South Dakota same-sex marriage ban struck down by federal judge

[AdamSmith]

Another one falls.

South Dakota same-sex marriage ban struck down by federal judge

A federal judge struck down South Dakota’s same-sex marriage ban on Monday, in a “detailed and powerful” move that LGBT advocates hoped would lead to a once-and-for-all ruling on the issue by the highest court in the United States.

The decision was immediately stayed pending a possible appeal in the eighth US circuit court of appeals, meaning same-sex marriages are still not permitted in the state.

Judge Karen Schreier ruled the state’s ban is unconstitutional because it “deprives same-sex citizens of a fundamental right, and that classification is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest”.

With the holdup in South Dakota and a US supreme court decision on Monday not to take up a case in Louisiana, same-sex marriage remains legal in 36 states and Washington DC. South Dakota voters approved an amendment banning the practice in 2006.

The case, Rosenbrahn v Daugaard, was filed in May 2014 to challenge the state’s law, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. “Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry,” Schreier wrote in her opinion. “South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples.”

Lawyers with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) filed the suit on behalf of six South Dakota couples. Five of the couples married in states that permit same-sex marriage and want their marriages recognized by the state. The sixth couple would like to marry in South Dakota.

NCLR staff attorney Christopher F Stoll said in a statement that he hoped Monday’s decision would hasten the supreme court’s decision to issue a nationwide ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

“We are thrilled for our clients and for all same-sex couples in South Dakota, who have watched and waited as progress has been made in so many other states, and who can now see light at the end of the tunnel in their own state,” Stoll said. “We are also grateful to Judge Shreier for writing such a detailed and powerful analysis and for affirming in such strong terms that same-sex couples have the same fundamental freedom to marry as others.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that the issue should be decided by state governments, not courts. Schreier, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, attacked that line of thinking in her ruling.

Schreier said that because South Dakota amended its constitution to block same-sex marriage in 2006, the state legislature is clearly not waiting to take up the issue. “[T]he act of incorporating the same-sex marriage ban into the state constitution sends the message that South Dakota’s same-sex marriage ban is not a temporary state of affairs but rather a fundamental statement of the state’s public policy,” she wrote.

Schreier also accused the defendants’ attorneys of making a “slippery slope” argument by insisting that legalizing same-sex marriage would allow South Dakotans to question the state’s right to regulate marriage based on polygamy and incest.

The South Dakota case is likely to soon join cases from Missouri and Arkansas that are before the eighth circuit. Lower-court judges in both states ruled that their respective bans were unconstitutional, and the decisions were quickly stayed pending appeal. Plaintiffs then filed for an appeal in the eighth circuit, as those in South Dakota are expected to do.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in the eighth circuit states of Iowa and Minnesota. The final two states in that appeals court’s jurisdiction, Nebraska and North Dakota, are on track to be in the final group of states to defend the bans.

The eighth circuit court of appeals is in the unusual position of having ruled to uphold a state same-sex marriage ban already. That ruling, however, arrived before the landmark supreme court decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) in June 2013.

After Doma was struck down, state bans began to fall across the country, leading them through a similar appeals process to the one now facing South Dakota.

Only the sixth circuit has ruled against same-sex marriage since and the four states its decision applied to have been distributed to the supreme court.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/south-dakota-same-sex-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down-federal-judge

[Guest callipygian]

when people republicans finally realize that injustice and inequality is not going to find themselves anywhere else than on the wrong side of history and their own lack of moral compus - they'll spin this as something they were never a part of.