rss
12-21-2013, 12:53 AM
BREAKING: Federal Court In Utah Says Marriage Equality Is Required By The Constitution
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/marriage-equality-sacred_tpftd-e1387392953287-638x425.jpg
United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, was **t the clearest opinion the justices have ever produced (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/26/2218321/doma-is-unconstitutional/). Although that opinion was firmly rooted in the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Americans, it contained just e**ugh states’ rights language to give anti-gay lawmakers in the states some hopes that marriage discrimination could remain alive in conservative enclaves throughout the country. If a Utah federal judge’s opinion that was released Friday is upheld on appeal, however, there will ** longer be any doubt that marriage equality belongs to all Americans. “The Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government,” Judge Robert Shelby concludes in his opinion striking down Utah’s ban on marriage equality — and this right applies to everyone. The same Constitution, Shelby explains “protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of ***ual identity.”
Although Shelby largely relies on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, he also made sharp **ds towards the promise of equality. “Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-*** couples,” he explains, Utah’s “Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-*** couples are **t **w, **r ever will be, worthy of recognition.”
Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-*** couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-*** couples are **t **w, **r ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does **t thereby elevate the status of opposite-*** marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-*** couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, **t a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.
Beyond Judge Shelby’s conclusion that marriage is a question of constitutional rights, **t one of states’ rights — as he explains, “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict” — Shelby’s opinion appears designed to tear down whatever intellectual infrastructure remains supporting marriage discrimination.
The leading argument advanced by supporters of discrimination in same-*** marriage cases is that marriage is necessarily tied to procreation, so same-*** couples can be excluded because they can**t produce biological offspring. Yet, as Shelby points out, the ability to procreate is **t “a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view.” Such an argument does **t simply “demean[] the dignity” of same-*** couples, it also degenerates “the many opposite-*** couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose **t to have children.” Indeed, under Utah’s argument for maintaining marriage discrimination, “a post-me**pausal woman or infertile man does **t have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does **t have the capacity to procreate.”
Additionally, opponents of marriage equality who cheered Justice Antonin Scalia’s sharply worded dissent in Lawrence v. Texas — a**ther landmark gay rights opinion — may come to regret Scalia’s words after reading Judge Shelby’s opinion. Scalia wrote in Lawrence that “[t]oday’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between hetero***ual and homo***ual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” Shelby’s opinion proclaims that Scalia was right.
It should be **ted, however, that Shelby’s opinion is significantly less sweeping that Thursday’s marriage equality decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The New Mexico court unanimously held that “[b]ecause same-gender couples (whether lesbian, gay, bi***ual, or transgender, hereinafter ‘LGBT’) are a discrete group which has been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, and which has inadequate political power to protect itself from such treatment, the classification at issue must withstand intermediate scrutiny to be constitutional.” Thus, under the New Mexico decision, any anti-LGBT law will be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny — and the New Mexico court explicitly included transgender individuals within the scope of its holding. Shelby’s opinion, by contrast, is largely focused on the right to marry.
Nevertheless, Shelby’s opinion is broad e**ugh to extend the blessings of full marriage equality to all same-*** couples if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, it will need to be reviewed by the conservative-leaning United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit[/URL]. So it will probably be quite a while before this case reaches the nation’s highest Court.
The post [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/20/3097681/breaking-federal-court-utah-says-marriage-equality-required-constitution/"]BREAKING: Federal Court In Utah Says Marriage Equality Is Required By The Constitution (http://thinkprogress.org/default/2013/11/08/2919111/) appeared first on ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org).
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/marriage-equality-sacred_tpftd-e1387392953287-638x425.jpg
United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, was **t the clearest opinion the justices have ever produced (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/26/2218321/doma-is-unconstitutional/). Although that opinion was firmly rooted in the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Americans, it contained just e**ugh states’ rights language to give anti-gay lawmakers in the states some hopes that marriage discrimination could remain alive in conservative enclaves throughout the country. If a Utah federal judge’s opinion that was released Friday is upheld on appeal, however, there will ** longer be any doubt that marriage equality belongs to all Americans. “The Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government,” Judge Robert Shelby concludes in his opinion striking down Utah’s ban on marriage equality — and this right applies to everyone. The same Constitution, Shelby explains “protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of ***ual identity.”
Although Shelby largely relies on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, he also made sharp **ds towards the promise of equality. “Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-*** couples,” he explains, Utah’s “Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-*** couples are **t **w, **r ever will be, worthy of recognition.”
Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-*** couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-*** couples are **t **w, **r ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does **t thereby elevate the status of opposite-*** marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-*** couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, **t a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.
Beyond Judge Shelby’s conclusion that marriage is a question of constitutional rights, **t one of states’ rights — as he explains, “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict” — Shelby’s opinion appears designed to tear down whatever intellectual infrastructure remains supporting marriage discrimination.
The leading argument advanced by supporters of discrimination in same-*** marriage cases is that marriage is necessarily tied to procreation, so same-*** couples can be excluded because they can**t produce biological offspring. Yet, as Shelby points out, the ability to procreate is **t “a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view.” Such an argument does **t simply “demean[] the dignity” of same-*** couples, it also degenerates “the many opposite-*** couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose **t to have children.” Indeed, under Utah’s argument for maintaining marriage discrimination, “a post-me**pausal woman or infertile man does **t have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does **t have the capacity to procreate.”
Additionally, opponents of marriage equality who cheered Justice Antonin Scalia’s sharply worded dissent in Lawrence v. Texas — a**ther landmark gay rights opinion — may come to regret Scalia’s words after reading Judge Shelby’s opinion. Scalia wrote in Lawrence that “[t]oday’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between hetero***ual and homo***ual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” Shelby’s opinion proclaims that Scalia was right.
It should be **ted, however, that Shelby’s opinion is significantly less sweeping that Thursday’s marriage equality decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The New Mexico court unanimously held that “[b]ecause same-gender couples (whether lesbian, gay, bi***ual, or transgender, hereinafter ‘LGBT’) are a discrete group which has been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, and which has inadequate political power to protect itself from such treatment, the classification at issue must withstand intermediate scrutiny to be constitutional.” Thus, under the New Mexico decision, any anti-LGBT law will be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny — and the New Mexico court explicitly included transgender individuals within the scope of its holding. Shelby’s opinion, by contrast, is largely focused on the right to marry.
Nevertheless, Shelby’s opinion is broad e**ugh to extend the blessings of full marriage equality to all same-*** couples if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, it will need to be reviewed by the conservative-leaning United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit[/URL]. So it will probably be quite a while before this case reaches the nation’s highest Court.
The post [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/20/3097681/breaking-federal-court-utah-says-marriage-equality-required-constitution/"]BREAKING: Federal Court In Utah Says Marriage Equality Is Required By The Constitution (http://thinkprogress.org/default/2013/11/08/2919111/) appeared first on ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org).