Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban may be in trouble


Nevada is the latest state in which the ban on same-sex marriage may be in legal trouble, and it happened in a rather oblique way. The ban had been challenged in court by eight same–sex couples, four of whom had been denied marriage licenses in Nevada and four of whom had been married in other states and were demanding that Nevada recognize their marriages. The case is Sevcik v. Sandoval and the couples lost in the District Court but appealed to the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals.

Nevada’s attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto had filed a brief last Tuesday defending the ban. But also last Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit, in a ruling that did not directly involve same-sex marriage, said that the language and reasoning of the US Supreme Court ruling last summer in United States v. Windsor implied that there was a new standard of review in cases involving sexual orientation, based on the court’s interpretation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution, and that as a result it is now unconstitutional to exclude individuals from serving on juries because of their sexual orientation.

As a result, last Friday, just three days after filing her brief, Masto said that she may have to withdraw her brief because the arguments she was making may no longer be tenable in the light of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning..

Lyle Denniston has more.

Comments

  1. Wylann says

    ..and another one bites the dust.

    I think the anti-gay states might have limped along a bit longer if they hadn’t tried so hard not to honor marriages from other states, especially since they all (as far as I know) honor marriages from other states with different age of consent, for instance.

    And really…fucking Nevada is going to go all ‘sanctity of marriage’??? Really?

  2. Chiroptera says

    As a result, last Friday, just three days after filing her brief, Masto said that she may have to withdraw her brief because the arguments she was making may no longer be tenable in the light of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning..

    Holy crap! There’s a state with an attorney general who actually understand how the law is supposed to work?

    You know, with the momentum that is gathering, with both popular support in many states and also courts using the Supreme Court’s own precedents on this issue, but the time this issue makes it back to the Supreme Court, it’s really going to take Scalia levels of denial to rule against same sex marriage.

  3. says

    Hey, as long as they’re heterosexual, then it’s clear from the BAHBLE that GAWD intended for people to be married in a casino chapel by a crappy Elvis impersonator, just as they always have traditionally.

    From Paul’s Letter to Caesar’s Palace, Chapter 6:

    15. And lo, as in your father’s time, and in his father’s time, just as it was with Abraham, you shall be married in the small chapel of the Lord your God, attached to the parlour of games and myriad earthly delights.

    16. Your vows will be sworn by he who looketh like unto the King, and only the King, for He is King through divine right, and those swivelly hips and yea, also verily the sunglasses and rhinestones.

    17 Also wilt thou be given a voucher for two tickets to the Celine Dion show, a keycard for the five-shekel slots, and entry to the 24-hour breakfast buffet, as it was in the before time.

    Traditional marriage, baby!

  4. jonP says

    it is now unconstitutional to exclude individuals from serving on juries because of their sexual orientation.

    We lose one more excuse to avoid jury duty. Oh well, it’s worth it if it means equality for all citizens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *