition, that it is the only way to promote the welfare of children, that this isn't a matter of sexual orientation but rather a matter of the procreation of the species.
The three judges on the Ninth Circuit were not impressed. No federal court, except for one district judge in Louisiana, has bought into that argument. The Ninth Circuit cited expert testimony to rebut Idaho's claims. The court said the state's line of reasoning was merely an excuse to deny same-sex couples the right to their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt went one step further: He tied these cases to the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 ruling that invalidated marriage between people of different races. Loving mandated that an individual had the right to choose his or her marriage partner, and Reihardt concluded that also meant a partner of the same sex.
In her concurring opinion, Judge Marsha S. Berzon said the Idaho and Nevada laws were unconstitutional for another reason: They discriminate unconstitutionally against people purely because of gender.
For now the Ninth Circuit's decision applies only to Idaho and Nevada. Because the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit is wider, anti-marriage-equality laws in Alaska, Arizona and Montana can now be overturned. It is unclear how quickly that will happen. California and the other three remaining states in the circuit already allow same-sex marriage.
All three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents: Reinhardt, by President Carter, and Berzon and Ronald Gould, by President Clinton.
A federal appeals court declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada on Tuesday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage in 30 other state
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down the two states' bans on gay marriage, ruling they violated equal protection rights.
Wow!
When same-sex couples in Idaho and Nevada awaken this morning, they can head to their courthouses to apply for marriage licenses.
I'm sure the Ninth Circuit was ready to issue it ruling without waiting for the Supreme Court's guidance. The circuit, which is one of the most liberal in the country, was widely expected to strike down the Idaho and Nevada laws.
The judges' decision in the Nevada case was a snap. Nevada's governor and attorney general chose not to defend the state law. An anti-gay group limped into the appeals court hoping to keep the state's ban alive. They failed.
Idaho officials were determined to enforce their ban. But they trotted out the usual tired arguments: that marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman, that this has always been the tradition, that it is the only way to promote the welfare of children, that this isn't a matter of sexual orientation but rather a matter of the procreation of the species.
The three judges on the Ninth Circuit were not impressed. No federal court, except for one district judge in Louisiana, has bought into that argument. The Ninth Circuit cited expert testimony to rebut Idaho's claims. The court said the state's line of reasoning was merely an excuse to deny same-sex couples the right to their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt went one step further: He tied these cases to the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 ruling that invalidated marriage between people of different races. Loving mandated that an individual had the right to choose his or her marriage partner, and Reihardt concluded that also meant a partner of the same sex.
In her concurring opinion, Judge Marsha S. Berzon said the Idaho and Nevada laws were unconstitutional for another reason: They discriminate unconstitutionally against people purely because of gender.
For now the Ninth Circuit's decision applies only to Idaho and Nevada. Because the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit is wider, anti-marriage-equality laws in Alaska, Arizona and Montana can now be overturned. It is unclear how quickly that will happen. California and the other three remaining states in the circuit already allow same-sex marriage.
All three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents: Reinhardt, by President Carter, and Berzon and Ronald Gould, by President Clinton.