It just keeps getting better. Yesterday saw marriage equality victories in Indiana and Utah (and hopeful news out of Louisiana). Once again, the well-being of children played a large part in the rulings.
In Utah, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling that said the state’s ban on same-sex couples getting married was unconstitutional. This is the first appeals court ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act in the historic Windsor ruling a year ago. The Utah ruling is stayed pending appeal, however, and the Utah attorney general’s office has said they will appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Indiana, a federal district court also ruled in favor of marriage equality, and couples in the Hoosier state were quick off the mark to get hitched.
Down in Louisiana, the federal district court judge who just heard arguments in a case about recognition of same-sex couples who wed out of state, said he intends to rule more broadly on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
As in so many marriage rulings before this (Oregon, Arkansas and Idaho, and Michigan, among others), the well-being of children played a big role in the decisions. In Indiana, Judge Richard L. Young wrote:
The purpose of marriage — to keep the couple together for the sake of their children — is served by marriage regardless of the sexes of the spouses.
And in the 10th Circuit, Judge Carlos Lucero, writing for the two concurring judges of the three-judge panel, said (citations omitted for ease of reading):
Although cohabitating same-sex couples are prohibited from jointly adopting children under Utah law as a result of the same-sex marriage ban, the record shows that nearly 3,000 Utah children are being raised by same-sex couples. Thus childrearing, a liberty closely related to the right to marry, is one exercised by same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike, as well as by single individuals.
Children of same-sex couples may lack a biological connection to at least one parent, but “biological relationships are not [the] exclusive determina[nt] of the existence of a family.” “[T]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, and from the role it plays in promoting a way of life through the instruction of children.”
As the Court in Windsor held, restrictions on same-sex marriage “humiliate[] tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples” and “make[] it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Such statutes “bring[] financial harm to children of same-sex couples . . . raise[] the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses” and “den[y] or reduce[] benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.” These laws deny to the children of same-sex couples the recognition essential to stability, predictability, and dignity. Read literally, they prohibit the grant or recognition of any rights to such a family and discourage those children from being recognized as members of a family by their peers.
If the ruling is upheld, it would apply not only to Utah, but also to all of the states within the 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court’s website, however, lists these as “Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.” Does that mean one could marry in the Montana or Idaho parts of Yellowstone? Would those two states then have to recognize those marriages? I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t answer that, but I will say that it would be a beautiful place for a wedding. Just keep the cake away from the bears.
