Sweet 16: Colorado joins the list of states whose same-sex marriage bans have fallen before judicial scrutiny. District Court Judge C. Scott Crabtree agreed with nine couples from Denver and Adams counties that Colorado's same-sex marriage ban violates the Constitution. Judge Crabtree stayed his own ruling, acknowledging that the state will appeal and that the final word will have to come from the state or federal Supreme Court.
In his ruling [C. Scott Crabtree, Brinkman, Burd, et al. v. Long and Colorado, 2014.07.09; links added], Judge Crabtree says Colorado's denial of the fundamental right of marriage to a minority of its citizens "bears no rational relationship to any conceivable government interest":
Like DOMA, the expressed purpose of the amendment is to discriminate against an unpopular minority by denying members of the minority access to a right which the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly said is “fundamental.” Under any reading of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) and Windsor, these laws cannot stand constitutional scrutiny and must be stricken [Crabtree, p. 10].
Colorado argued that "[T]he exclusive capacity and tendency of heterosexual intercourse to produce children, and the State’s need to ensure that those children are cared for, provides that rational basis" a state interest in discriminating against non-heterosexual couples seeking marriage licenses.
Such an argument ignores that many heterosexual couples who marry without the intent or ability to naturally procreate children are nonetheless allowed to marry. This “responsible procreation” justification has been raised by many other states in defending their similar bans on same gender marriages and has failed in every case. Colorado law is devoid of any proscription on parenting by same gender couples and the Uniform Parentage Act, C.R.S. §19- 4-101, expressly allows for two parents of the same gender. The State allows same gender couples to adopt children, to beget or give birth to children through artificial means or surrogacy and to retain custody after a failed heterosexual marriage [Crabtree, p. 11].
...There can be no doubt that same-sex couples are equally equipped to raise healthy, happy children as opposite-sex couples [p. 14].
Colorado argues that banning same-sex marriage "encourage potentially procreative couples to raise children produced by their sexual union together."
There is no logical reason to believe extending the marriage right to all couples would have this effect. As the Kitchen court explained, “It defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1211 (D. Utah 2013) [Crabtree, p. 15].
In other words, heterosexuals are going to get it on and have babies regardless of whether the state discriminates against homosexuals.
While the state says it wants to promote child-rearing by committed couples, Judge Crabtree finds that denigrating committed same-sex couples only makes committed child-rearing harder:
The Marriage Ban exacerbates the very problem the State purportedly seeks to solve by insisting that the children of same-sex couples continue to be denied the stability and dignity of their parents’ marriage. Further, the State’s asserted interest is belied by its own laws. No state, including Colorado, restricts marriage to the procreative and the fertile [Crabtree, p. 24].
Coloradans amended their constitution in 2006 to state that "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." South Dakotans added a nearly identical amendment the same year: "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. South Dakota's same-sex-marriage ban goes further, refusing to recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other "quasi-marital" relationships. Colorado law allows civil unions.
But Colorado's milder discrimination is still discrimination:
The fact that the State has created two classes of legally recognized relationships, marriages and civil unions, is compelling evidence they are not the same. If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them [Crabtree, p. 11].
...Civil unions are a separate, second-class institution which does not confer the same benefits and protections as marriage. “The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.” Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565, 569 (Mass. 2004) [p. 16].
...“The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.” In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d at 570. The fact is that those in a civil union do not and cannot obtain the same benefits and protections of federal law as married couples including filing joint tax returns, Family Medical Leave Act benefits, and facing loss of social security and veterans benefits. If civil unions were somehow the equivalent of marriage, there would be no real need for this second tier relationship. The State paid only lip-service to the plaintiffs’ arguments that civil unions were not unlike the “separate but equal” black and white educational systems [p. 41].
Judge Crabtree cites a whole bucket of precedents to add Colorado to the list of sixteen states that have failed to make the argument that South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley must gamely make in the Rosenbrahn case that will overturn South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban. AG Jackley will have nothing new to say in defense of South Dakota's decision that hasn't already been said and rejected in sixteen other states. Accordingly, the judge hearing Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard will likely may just crib Crabtree and the other judges who have overturned same-sex marriage bans less constitutionally offensive than South Dakota's.
I for one am very thankful for the Rosehbrahn case. In theory, this might prevent our state from being one of the last to move on to the proper side of history.
At this point my question would be if Jackley really has a sincere desire to defend this law, or if he is just going through the motions because that is what is expected of him? Does a sitting AG have a duty to defend this even if he personally may not agree?
