New Court Challenges to Gay Marriage Bans

[tampa24]

Here is another update in an unusual set of cases from several states that will all be heard in one state. (Ohio)

" CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal appeals court will hear arguments in gay marriage fights in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee in a single session, setting the stage for historic rulings in each state.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, scheduled arguments in five cases from the four states for Aug. 6. Though the cases are unique, each deals with whether statewide gay marriage bans violate the Constitution.

"I think the way the court's approaching it is significant," said Al Gerhardstein, a Cincinnati civil rights attorney who represents plaintiffs in two Ohio cases that will go before the appeals court. "They see the need to do some basic rulings on core principles cutting across all these state lines. It's very exciting."

Louisville attorney Dawn Elliott, who represents eight plaintiffs in the Kentucky case, said she and her co-counsel plan to make their arguments personal, focusing on the people affected by the ruling.

"Our plaintiffs are all planning on being there, because it's harder to say no to somebody when you're looking at them, to say, 'No your marriage is not valid because you're gay,'" said Elliott's co-counsel, Shannon Fauver.

The 6th Circuit is the third federal appeals court to weigh recent challenges to state gay marriage bans, though the first to consider cases in so many states at the same time. Arguments were held in the 4th Circuit in Virginia concerning one case in May and the 10th Circuit in Denver concerning two cases in April. Rulings are expected soon.

In Cincinnati, a three-judge panel will hear arguments in each case one at a time. It's unclear whether it will issue a large ruling encompassing all the cases or separate ones. Any losing side could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than a dozen federal and state judges have struck down part or all of state-level bans in recent months. No rulings have gone the other way.

The 6th Circuit's decision to consolidate the cases is unusual but not unprecedented, said Carl Tobias, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond.

He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which consolidated five segregation cases, and rulings on other issues including abortion.

Although there has been a wave of rulings in favor of gay marriage across the country, Tobias said that doesn't mean the circuit courts will uphold them.

"Appellate judges are a little more distant and different than individual district judges and they're more willing to go against the tide," he said.

The five cases being considered by the Cincinnati appeals court are:
— An order for Ohio to recognize all out-of-state gay marriages, currently on hold, and a narrower case that forced Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates.

— A ruling that Kentucky recognize out-of-state gay marriages, saying a statewide ban violated the Constitution's equal-protection clause by treating "gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them."

— An order overturning Michigan's statewide gay marriage ban, which followed a rare trial that focused mostly on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. More than 300 couples were married on a Saturday in March before the ruling was suspended pending appeal.

— An order for Tennessee to recognize three same-sex marriages while a lawsuit against the state works through the courts. Tennessee officials are appealing the preliminary injunction to the 6th Circuit.
Ohio's attorney general has said the state's voters have decided in 2004 that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he'll continue to defend the ban.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has said his state won't recognize the 300 marriages performed in March because the ban is still the law.

A spokesman for Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has said the governor was disappointed in the ruling, saying the state's voters passed a statewide ban in 2006.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear hired private attorneys to appeal his state's decision after the Attorney General Jack Conway called a tearful news conference to announce he would not appeal the ruling, saying that doing so would be "defending discrimination."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/court-consider-5-gay-marriage-cases-once-193154579.html

*******************************************​

Here was one of the more interesting parts for me. A decent intelligent man who lives and works in a very conservative state, with a high ranking job in a conservative Republican state government. Dealing with his own conscience, the expectations of being a good partisan political player, a good Republican State Attorney General and with an eye on the history books...he decides where he prefers his name be mentioned on this issue...if at all.

It's a form of mutiny to go against the expectations of the governor (whom your office serves) and who's of course of the same party. He also knows he'll pay a heavy price for that in the short term and the medium term. Fortunately for us and for him, he's looking beyond just the next election cycles. Even though unfortunately this could hurt his career prospects in the state of Kentucky for many years.

 

[IggyPop]

Many Republicans are changing their tune when it comes to Gay Marriage. They realize they are on the losing side and want their supporters to fuggedaboutit. Even Rick Perry has decided to not have an opinion on the matter.

 

[Stripe222]

Thanks Tampa! It's great to get a break down of so many of the cases that are wending their way through the courts. I believe I read that the final state to have a case brought against them is either North or South Dakota.

