Contact Us
  • Comment

States urge Supreme Court to take up gay marriage

Posted: September 5, 2014 - 6:47am
Katie Belanger, president and CEO of Fair Wisconsin, left, speaks alongside plaintiffs in Wolf v. Walker during a press conference in Madison, Wis., Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014. Earlier in the day, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down the gay marriage bans of Wisconsin and Indiana as unconstitutional.   AP Photo/Wisconsin State Journal, M.P. King
AP Photo/Wisconsin State Journal, M.P. King
Katie Belanger, president and CEO of Fair Wisconsin, left, speaks alongside plaintiffs in Wolf v. Walker during a press conference in Madison, Wis., Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014. Earlier in the day, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down the gay marriage bans of Wisconsin and Indiana as unconstitutional.


MADISON, Wis. — A stinging rejection of same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana, issued by a unanimous and unequivocal U.S. appeals court, has brought hope to those fighting the laws that the Supreme Court will feel pressure to rule soon in their favor.

The ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago came Thursday, the same day 32 states asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all.

Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a "morass" of lawsuits, but didn't urge the court to rule one way or another.

Celebrations Thursday over the latest legal victory for gay couples seeking to get married were tempered knowing that the bigger — and final — battle rests with the high court.

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts. Since last year, the vast majority of federal rulings have declared same-sex marriages bans unconstitutional.

Republican Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he would appeal Thursday's ruling from a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit to the Supreme Court.

The decision left no doubt how the 7th Circuit felt about Wisconsin and Indiana's bans, criticizing the states' justifications for them. Several times, the ruling singled out the argument that only marriage between a man and a woman should allowed because it's tradition.

"My belief is that this court is trying to send a message elsewhere, to say it's time to get this over with," said Henry Greene, 51, who lives with his partner, Glenn Funkhouser, in the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, Indiana. "It's time to put discrimination aside."

Keith Borden and his partner, Johannes Wallmann, are among the eight couples that challenged Wisconsin's ban. Borden, of Madison, said he was thrilled with the latest victory.

"I will never get tired of saying once again love wins," Borden said. "I don't feel the battle is over, but we're one step closer."

The decision came unusually fast for the 7th Circuit — just nine days after oral arguments. The court typically takes months on rulings.

The opinion repeatedly mentioned the issue of tradition, noting that some, such as shaking hands, may "seem silly" but "are at least harmless." That's not the case with gay-marriage bans, the court said.

"If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written into law and it discriminates against a number of people and does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection clause," the opinion said.

The court's decision won't take effect for at least 21 days, which gives the states time to ask that it be put on hold, said Camilla Taylor, a lawyer for Lambda Legal who argued on behalf of Wisconsin plaintiffs.

The Wisconsin and Indiana cases shifted to Chicago after attorneys general in the states appealed separate lower court rulings in June tossing the bans.

Judge Richard Posner, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, wrote the opinion. During oral arguments, Posner fired tough questions at the bans' defenders, often expressing exasperation at their answers.

The other two judges on the panel were 2009 Barack Obama appointee David Hamilton and 1999 Bill Clinton appointee Ann Claire Williams.

The ruling echoed Posner's comments during oral arguments that "hate" underpinned the bans. "Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world," the decision said.

Julaine Appling, the head of the group Wisconsin Family Action, which led the 2006 campaign to adopt the state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, called the decision wrong-headed and dangerous.

"What they just legalized is not marriage," Appling said. "It's something else."

Associated Press

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments (1)

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Max mutt
Max mutt 09/05/14 - 07:49 am

No doubt this will

No doubt this will happen.
Will it improve this country in any way?
Will it lead to the legalization of polygamy?
It must since the exact same argument of consenting adults and equal rights apply.
(I have less of a problem with that.)
Does the word "marriage" evolve - yep, it no longer means what it used to mean.
We all love to evolve.
We evolved to the point where casual sex is routine.
Second date? Third date? Certainly not the first!
We don't want to be thought of as cheap!
And we even legislated that other people have to pay for that privilege!
Pregnancy has evolved from something to celebrate to an "inconvenience", easily "fixed."
So we take the racist but socially conservative Leave It To Beaver, 1950's and pretty much fix the race problem (well sort of) and evolve in marriage, relationships, sex, pregnancy, child rearing and education!
We are all so advanced and so happy!
Our kids are so much smarter and better behaved and really know the value of a dollar!
(If we could only get them out of the house before they turn 30!)
No need to preserve any of our parents values, they were so "yesterday" and they are dead or dying anyway!

Back to Top

Business Directory