It may not matter... from what I've seen of Jackley he isn't clever enough to come up with an argument which hasn't failed before, and therefore we should be able to move forward with the repeal of this silly same-sex marriage ban. Granted that is a far cry from actually allowing same-sex marriage in the state, but it is the first step of many to come.
All of those arguments would allow marriage to dogs. The ruling also ignores the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.
SDCL 1-11-1 identifies the litigation duties of the SD AG. It provides in relevant part,
". . . The duties of the attorney general shall be:
(1) To appear for the state and prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings, civil or criminal, in the Supreme Court, in which the state shall be interested as a party;
(2) When requested by the Governor or either branch of the Legislature, or whenever in his judgment the welfare of the state demands, to appear for the state and prosecute or defend, in any court or before any officer, any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the state may be a party or interested;
(3) To attend to all civil cases remanded by the Supreme Court to the circuit court, in which the state shall be a party or interested;
(4) To prosecute, at the request of the Governor, state auditor, or state treasurer, any official bond or contract in which the state is interested, upon a breach thereof, and to prosecute or defend for the state all actions, civil or criminal, relating to any matter connected with either of their departments; . . . ."
This is likely the statute that Jackley is referring to when he says he is obligated as AG to defend the anti-gay marriage provisions of SD law.
Jackley, however, as a lawyer, is also subject to the SD Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.1 provides in relevant part:
"Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions.
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. . . ."
Virtually all states have a similar rule, and it is likely those those AG's refusing to defend their state's anti-gay marriage laws considered the defense to frivolous.
I suspect Jackley's political ambitions in this highly Republican anti-gay state helped inform his decision whether to defend the suit.
I missed checking the notify button before posting!
Steve, I'm thinking that dogs probably won't be able to fill out the licence, since, you know, they don't have thumbs and can't read.
Also, I bet dogs have very little interest in marriage or even monogamy for that matter.
Well,you know Rocky R that dogs can be sent to obedience school and learn stuff. The same should apply to wingnuts and their frivolous ideas of what is and isn't constitutional. If dogs can be made to wear shock collars,why not rethuglicans?
Steve, can you explain where the SCOTUS has said marriage of dogs is a “fundamental” right?
As far as the 10th Amendment... have you heard of the commerce clause? Do you have any idea how many tax dollars could potentially be connected to gay wedding registries?!
On a serious note, I'm assuming all of the district and federal judges whom have ruled on homosexual marriage thus far are probably more well versed on the Constitution than you or I, so ultimatly the legality will be determined on its own merits. I sincerely hope this doesn't become a state's rights issue... especially with that pesky "Privileges and Immunities Clause" that pretty much invalidates the argument of a state which refuses to acknowledge a legal marriage granted in a different state.
Craig, the reason whey the Tenth no longer applies is because the Constitutional Republic has been put aside. What Christians need to understand is that the culture is over. We lost. Consider ourselves Babylonian exiles in what we call the postmodern New Age America, which is similar to ancient paganism.
Sibson, this is not a states right issue. The Constitution (i.e.. the 14th amendment) provides for equal protection of the law for all people. This trumps the 10th amendment argument because the states can no longer discriminate on a state-by-state basis. You can turn to Loving v. Virginia for clear precedence that discrimination can not be used to prevent the right of marriage. Dogs are not protected under the Constitution, but human beings (gay or straight) are protected.
Getting married to a dog:
"bears no rational relationship to any conceivable government interest"
"There can be no doubt that same-sex couples are equally equipped to raise healthy, happy children as opposite-sex couples":
What child doesn't love to have a dog?
I know someone who has fathered 3 children with three different women in 14 months. All if 4 agree, why do they not have the same rights to marriage as sodomites?
Neo-Confederate guy, do you also call straight married couple that engage in anal sex sodomites?
In recent months Pennsylvania's governor and attorney general declined to argue their gay marriage ban in court and acknowledge the court ruling. By doing so, there will be no appeals in the matter.
Speaking of sodomites, recent research by the Barna Research group by surveys indicated that nearly 50 percent of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple, and that 12 percent of adults think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
Frankly Steve, if three women wish to marry the same man I'm not sure I really care. I see no logical reason (which tosses any religious argument aside) to oppose polygamy. It may not be politically correct, but I believe the Mormons probably have a legal basis to challenge those laws and I'm not convinced they wouldn't win if such a challenge was brought today. If corporations can have their religious rights protected, it seems only safe to assume churchs and individuals should as well.
As to our Canine friends, a dog doesn't have the mental ability to enter into a legal contract. Much like a child, an adult in a vegitative state, an elderly person suffering from Alzheimers, or any number of other examples I could cite, there are numerous cases where people cannot get married whether we think it makes sense or not.