Here in Washington state it's a done deal, what with the massive Progressive political machine in King County, home to Seattle and it's major suburbs. Many people believe the whole state is liberal and progressive, but in truth, when you look at a typical electoral map during a major election cycle, the state appears overwhelmingly Red. Just 3 to 5 counties in Western Washington really dominate the elections. The part of the state east of the Cascade mountain range is sparsely populated, except for Spokane, and that county is purple.

There have been several lame attempts out of Eastern Washington to split off and become the new state of Columbia. The funny part is that they receive far more state aid per capita than those living in Western Washington. Same stuff is going on in Colorado with counties trying to secede to become part of Eastern Wyoming. I think they even got it on the ballot. Have you SEEN Eastern Wyoming? Fuckin' face of the moon. The western part is gorgeous, but I say, let them go!

 

[tampa24]

Glad you liked it Stripe.

You are so right about all these states and even a few tiny countries with regions that want to split off and secede. Some of these regions within states are not well off or viable on their own. Yet because they sense a political ideological division or slight cultural difference, they think that secession will lead them to the Promised Land. Let them try it and then watch their standard of living plummet. lol If they think it's just a matter of making their own state flag, license plates, drivers licenses, naming a state tree, state flower and state song...they're in for a very rude awakening. What about their new state's contribution to the National Guard and the funding for it? What about the state's funding for Medicaid and funds for highway repair, creating and funding a new independent State Highway Patrol, business regulation and licensing and the like?

What happens with all the red tape and extra expense when a new state's important sources of coal, electricity drinking water, etc., are in another state now? Some of them may preach the virtues of a leaner government that stays out of their lives, taxes them very little, and does only the minimum necessary to provide them a good life in the state. Notwithstanding their sound bites and preaching on the virtues of self reliance, the reality is that they would hate to see the loss of just about any services they've already come to rely on and expect. They'd see their quality of life suffer. It wouldn't be long before they'd be asking the federal government for a bailout. haha

 

[Stripe222]

I totally agree. I must admit though, that I empathize with their feeling that their views and values are being left out of the mix. I sometimes think what it would be like to live in Alabama or Kansas or some other backwater state. I think I'd be fearful of expressing my views to those who would not only dismiss them, but who are often ill informed about many of the issues that divide the country. I saw a segment on TV about a woman who was one of the first leaders of the Tea Party movement. She was in a wheelchair because she'd just had her hip replaced by Medicare! If she was so "anti-socialism", she should have had her fellow tea bagers do it with a paring knife.

As more people move to the major metropolitan areas to work and live, and that's quickly happening, they get to experience more cultures both in their communities and their workplaces. They are forced to see the contributions of people who are not the same as them. Women in upper management, gays being openly gay in the workplace, people of different colors and cultures making contributions in their communities.
"You can't keep'em down on the farm once they seen gay Pari'"!!!
And they begin to vote differently, with a more informed voice.

Small towns breed small minds. Heterogeneous populations do the same. I know. Growing up, I lived in a large suburb of Denver that was 99.5% white, Protestant and Catholic. Nobody talked about religion, so everybody spent their time discussing those things they agreed on. Once I left that and launched out into the world, I was honestly astonished by all I learned about. Years of Parochial school had left me sheltered and cowed. When I moved to NYC and lived there for ten years, I saw and experienced a great deal. Living there and in Seattle made all the difference in my knowledge base and perspective.

Most people in the US still live in smaller communities and states with meager populations (think Iowa). A weekend visit to a major metro area only serves to scare them some and offer a bit of titillation. They can keep the big Cities and their ideas and choices at a distance. They scurry back home to a comfortable belief system that brooks no challenges. They believe they know whats right and tune out the uncomfortable ideas of others and the possibilities of what those ideas may accomplish. Turn your TV to FOX and nod.

I would like to listen to the Republican side of issues. There may be some good ideas to glean out of their positions. Unfortunately, the constant posturing, racism, fear mongering, pandering and cronyism drowns out any decent ideas they may have. If I try to watch Hannity for 10 mins, my head begins to ache and I get a death grip on the arms of my chair!

