Judge Upholds Nevada (Same-Sex) Marriage Ban

[Newsjock]

Source: The Advocate

A federal judge in Nevada ruled in favor of upholding the state’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday while reasoning that such laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, issued the ruling in the case, Sevcik v. Sandoval. The lead plaintiffs Beverly Sevcik, 74, and Mary Baranovich, 76, of Carson City, argued that the marriage ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The couple has been together more than 40 years, and has three children and four grandchildren.

“Jones ruled that prior Supreme Court precedent—a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, that denied a same-sex couple's marriage claim as lacking any ‘substantial federal question’ —controlled his decision,” according to Buzzfeed. “Even if not, he ruled that the ‘exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage’ was constitutional ‘(b)ecause the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest.’”

... With the more lenient rational basis established as the level of scrutiny, Judge Jones concluded that the same-sex marriage ban should be upheld. He said that if the state began to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, "it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined,” Buzzfeed reported.


Read more: http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/11/30/judge-upholds-nevada-marriage-ban

[Panasonic]

1. It'll be overturned in San Francisco - falls under the 9th Circuit court of Appeals

and the judge will get an asskicking.

Shades of the H8 amendment.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. But, This Isn't Judicial Activism

Oh yes it is. Any way it's sliced.
GAC

[broadcaster75201]

3. *shrug*

What, we thought everyone was gonna think like we do?

It's all up to SCOTUS on the cases before it. Here's hoping Kennedy votes the way he has in the past.

[Zoeisright]

14. "Think like we do"?

You mean, according to the Constitution of the United States? Which is NOT to be used to restrict rights?

[Jumping John]

4. That imcompetent scammer is a worthless judge. He allows perjury and is featured in

www.ripoffreport.com

Incompetent corrupt judge nominated by a liar - ensign - appointed by a criminal incompetent president - GW Bush

http://www.ripoffreport.com/home-owner-associations/u-s-d-c-nevada-chief/u-s-d-c-nevada-chief-judge-ro-ad406.htm

[hrmjustin]

5. Political hack!

[eggplant]

6. 1972 precedent? There have been a few things since then.

DOMA, for one, and all the rulings made since.

The wheels of justice grind slowly.

[rurallib]

7. couldn't help myself - went into a laugh spasm

reading that last paragraph.
Sounds like something from The Daily Show.

[LynneSin]

8. Other places, nicer places, people can get married other than Nevada

[starroute]

9. So once gay people are able to get married, straight people won't want to?

*That* is what he's basing his decision on?

As if marriage was some kind of fad that all the cool kids would give up as soon as the masses adopted it?

And this passes for judicial reasoning?

Truly bizarre.

[xxqqqzme]

10. "...He pointed to evidence including recent

ballot wins on marriage to reason that gay and lesbian individuals do not meet the criteria of experiencing a history of discrimination and lack of political power..."

So there - 4 out of 50 states proves there is no discrimination.

Marriage equality is no different, as a civil rights matter, than anti-miscegenation laws. Jones is a dinosaur and there is an asteroid headed his way.

[John2]

20. Since when

does ballot wins count as scientific or empirical evidence for disproving discrimination? Is the Judge asserting that for Jim Crow Laws too? I want to see the qualifications of the expert, he relied on?

[Evasporque]

11. no doubt willl appeal to the 9th Circuit of Appeals...

same as Prop 8...this may have bearing on the SCOTUS Prop 8 announcement...?

[truebrit71]

12. ..."A George W. Bush appointee"...why am i NOT surprised?

[dbackjon]

13. He needs to be impeached

He clearly doesn't have a clue about the law.

[HockeyMom]

15. Only SOME New York Marriage will be recognized in Florida

which has banned gay marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, and will not recognize those performed in other states.

My straight NY marriage will be recognized in Florida, but my daughter's gay NY marriage will NOT BE. Pick and choose which marriage you will recognize? Hello? Want to be absolutely fair, Florida, don't recognize ANY New York marriages. I DARE them to do that. They are insulting my home state.

This is so much like the Loving v. Virginia case that I cannot believe that the SC is not recognizing that.

[Swede Atlanta]

16. The 1972 case is not the appropriate precedent......

In 1972 states had not enacted legislation nor passed constitutional amendments banning same-gender marriage. Nor had Congress passed DOMA. So the facts of the 1972 case can easily be distinguished from the current case. His clerk(s) and/or he should not have passed law school if they couldn't recognize the facts in the two cases are very different, the circumstances are different, and as such the precedent should not lie.

And if you look at his decision that the issue only requires rational basis, this is totally wrong. In Loving v. Virginia which outlawed any proscriptions against inter-racial marriages, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental human right. In Loving, the Court held that issues related to marriage are subject to strict scrutiny that require:

- A compelling governmental interest (what is that interest here? If the state argues marriage is sacred and is intended to foster pro-creation, that can easily be dismissed based on the divorce rate among heterosexuals and the number of married heterosexuals that either do not pro-create or never intended to pro-create. Further studies show that same-gender households are as stable as those of opposite-gender households.

- Law must be narrowly tailored to meet the objective. Since I don't think there is a compelling governmental interest we don't need to consider this but even so since the ban applies to all same-gender "marriages" it unnecessarily includes same-gender marriages that involve the rearing of children (if we accept that marriage is essential to child rearing)

- Law must use the least restrictive means to accomplish the compelling governmental interest. Again I think there are plenty of arguments to show this is not the least restrictive means.

[John2]

19. His

reasoning is convoluted. His reasoning that same sex marriage affects Hetero sexual relationships is not based on any research or scientific evidence. The State can't point to any evidence either. And if it is based on religious beliefs, that would be UnConstitutional. If there was mal practice as a Lawyer or Judge in Federal Courts, then he should be disbarred. This is clearly discrimination because of sexual orientation.

[Mr.Bill]

17. I can see why they would be concerned about the sanctity of marriage

in a state where you can get blind drunk in a casino at four in the morning and within minutes, get married to the hooker you just met by an Elvis impersonator.

[socialindependocrat]

18. there ought to be a penalty for judges with tipsy logic

I a judge makes a ruling that is obviously skewed because of a personal point of view and not
based on the laws of the United States, he/she needs to be warned and the next time get disbarred.

As far as I'm concerned, the SCOTUS is right on the edge.

How do we fight for progress if we have a broken judicial system ?

[kxm40]

21. Latent Homosexual Tendencies

I think the judge is hiding his own feelings