We still have laws which require contracts and agreeements to be understood by those entering into them, thus the "people will marry dogs" argument has no basis in law.
There is also those three important words that our Constitution begins with... "We The People...". Meaning it was drafted for the people, by the people - and hopefully you don't need me to explain what is meant by the term 'people'.
Sibson: Do you argue against Loving v. Virginia and claim that states have the right to prevent two people of a different race to be married? That case was based on the 14th amendment. The 10th amendment just can't be used to discriminate against a person's rights.
The multiple wives issue is more polygamy than sodomy. And as a Utah judge ruled, co-habitation on couples is legal, just not co-marriages.
"...and hopefully you don't need me to explain what is meant by the term 'people'." Yes, Craig, curiously, he does. So do quite a few others, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Turns out, it's actually kind of a tricky word. Who knew, huh?
Where do vegemites fit in,Sibby?
Reading this thread is more entertaining than several reality shows I can think of. Hats off to you....
*Hands Mike a sandwich*
Touché Bill - I suppose technically the definition of the term does apply to groups, but where I disagree with the Supreme Court is where they claim corporations are people as opposed to corporations are formed by and/or operated by people. The term 'people' itself shouldn't be the focus.
Either way you slice it, I don't see a way for the words "person" or "people" to include anything other than human beings. Perhaps Sibson disagrees.
Maybe the plan by the SC was always to legalize polygamy. The Catholics and the Mormons both have some strange customs with one wearing elaborate costumes and the other with the secret handshake to go along with the closed society. Yes, it suddenly makes sense. More importantly, it would marginalize women even further. I think Craig may have stumbled onto something.
Once again, by comparing marriage equality to "marrying dogs," Sibby shows that right-wingers can't grasp the concept of "consenting adults."
I think this is what Sibby is afraid of.
The blonde with the microphone scared me. If Santa jiggled like she jiggles,Oh,gawd I can't stand the suspense. Hurry Christmas Eve!
Steve is regurgitating the wingnut standard dog nonsense which is the best they can do for an "argument". It shows the emptiness of their opposition.
" That case was based on the 14th amendment. The 10th amendment just can't be used to discriminate against a person's rights."
Yes, I have been arguing that the 14th amendment was not about freeing the slaves, it was about destroying the Constitution. And there are those who argue that it was not ratified and/or that the federal government used military presence to force states into implementing it.
America is now a totalitarian nation, with both political parties helping increase its power and control. The Tea Party movement has yet to figure that out.
"There is also those three important words that our Constitution begins with... "We The People...". Meaning it was drafted for the people, by the people - and hopefully you don't need me to explain what is meant by the term 'people'."
So animals don't have rights? Tell that to Peta and the EPA.
"So animals don't have rights? Tell that to Peta and the EPA."
They don't have rights protected by our Constitution, but that isn't to say protections haven't been afforded them via other legislation. Surely you understand the difference correct?
Craig, should siblings over the age of 18 be granted equal rights to marriage?
And can parents sign contracts on behalf of their children?
"They don't have rights protected by our Constitution, but that isn't to say protections haven't been afforded them via other legislation."
So we can pass legislation that allows dogs to be married then.
You're just full of slippery slope arguments aren't you Steve? The problem with them is, they are examples of ad hominems.
The fact remains, there is no Constitutional basis to argue that people should be able to marry dogs, thus it is an entirely different issue than two consenting adults being married.
Even if someone attempted to pass legislation allowing one to marry their dog, I'm fairly certain it wouldn't pass muster - because once again dogs lack the mental ability to enter into contracts. I'm not aware of a single court in the nation which would allow such an agreement to be made when it involves an object, child, animal, or entity incapable of offering such consent.
As to your other slippery slope questions, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter I suppose you could argue that siblings or other related persons should allowed to be married, but I think the problem we have lies in if they wish to procreate. A few generations of that could spell trouble... just ask your grandparents.
Also, parents can sometimes sign contracts on behalf of their children, but it depends upon context. As legal guardian they have certain rights, but there are restrictions and rules surrounding those rights - and in case you are wondering, no a parent cannot sign an agreement for their 12 year old to get married, nor can a parent sign as a minor to take out a loan in their name without consent of the minor. Laws vary from state to state but there are laws in place to protect the minor, and in many cases it requires approval from a judge or official.
None of this changes a single thing, and try as you might you cannot blur the concept of two consenting adults wishing to be married against the concept of a man marrying a dog. Frankly if that is the best logical argument you have against it, you've already lost.
Sibby,if you want to pass legislation so you can marry your dog,knock yourself out.