It'll be interesting to see what the political landscape looks like in ten or fifteen years. I'll be really old by then, and as my older Republican brother says, "Who gives a shit? I'll be dead." LOL

 

[tampa24]

You are so right on all of that Stripe. People who live in sheltered rural areas especially, live lives where they never have to question any of their basic assumptions about how the world works or how it shouldwork. They are surrounded by likeminded people all the time. It's very comfortable. Now this is a judgment on my part, but I feel that it leads easily to an intellectual laziness. At worst they tune into their favorite political commentator(s) to be told what to think about every issue. Rush Limbaugh's "Dittoheads" and the zombie-esque people who will only turn to Fox news to get the "No spin zone" slant on every topic of the day.

Yet this same kind of self-segregation happens in urban areas now too. Conservatives setting up their own neighborhoods and schools and liberals doing likewise. As you say, conservatism does have redeeming and admirable qualities in the core ideology. Unfortunately it has devolved into the scorched earth party of NO that we have today.

 

[another1]

the real chance is the circuit court could rule against marriage equality. differences between the circuit appeal courts would return the issue to the supreme court. the question is simply this: is the right to marry entitled to the protection of due process and equal protection?
two years ago, I thought that time would be a long time coming. 40 years ago, I thought that time would never be coming.

 

[tampa24]

the real chance is the circuit court could rule against marriage equality. differences between the circuit appeal courts would return the issue to the supreme court. the question is simply this: is the right to marry entitled to the protection of due process and equal protection?
two years ago, I thought that time would be a long time coming. 40 years ago, I thought that time would never be coming.

It is amazing how far we've come. If you had asked me about 30 years ago in 1985, around the peak of the AIDS epidemic where I saw the issue of gay rights going...I would have said that I continued to see us treated as lepers and third class citizens for most of my lifetime. What a joy it is to see before I leave the earth just how wrong I've been. Perhaps I and some of the rest of us underestimated the human capacity for change and the maturity with which the next upcoming generations of straight society have viewed gay people.

 

[IggyPop]

It is a losing battle for Republicans and they know it. Rick Perry now has no opinion on Gay Marriage. They just hope the small part of their base drops it (the ones who actually vote).

If we want to protect these rights, we need to get off our asses and vote.

 

[mikeyank]

 

[tampa24]

Here's another article detailing a court case in Kentucky:



Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'


A federal judge on Tuesday [7/1/14] struck down Kentucky's ban on gay marriage, and in doing so he issued a scathing rebuke to opponents of same-sex marriage.

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

"These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. [...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering."

Source: http://theweek.com/article/index/26...-gay-marriage-are-not-those-of-serious-people

 

[another1]

every since we stopped stoning unruly children, you could see a time when a man could no longer beat his wife or even his slave.
it was a slippery slope to a requiring a state to come into court with more than bible verses, favorable blog, and spin on data to prove that a one penis per marriage made sense; law and facts are not too much to ask for.
we are not all equal in everything. the law should treat us all as equal.
as a people and as individuals, well we will have to deal with our inequalities own our on.

 

[joninliverton]

every since we stopped stoning unruly children, you could see a time when a man could no longer beat his wife or even his slave.
it was a slippery slope to a requiring a state to come into court with more than bible verses, favorable blog, and spin on data to prove that a one penis per marriage made sense; law and facts are not too much to ask for.
we are not all equal in everything. the law should treat us all as equal.
as a people and as individuals, well we will have to deal with our inequalities own our on.

Talking about stoning people, Monty Python are back together again.

 

[another1]

Talking about stoning people, Monty Python are back together again.

they have made me laugh so hard that I pissed myself and then laugh about them making piss myself. now they have depends for men.

 

[another1]

this sense of progress in the courts feels a little hollow. now that corporations are persons protected in the exercise of its religious beliefs, we first with blacks and then with women all become second class citizens, in our own republic. corporations have more rights than living citizens.

 

[tampa24]

this sense of progress in the courts feels a little hollow. now that corporations are persons protected in the exercise of its religious beliefs, we first with blacks and then with women all become second class citizens, in our own republic. corporations have more rights than living citizens.

I wish I could disagree Another1. The truth is though that the Supreme Court has given nearly unlimited power to corporations to rig elections in their favor, strictly for motives of profit, and without even any pretense of it being for the good of society or in the best interest of the individual citizen. They also now have the ability to influence public policy (by claiming religious objections) in a way we many of us would have shuddered to think possible.

I agree with Ginsberg's latest vociferous dissent for the minority opinion of the court.