Gay Marriage | Idaho | News

Four Idaho Couples Ask Federal Judge to Strike Down State's Gay Marriage Ban Without a Trial

Four couples who filed suit in Idaho in November challenging the state's gay marriage ban have requested that the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit strike down the ban without a trial, saying the overwhelming rulings in other parts of the country make it clear that Idaho's ban violates the Constitution, the AP reports:

OtterGov. Otter (pictured) contends that Idaho's laws banning same-sex marriage are vital to the state's goal of creating "stable, husband-wife unions for the benefit of their children."

"Common sense and a wealth of social-science data teach that children do best emotionally, socially, intellectually and even economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents," Otter's attorneys wrote in the court filing.

The women contend Otter's stance has no basis in reality and say the state's ban on gay marriage is nothing more than discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. After all, they argue, banning same-sex marriage and denying the children of same-sex couples the same legal protections given to children of married heterosexual couples does nothing to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate or become better parents.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. When are these Morons going to realize that marriage in this country has NOTHING to do with bearing/raising children?

    Posted by: elwoodl | Feb 20, 2014 11:07:16 AM


  2. Yeah, let's ban gay marriage because that has a direct correlation with heterosexuals breeding more. Why don't they just be honest and flat out say "we don't like gay people and want to treat them like second class citizens"? Ah, America! (sarcasm directed at the anti-Africa crowd). Ignorance is not confined by borders or the color of our skin.

    Posted by: SpaceCadet | Feb 20, 2014 11:20:52 AM


  3. "Butch" Otter -- wasn't that the name of a bar on Valencia Street in the 1970's?

    Posted by: Ninong | Feb 20, 2014 12:21:33 PM


  4. Yes, banning gay coupes from being married to each other will surely keep straight couples from having bareback sex out of wedlock...

    Posted by: Kieran | Feb 20, 2014 12:46:40 PM


  5. marriage has NOTHING to do with bearing/raising children ? o really ?

    So children of same sex couples are unaffected whether the gays couple are protected with marriage or not?

    However, I agree that one person’s marriage has NOTHING to do with bearing/raising children of OTHER FAMILIES.

    Posted by: Andy Towlette | Feb 20, 2014 1:06:06 PM


  6. Most interesting part of this challenge was the 'no trial' request.
    Be interesting to see what the Judge does with that.

    Posted by: BOOM! | Feb 20, 2014 2:13:46 PM


  7. I'm not a lawyer, but if my modest law literacy is correct, this is nothing unusual. According to Marriage Equality Wiki (http://marriage.wikia.com/wiki/Latta_v._Otter), _both_ sides filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to skip the trial. My understanding is that this is standard procedure when both sides agree on what the relevant facts of the case are, and only disagree on what the law requires the court to do in light of those facts. The only purpose of a trial as I understand it would be to hash out disagreements over the facts--a lot of unnecessary time and expense if the facts aren't in dispute.

    Posted by: JJ | Feb 20, 2014 3:03:20 PM


  8. Summary judgments requests are frequent enough to warrant the descriptor standard operating procedure in these sorts of trials. Even if there are some disagreement in the facts / laws involved, the preponderance of recent court decisions falling to one side is enough to legitimately hope for a summary judgment. The protectors of the status quo are hoping for a conservative judge to say no way.

    Posted by: steven | Feb 20, 2014 3:13:21 PM


  9. The judge should demand that the State give a concrete, real world, factual, observable, objective and rational example of how permitting same sex marriage will cause the familial circumstances any child presently being "reared in an intact home" by both biological, heterosexual parents to change in any way or grant the Plaintiff's motion to rule in their favor without a trial.

    Posted by: CommonSense | Feb 21, 2014 4:23:47 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Coffee Shop Featuring Shirtless Male Baristas Opens: VIDEO« «