Craig, my argument is against the premise that this is about equal marriage. It is about this society granting special rights. All of the restrictions to marriage that you bring forward in regard to dogs, siblings, and children means that there is no such thing as marriage equality. If South Dakota wants to restrict marriage to one man and one women, no authority should come in and say we can't. And in case you have not been paying attention, we have been on the slippery slope of sexual immorality for some time now in America. The result has been a breakdown of the family that has caused huge problems in our society including increased poverty, increased crime, and other social ills including children in pain because they are not living their fathers. Of course there are those anti-patriarchal types who could care less that children grow up without fathers, including those who say two women can raise a child without doing harm. Science and statistics say otherwise.
Sibby, I know that you have strong opinions on many matters, but you might consider correctly representing the facts, when you say "Science and statistics say otherwise."
After I watched Barry's video, my wedding ring fell off... and my daughter started barking. [/snark]
Craig and BCB put a couple of good points together. I haven't seen any court cases in which AG Jackley has demonstrated any unusually keen legal reasoning. I doubt he's going to come up with any novel defense that hasn't already been mounted and rejected in 16 other states.
Jackley can cite the statute BCB offers as the reason he has a duty to defend this case, but BCB's citation of Rule 3.1 throws us a new wrinkle! By continuing to defend this case, and assuming he is consistently observing both state law and professional ethics, he is affirming that he believes his defense of our same-sex-marrriage ban can has non-trivial basis in law and fact.... despite rulings in 16 other states and the Supreme Court that it does not. Uff da!
Pssst.... should someone also tell Steve that violent crime has been trending downward for something like the past 20 years?
"my argument is against the premise that this is about equal marriage"
Ah Steve, but you rely upon ad hominems to make your argument which by definition means said argument is invalid.
We all know when people speak of marriage equality, they are referring to consenting adults. Your need to twist this into bestiality and pedophila don't change that fact.
mr.& mrs. sodam&gommorah and noah&Joan arc-love living in the u.s.a! wonder if barack saddamm hussein is really related to the Sodom gommorahs, as tweeted by sara palin, ann coulter and Rupert Murdoch, I am pretty sure, 12-50%.
Craig, I bet dollars to donuts that Sibby doesn't understand how insulting it is for him to compare the love and affection two human beings have for one another to the idea of having sex with an animal.
He's completely insensitive to the feelings of the people he's talking about.
The exact opposite of compassion and loving kindness.
And yet, he presents himself to us as some kind of moral authority.
The cure for this perhaps is to try ridicule. We could ask him how his wife likes having sex with her pet snake (aka Sibby). But knowing Steve, he'd probably think we were being serious and miss the lesson.
So it goes with the Sibbatolah.
Is there actually merit to Sibson's inane concern about straight/gay people marrying dogs? There just might be.
A female friend reminds me that there was a time, and likely still is, when men would refer to unattractive woman as a "dog".
Could it possibly be that Sibson is really married to a "dog"?
"We all know when people speak of marriage equality, they are referring to consenting adults."
You are ducking the issue. Consenting adults include parents who sign a marriage contract on behalf of their children. The court rulings are without merit. This about pushing an immoral worldview onto the rest of us. It was what I call the New Age Theocracy.
Bill you are playing the role of dictator for the New Age Theocracy.
Sibby, that is an interesting link but it does not support your argument that children raised in a gay household are statistically or scientifically worse off that those raised in opposite sex marriages. The study you linked deals with single parent households, which appears to be what the anti-gay marriage crowd advocates by opposing such marriages.
Instead, your link actually suggests that kids would been twice as well off if raise by two gay males, as the kids would have 2 fathers rather than none, thus providing even more evidence in support of permitting gay people to marry. Thanks!.
Craig, I am referring to the long run, not the short run. Look into the crime rate since 1960 or later.
BCB, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that a two woman can replace the role of a father. America is no longer family friendly and the result has created social problems that the illogical left believe can only be solved with government programs. If you want a more functional America, then we need to restore the family unit...children being raised by their biological father and mother.
And Sibby, you are also mistaken about parents signing a marriage contract for their children. Until a child reaches the legal age under state law to marry, he or she cannot marry even with his or her parents' consent.
Now, typically states have lowered the age of consent to marry provided the parents of the prospective bride or groom consent (see SDCL 25-1-9), but even in these cases the parents has no authority to make the marriage contract itself for their offspring.
"Instead, your link actually suggests that kids would been twice as well off if raise by two gay males, as the kids would have 2 fathers rather than none"
The role of the mother is just as important as the role of the father. Children need both roles, not twice of one and none of the other. It is just as much common sense as not marrying dogs, siblings, or children.
