DENVER -- Federal appeals court judges ruled for the first time Wednesday that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, taking the issue a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex. The judges also dismissed the notion that allowing homosexuals to wed could somehow undermine traditional marriage.
"It is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of love and commitment of same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples," the ruling said.
The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel is the first appellate ruling since the Supreme Court last year struck down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. The judges concluded that the Supreme Court decision means states also cannot deny gays the ability to marry.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes, who was appointed to the court in 2006 by President George W. Bush, joined Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero, a 1995 appointee of President Bill Clinton, in Wednesday's opinion.
Circuit Judge Paul Kelly, a 1991 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, said in dissent that the Constitution doesn't grant a "fundamental right" to same-sex marriage and that states should be able to decide who can marry.
"We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of the 14th Amendment," Kelly wrote.
The ruling Wednesday upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down Utah's gay marriage ban. The decision becomes law in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But the panel immediately put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, a Republican, said in an emailed statement that he will appeal to the Supreme Court, which isn't required to hear the case. Reyes, noting there was a partial dissent, said he may also seek review from the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
After the ruling, the couples named in the appeal hugged, cried and exchanged kisses at a news conference outside their attorney's offices in downtown Salt Lake City.
"This decision is an absolute victory for fairness and equality for all families in Utah, in every state in the 10th Circuit and every state in this great nation of the United States," said their attorney, Peggy Tomsic.
Plaintiff Derek Kitchen said he and his partner, Moudi Sbeity, are "so proud to be a part of history."
Meanwhile, Utah's Republican Gov. Gary Herbert said in a statement that he was "disappointed" by the decision.
"I believe states have the right to determine their laws regarding marriage," Herbert said.
Wednesday's decision gives increased momentum to a legal cause that already has compiled an extensive record in the lower courts since the Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act.
That ruling, in U.S. v. Windsor, touched off litigation over gay-marriage bans in Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky and elsewhere and led to decisions invalidating laws in New Jersey, Arkansas, Virginia and Michigan.
The latest such ruling was in Indiana, where a federal judge threw out that state's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a decision that immediately allows gay couples in the state to wed.
"The state's laws place same-sex marriages in a second-class category, unlike other marriages performed in other states," U.S. District Judge Richard Young said of the Indiana law.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller asked the court to stay enforcement of the ruling pending an appeal.
Before last year's Supreme Court ruling, an appellate court in 2012 struck down California's gay marriage ban but said it was ruling only on that law, not the broader constitutional questions. There were no such caveats in Wednesday's 65-page decision.
Evan Wolfson, president of the group Freedom to Marry, said Utah's legal victory was sweeter because of where it originated -- a conservative, deeply religious state.
"What is so powerful here is that we have the first federal appellate court and ... it's a case coming out of Utah affirming in the strongest, clearest, boldest terms that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry and equal protection for all Americans and all means all, including gay couples," he said.
Gay-marriage opponents called the ruling one more example of judges overstepping their bounds.
"Although I oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation, I have always believed that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "In my view, the U.S. Constitution does not dictate a particular definition of marriage, so I believe such judgments are properly left to the citizens of each State."
Other opponents said that while gay marriage may be legal, it is still immoral.
"While judges can, by judicial fiat, declare same-sex 'marriage' legal, they will never be able to make it right," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "The courts, for all their power, can't overturn natural law."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, said on its website that it maintains that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but believes that "all people should be treated with respect."
The lower court judge in the Utah ruling, who was appointed by President Barack Obama with support from conservative Utah politicians, said the state's ban on gay marriage violated the "fundamental right" of same-sex couples to marry. The prohibition, Judge Robert Shelby wrote, violated guarantees of due process and equal protection in the Constitution.
His ruling touched off 17 days of legal chaos as hundreds of same-sex couples poured into county clerks' offices across the state to wed while Utah officials scrambled to stop them and put a halt to the marriages.
By the time the Supreme Court intervened and issued a stay in the case -- effectively suspending the Utah judge's ruling and temporarily reinstating the ban -- more than 1,000 same-sex couples had married, and many had changed their names, signed up for spousal health insurance and taken steps to become legal parents of children they were raising.
Along with the Utah case, the 10th Circuit panel considered a challenge to Oklahoma's ban. It did not immediately rule in that case Wednesday.
Though the Utah and Oklahoma cases have been closely watched, it's unclear whether one of them will be the first to reach the Supreme Court. The high court could choose from cases moving through five other federal appellate courts and isn't expected to consider a case until next year at the earliest.
Information for this article was contributed by Nicholas Riccardi, Brady McCombs, Michelle Price, Lisa Leff and Kristi Eaton of The Associated Press; by Erik Larson, Andrew Harris and Joel Rosenblatt of Bloomberg News; and by Jack Healy, Monica Davey and Timothy Williams of The New York Times.
A Section on 06/26/2014