Appeals court: Gays have right to marry
DENVER — A federal appeals court ruled for the first time Wednesday that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, extending the movement’s legal winning streak and bringing the issue a big step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex.
The court dismissed as “wholly illogical” the notion that allowing gays to wed could somehow undermine traditional marriage.
The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban.
It becomes law in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But the panel immediately put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.
The Utah attorney general’s office planned to appeal, but it was assessing whether to go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or ask the entire 10th Circuit to review the ruling, spokeswoman Missy Larsen said.
Wednesday’s decision “takes us one step closer to reaching certainty and finality,” the office said in a statement.
After the ruling, the couples named in the appeal hugged, cried and exchanged kisses at a news conference outside their attorney’s offices in downtown Salt Lake City.
“This decision is an absolute victory for fairness and equality for all families in Utah, in every state in the 10th Circuit and every state in this great nation of the United States,” said their attorney, Peggy Tomsic.
Plaintiff Derek Kitchen said he and his partner, Moudi Sbeity, are “so proud to be a part of history.”
Later, about 300 people rallied in support of the ruling at a Salt Lake City park where rainbow flags and colorful signs were displayed proudly.
“It’s an incredible day,” said Chris Johnson, who married his partner, David Tuma, in December while gay marriage was briefly legal in Utah.
“We met 19 years ago. We are former Air Force officers. It’s wonderful after 19 years to have this relationship.”
The decision gives increased momentum to a legal cause that already has compiled an impressive record in the lower courts after the Supreme Court last year struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since then, 16 federal and state judges have issued rulings siding with gay marriage advocates.
The latest of those rulings was in Indiana, where a federal judge threw out that state’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a decision that immediately allows gay couples to wed.
The Indiana and Utah rulings came just one day ahead of the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision striking down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law.
Within hours of the Utah decision, the Boulder County, Colo., clerk announced that she would issue marriage licenses to gay couples because Colorado’s gay marriage ban would be voided if the decision stands.
The Denver Post reported more than 100 people gathered at a hastily called rally at a downtown Denver park on Wednesday evening. Several speakers praised the court’s ruling and talked about how long it took to get to this point.
Others focused on the Boulder clerk and recorder’s decision.
Ryann Peyton, who attended the rally with her partner, Sara Knickerbocker, and their 2-year-old son, said even if the marriage licenses issued by Boulder County are invalidated, couples have to follow their hearts.
“You always have to do what’s right for your family,” Peyton said.
“And if taking advantage of this appears right for your family, that’s what you should do.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, said on its website that it maintains marriage should be between a man and a woman, but believes “all people should be treated with respect.”
The Utah ruling was especially significant because it was the first appellate court to conclude that last year’s Supreme Court decision means states cannot deny gays the ability to marry.
In 2012, an appellate court struck down California’s gay marriage ban but said it was only ruling on that law, not the broader constitutional questions.
There were no such caveats in Wednesday’s 65-page decision.