"And Sibby, you are also mistaken about parents signing a marriage contract for their children. Until a child reaches the legal age under state law to marry, he or she cannot marry even with his or her parents' consent."
So we have another case were the is not equal marriage and have instead fostered age discrimination. That is my point. You people need to add more planks to your equal marriage amendment.
Sibby, the article I linked with the study comparing the well being of children raised by gay parents provides the evidence that two women do just fine. It states, "The research was based on data from the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, which involved input from 315 same-sex parents and a total of 500 children. Of these participating families, 80 percent had female parents while 18 percent had male partners." I am sure you would agree that 80 percent is a pretty compelling statistic.
BCB, how did those 500 children come about. since it is impossible for two of the same sex to have children naturally?
BCB, seems the study was spiked:
The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families has been getting copious positive press coverage. Unfortunately, it has some serious methodological weaknesses—it studies only the lives and experiences of the LGBT elite.
BCB, the study could also contain bias (from the same link I provided earlier):
Another reason for healthy skepticism is that the ACHESS participants—parents reporting about their children’s lives—are all well aware of the political import of the study topic, and an unknown number of them certainly signed up for that very reason.
Sibby, thanks for the link. I wonder if Witherspoon has any agenda?
"The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey. The group is opposed to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion."
I am not at all surprised that they would find fault with a study's conclusions that undermine their agenda. Have you found any objective criticism of the study by a group without an anti-gay marriage agenda?
As for where the kids came from, I take that as a tongue in cheek comment.
Isn't it strange how God is not more selective of who are parents of his creations?
"Craig, I am referring to the long run, not the short run. Look into the crime rate since 1960 or later."
So basically, you just make things up as you go then?
Here is something you might find interesting: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite
Here is one of my favorite quotes (note this was written in 2012): "the U.S. is experiencing the lowest crime levels since World War II".
Those figures are from the FBI by the way... so good luck trying to dismiss them.
Or maybe you are a charts and graphs kind of guy and like to see things in a more visual form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg
Now to really make your head explode Sibson - do you care to explain WHY the crime rates have been trending downward? Shifting demographics perhaps? More funding to police departments? Innovative policing strategies? Aging population?
I'd give you a hint but that might spoil it. I will however suggest you read "Freakonomics"... because this issue was discussed in great detail, and although you would be upset that they confirm the fact that crime has dropping and continues to drop - you would probably be less than impressed at what the data shows the root cause to be.
Changes in the overall incidence of crime are most often measured by examining the index crime rate, which includes the reported crimes of murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The reported crime rate was fairly level during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, before sharply increasing until the early 1970s.
Amazon is being sued to repay parents for apps they sold kids w/o parental permission.
Craig --- making things up as you go is the Steve Sibson MO. How do you think he got where is?
Now Craig you got others believing your false allegations. That is almost as dangerous as false teachers who call themselves Christians.
Sibby must be the reason more people identify with no religion than ever before.
Mr. Sibson is a prime reason and all like him for that fact matter, what a bunch of nuts.
Steve, did you bother to notice how your source data ends in 1998 which was 16 years ago, and that even your source indicates crime is trending downward? They also didn't include all of the FBI source data and seem to only focus on specific types of crime, which to some people is known as "cherry picking".
I'm sure you can find a source on the Internet which massages the numbers to coincide with a belief, but I've provided a direct link to the FBI source data used to create these tables, and it clearly shows crime is trending downward.
Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong? By the way... the Sioux Falls public library has Freakonomics on CD - you can listen to it while rifling through your closet to find any clothes which are constructed of mixed fabric. (Deuteronomy 22:11; Leviticus:19:19).
What Sibson does is change the targets as you guys hit the bulleyes. His "mesearch" of the internet has provided him with an abundance of targets so he never runs out and goes to bed each night certain that the Holy Spirit has guided him in his defeat of your logic. He will blather on endlessly -- it is what he does.
I think that you are spot on Mr. Smith, his screen must be full of load ups and if they are not there, change it to work. These so called activists are pretty easy to goof on though.
I agree Jerry and I have had some fun poking Sibby with a stick or two over the years, but it is kind of like watching the kids play with the cat , for a while it is amusing but sooner or later you find yourself telling the kids to leave the cat alone. I mostly come to Cory's blog to read what intelligent people have to say about different issues, but more often than not I find that Sibby has regurgitated on the thread and it is left to the intelligent people to clean up the mess. The problem is Sibby just keeps on puking . Marrying dogs? Why doesn't he take that vomit over to Bob Ellis's blog ? Bob loves to talk about people marrying dogs and cats and horses and goats. They swim in the stuff over there.
Comments are closed.