Appeals court places hold on same-sex marriages in Idaho

BOISE, Idaho -- Idaho residents planning to gather at courthouses across the state to celebrate same-sex marriages saw their plans put on hold by a federal appeals court Thursday, while a challenge to Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage got its first airing in a Philadelphia courtroom.


RELATED ARTICLES

http://www.arkansas…">Gay marriage back as judge fills out rulinghttp://www.arkansas…">UA health plan adds wed gays

Idaho's gay-marriage ban was overturned Tuesday when U.S. District Judge Candy Dale said the law unconstitutionally denied gay residents the fundamental right to marry. Dale said Idaho must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting this morning.

But a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay while it considers whether a longer stay is needed. Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden both asked that Dale's ruling be placed on hold while they appeal.

The appellate court ruling might put a halt to plans for a "Party for Marriage Equality" scheduled for this morning at the Ada County Courthouse. Gay-rights advocates were arranging the event.

Several Idaho residents who are ordained had offered to officiate weddings for free, and some photographers had offered free wedding photos to same-sex couples. Other residents pledged on social media sites to cover the $30 marriage license fee for gay couples.

Dale's ruling to end the ban came in response to a lawsuit against the governor and Ada County Clerk Chris Rich filed by four same-sex couples. The judge said the ban unconstitutionally denies homosexual couples their fundamental right to marry and wrongly stigmatizes their families.

In a written statement, Otter said he appreciated the temporary stay, which he said will help avoid chaos and uncertainty.

"Meanwhile, I am proceeding with an aggressive challenge in the appellate court," Otter said.

So far, gay marriage is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia, while 33 states have same-sex marriage bans. Several of those bans have been deemed unconstitutional by judges, leaving their statuses unclear as the rulings are appealed.

Pennsylvania, the only Northeastern state that still has such a ban, is under pressure to change its law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. At least four suits have been filed by couples there since the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision June striking down a law that denied federal recognition of married gay couples.

The measure "imposes substantial stigma and humiliation" on Philadelphia residents Cara Palladino and Isabelle Barker and their 5-year-old son solely because of their sexual orientation, the women's lawyer, Michael Banks, argued at Thursday's federal court hearing. The women sued the state last year seeking recognition of their 2005 marriage in Massachusetts.

"Can a 19-year-old statute withstand constitutional scrutiny in light of Windsor and other cases?" Banks argued, referring to the Supreme Court case.

Lawyers for Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett asked U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin to dismiss Palladino's case in entirety, arguing that the definition and regulation of marriage is up to states. The Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed that right, said Joel Frank, an attorney for the governor.

"The states have the near exclusive authority to define and regulate marriage to the extent that each state deems appropriate," Frank said.

When pressed by McLaughlin for the rationale behind Pennsylvania's law, Frank said it should be presumed to be constitutional without proof that it isn't. The plaintiffs have offered up no expert report or evidence to put the law into question, he said.

"Pennsylvania's law isn't motivated by animus for same-sex couples," Frank said. "Pennsylvania's marriage law does nothing but memorialize what has been society's understanding of marriage for many years."

Frank listed among reasons for the law the promotion of procreation as a state interest and children's well-being.

Banks likened Pennsylvania's law to ones that once barred interracial marriages, calling it "bigotry by legislative fiat."

McLaughlin took the arguments under advisement. She didn't indicate when she will rule.

Information for this article was contributed by Rebecca Boone of The Associated Press and by Sophia Pearson of Bloomberg News.

A Section on 05/16/2014

Upcoming Events