South Dakota Same-Sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional by Federal judge, but stayed pending appeal.

Twitter has been lighting up with a decision by Federal Judge Karen Schreier being released, and notes in part:

In Loving, the Supreme Court addressed a traditionally accepted definition of marriage that prohibited Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving from marrying. Because Virginia’s laws deprived that couple of their fundamental right to marriage, the Court struck down those laws. Little distinguishes this case from Loving. Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 20) is granted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 43) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SDCL 25-1-1, SDCL 25-1-38, Article 21, Section 9 of the South Dakota Constitution, and any other provision of state law that precludes people from marrying, or refuses to recognize an existing marriage, solely because the individuals are of the same gender are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants are enjoined from enforcing those laws or otherwise declining to issue a marriage license solely because the applicants are of the same gender.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate judgment will be entered and the effects of that judgment will be stayed until the judgment is final.

Dated January 12, 2015.

Read the decision here.

It appears that the decision is stayed, pending an appeal which is most certain to happen.  (What was I saying about that issue coming up in session?)

What do you think? And how is this going to shape legislation coming out of session?

5 Replies to “South Dakota Same-Sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional by Federal judge, but stayed pending appeal.”

  1. Jimmy LaSalvia

    This is just awesome! Finally, civil marriage for gay couples comes to South Dakota!

    While marriage and family should be decided by the states, states cannot violate the US Constitution in doing so. Every American has the constitutional right to be treated the same under the law. Now, gay South Dakotan are a step closer to that reality.

    Reply
  2. Spencer

    The same Justice Schreier who is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood is also an advocate of the homosexual agenda. I’m shocked! Just out of curiosity…someone walks into Planned Parenthood and wants an abortion out of fear of having a supposed homosexual son due to the fraternal birth order effect: how would she come down on something like that? Does her bloodlust for the unborn outweigh her depravity? Strictly from an emotionally-charged, relative constitutional viewpoint, how would she deal with such a situation?

    Reply
  3. Anne Beal

    The government needs to view marriage the way it views Baptism. It’s a rite of the church and the state shouldn’t give a hoot.
    Centuries ago Anabaptists were persecuted because they were telling people that infant baptism didn’t work, and that people who had been Baptised as infants needed to be re-Baptised. This contradicted a basic principle of the church, that only one baptism is sufficient, so the Anabaptists were accused of heresy.
    The controversy didn’t die down until the various nations’ governments decided they were wasting their time worrying about how many times people were Baptised or how old they were at the time, and decided to let the churches worry about it.

    Reply
    1. Spencer

      I wonder what other wedge issues will be left for liberals to use once this and immigration become moot points? If they were politically smart about this, they would make it a slow bleed.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.