osodecanela | Wedding bells continue to ring....

I was tempted to title this post "Hell freezes over yet again!".

Yesterday the news out of the 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits and today the 9th. Six states have started granting marriage licenses (WI, OK, UT, VA, IN, & CO) and tomorrow at noon the Clark County Clerk in Nevada will start issuing them as well. The mandate is also affecting Idaho, and there is no stay as yet, and after the events of yesterday, I strongly expect there not to be one. This should also clear the way for marriage bans to fall in Arizona, Alaska and Montana in the weeks to come. My head is spinning. We should have marriage equality in 35 of the 50 states by X-mas, if not by Thanksgiving.

So now we wait for the shoe to fall in the Sixth. I somehow don't think we will be waiting much longer to hear, but who knows. I kinda suspected we would hear from the 9th today, although given the 95 page opinion that was handed down (and is VERY MUCH WORTH READING!!!) the timing of the rendering of this ruling today may just be happenstance. Reading the opinion of Posner when he wrote for the unanimous panel from the 7th and Reinhart, who today did the same for the 9th is a joy as well as an affirmation.

"When Virginia told Virginians that they were not free to marry the one they loved if that person was of a different race, it so grievously constrained their “freedom of choice to marry” that it violated the constitutional rights even of those citizens who did not themselves wish to enter interracial marriages or who were already married to a person of the same race. Id. When Idaho tells Idahoans or Nevada tells Nevadans that they are not free to marry the one they love if that person is of the same sex, it interferes with the universal right of all the State’s citizens—whatever their sexual orientation—to “control their destiny.""

"Fundamental rights defined with respect to the subset of people who hold them are fundamental rights mis-defined. The question before us is not whether lesbians and gays have a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex; it is whether a person has a fundamental right to marry, to enter into “the most important relation in life,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888), with the one he or she loves. Once the question is properly defined, the answer follows ineluctably: yes."

"We, as judges, deal so often with laws that confine and constrain. Yet our core legal instrument comprehends the rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to love and to marry the individuals they choose. It demands not merely toleration; when a state is in the business of marriage, it must affirm the love and commitment of same-sex couples in equal measure. Recognizing that right dignifies them; in so doing, we dignify our constitution."

and this footnote:

"He also states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs,and rock-and-roll."