U.S. appeals court rules gay marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana unconstitutional
Source: startribune.com
CHICAGO A U.S. appeals court in Chicago has ruled that gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana are unconstitutional.
Thursday's decision by a three-judge panel at the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals bumps the number of states where gay marriage will be legal from 19 to 21. The decision was unanimous.
The Wisconsin and Indiana cases shifted to Chicago after their attorneys general appealed separate lower court rulings in June tossing the bans. The 7th Circuit stayed those rulings pending its own decision.
During oral arguments in August, one judge appointed by a Republican likened same-sex marriage bans to laws once barring interracial marriage. Judge Richard Posner said they derived from "hate ... and savage discrimination" of gays.
The states argued the prohibitions helped foster a centuries-old tradition.
Read more: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/273992681.html
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Yes, of course:
lark
(23,099 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Of the logical fallacy of the Slippery Slope one rarely sees.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I doubt the Obama is no different a Republican crowd will listen.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Rule in our favor as well. One hopes that a judge will put politics aside and rule based on the Constitution.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)media coverage.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I am always pleased to be proven wrong. Good ruling your Honors.
William769
(55,146 posts)hue
(4,949 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)now what about Louisiana?
brooklynite
(94,534 posts)hue
(4,949 posts)lark
(23,099 posts)elleng
(130,895 posts)opinion for the panel. During oral arguments, it was Posner who fired the toughest questions at defenders of the bans, often expressing exasperation at their answers.
The ruling echoes his comments during oral arguments that "hate" underpinned the gay-marriage bans, saying, "Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world."
The states argued that the prohibitions helped foster a centuries-old tradition of marriage between men and women, and that the regulation of the institution of marriage was a tool for society to attempt to prevent pregnancies out of wedlock.
Thursday's opinion went back to that issue repeatedly, noting that some traditions, such as shaking hands or men wearing ties, may "seem silly" but "are at least harmless."
That, though, is not the case when it comes to 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 says.'
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)when good things happen in bundles.