Four couples challenged Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban in federal court today, asking a judge for the right to marry in that state. The state responded that it had a compelling interest to limit marriage to one man and one woman: the best interest of the children. Thomas Perry, the attorney representing the state told the court:“When you look at benefits, what more compelling interest does the state of Idaho have than securing an ideal child-rearing environment for future generations?”
As the state pressed its argument, Shelia Robertson held hands with partner Andrea Altmayer in the front row, crying silent tears:
“We have a 4-year-old son together,” Sheila explained after the hearing. “We’ve been together for 16 years, and it took us a long time, it was a very careful decision for us to have our boy. We love our boy. The fact that I don’t have any rights to him at all – it’s frightening every day.”
Sheila and Andrea are among the couples who sued Idaho after their applications for a marriage licenses were rejected last November. Two of the couples have since married in equality states, and are seeking recognition of their marriages.
Federal Judge Candy Dale (left) did not appear overly receptive to the state’s argument, reminding lawyers several times that when heterosexual couples apply for marriage licenses in Idaho:
“They don’t have to submit anything to prove that they intend to have children.”
Deborah Ferguson, attorney for the four couples, responded to Mr. Perry’s argument:
“The state can’t select a preferred group of Idaho families for special preference and recognition.”
“What’s best for the children” seems like well-plowed ground by now, but the state did make one unique argument.
Deputy Idaho Attorney General Scott Zanzig told Judge Dale that all ten federal court cases that struck down state imposed same-sex marriage bans on the basis of the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, were wrongly decided. Zanzig claims those courts should have deferred to a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision called Baker v. Nelson, that set precedent long before the Windsor decision. In that case, a Minnesota Federal Court ruled the Constitution’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees did not grant the right to marry to two men. Zanzig:
“I would contend that those courts have misread the Windsor decision. If Baker v. Nelson is going to be overruled, that’s up to the Supreme Court, not up to the lower courts.”
Ms. Ferguson responded that Baker v. Nelson was no longer relevant saying:
“The burden has now shifted from the plaintiffs to the state, and the court must fully consider the law’s effects and the state’s reasons for enacting it. The purpose of Idaho’s constitutional amendment was to enshrine in Idaho’s Constitution a way to demean and humiliate Idaho’s same-sex couples and families.”
Judge Dale took the arguments under advisement, and said she’ll rule “in the relatively near future,” adding:
“It will be soon.”
No comments:
Post a Comment