Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
Thu Sep 4, 2014, 03:19 PM Sep 2014

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

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. appeals court rules gay marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana unconstitutional (Original Post) Blue_Tires Sep 2014 OP
But, but the judge in Louisiana says there'll be father-son marriages! Hissyspit Sep 2014 #1
Asshole christian taliban judge lark Sep 2014 #9
Such a brilliant example Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #17
One of the judges was appointed by Obama iandhr Sep 2014 #2
To be fair we have had Reagan and Bush appointed judges Fearless Sep 2014 #16
Many judges, probably the vast majority, do just that....but that generates no outrage, so no Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #18
Richard Posner is fast becoming my absolute favorite conservative judge! n/t GitRDun Sep 2014 #3
Usually I have a good deal of disdain for our Judaical $ystem. Half-Century Man Sep 2014 #4
Great news! William769 Sep 2014 #5
Great news!! J.B. Van Hollen & Walker GTH! hue Sep 2014 #6
Good news azurnoir Sep 2014 #7
Anyone who listened to the oral arguments knew this was coming. brooklynite Sep 2014 #8
True. The oral arguments show that WI is yet in the Dark Ages. hue Sep 2014 #12
Whoohoo for sane judge in Chicago! lark Sep 2014 #10
'Judge Richard Posner, an appointee of Repubican President Ronald Reagan in 1981, wrote Thursday's elleng Sep 2014 #11
Celebrate!! theHandpuppet Sep 2014 #13
I like it Iwillnevergiveup Sep 2014 #14
congrats to Wisconsin and Indiana riversedge Sep 2014 #15

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
2. One of the judges was appointed by Obama
Thu Sep 4, 2014, 03:36 PM
Sep 2014

I doubt the Obama is no different a Republican crowd will listen.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
16. To be fair we have had Reagan and Bush appointed judges
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 08:46 PM
Sep 2014

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)
18. Many judges, probably the vast majority, do just that....but that generates no outrage, so no
Sat Sep 6, 2014, 11:14 AM
Sep 2014

media coverage.

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
4. Usually I have a good deal of disdain for our Judaical $ystem.
Thu Sep 4, 2014, 03:47 PM
Sep 2014

I am always pleased to be proven wrong. Good ruling your Honors.

elleng

(130,895 posts)
11. 'Judge Richard Posner, an appointee of Repubican President Ronald Reagan in 1981, wrote Thursday's
Thu Sep 4, 2014, 05:01 PM
Sep 2014

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.'

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. appeals court rules ...