U.S. court rejects gay-marriage bans as 'implausible'

WASHINGTON Thu Sep 4, 2014 7:57pm EDT

A box of cupcakes are seen topped with icons of same-sex couples at City Hall in San Francisco, June 29, 2013. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

A box of cupcakes are seen topped with icons of same-sex couples at City Hall in San Francisco, June 29, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Stephen Lam

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court judge known for his outspoken views described arguments by Wisconsin and Indiana defending bans on gay marriage as "totally implausible" on Thursday, in a ruling in favor of same-sex couples.

Judge Richard Posner, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981, wrote the unanimous decision on behalf of a three-judge panel of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled against the bans.

The unusually swift decision, issued just over a week after the court heard oral arguments in two different cases, does not take immediate effect and is unlikely do so until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in during its coming term.

The arguments advanced by both states in defense of the bans were "totally implausible," wrote Posner, 75 and the panel's lone Republican appointee.

"Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure," Posner said.

Posner has written dozens of books, including one about economics and intellectual property law. He also is a founding author of a blog on law and economics.

Two years ago he engaged in an unusual public spat with Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading conservative on the Supreme Court. In a review of Scalia's new book, Posner wrote the justice's judicial opinions deviated from the strict, text-based approach to interpreting law espoused in his book. Scalia, also appointed by Reagan, publicly disagreed.

EQUAL PROTECTION

The ruling said the bans on gay marriage in the two states violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Two other federal appeals courts have ruled the same way, striking down bans in Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma.

The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the gay marriage issue during its coming term, which starts in October and ends in June 2015.

More than 30 courts overall have ruled in favor of gay marriage since a Supreme Court ruling in June 2013 struck down a key part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act under which states could refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. A federal judge in Louisiana bucked the trend on Wednesday when he upheld that state's ban.

Gay marriage is legal in 19 of the 50 states and in Washington, D.C.

Wisconsin will appeal the ruling, said a spokeswoman for the state's attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican. “The attorney general has always believed that this case will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court," spokeswoman Dana Brueck said.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement that he will seek a suspension of the appeals court ruling and hopes for a quick decision from the Supreme Court.

Hoosiers Unite for Marriage, a gay rights group that backed the challenge to Indiana's ban, said in a statement that its members were "incredibly grateful" that the court ruled so quickly in favor of couples who want to get married.

Larry Dupuis, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, who has helped litigate the case, said he hoped state officials would "see the light on this" and end their defense of the ban.

(Additional reporting by Brendan O'Brien; Editing by Frances Kerry, Grant McCool and Howard Goller)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (29)
REnninga wrote:
So far the score is 32 federal court rulings against these bans vs. just 1 ruling in favor (in Louisiana, by an 80 year old Judge with a lengthy history of his decisions being overturned). Get it? 32:1
It is time for the US Supreme Court to accept one of these cases and put an end to this Americans vs. Americans issue, once and for all.
The equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is clear to all except the most narrow-minded and intolerant among us. So let’s stop this unseemly attempt to use our votes, and a cynical perversion of democracy and the meaning of “majority rule” to define some of our fellow Americans as lesser human beings.
Besides being wrong, it’s un-American, and that should matter to all of us.

Sep 04, 2014 4:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:
Tough week for those that try to ignore the Constitution.
Vote every republican out of every office every chance you get!

Sep 04, 2014 4:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:
The score is now 32 federal court rulings against these state bans vs. just 1 ruling in favor (in Louisiana, by an 80 year old Judge with a lengthy history of his decisions being overturned). 32:1
It is time for the US Supreme Court to accept one of these cases and put an end to this Americans vs. Americans issue, once and for all. The equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is crystal clear. So let’s stop this unseemly use of our votes — in a cynical misuse of democratic “majority rule” — as means of defining some of our fellow Americans as lesser human beings, and denying them equal rights. Besides being wrong, it’s un-American, and that should matter to all of us.

Sep 04, 2014 7:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.