NORTH CAROLINA: State GOP To Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling To SCOTUS

Via the Washington Post:

North Carolina lawmakers said they will file a petition this week with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal regarding marriage for same-sex couples. “We’ve said all along North Carolina voters deserve to have their voices heard, and this important issue won’t ever be settled until a final decision is made by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Sen. Phil Berger (R) said in a statement. The North Carolina legislature banned marriage between same-sex couples in 1996, and in 2012, voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In November, a federal judge struck down the state’s marriage ban. “Regardless of where you stand on the ultimate issue, it is important to protect the will of the North Carolina voters who overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment,” Rep. Tim Moore (R) said in a statement.

NOM and the state GOP appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court back in November.

IDAHO: Ninth Circuit Court Denies Gov. Butch Otter's Demand For En Banc Review

After referring the issue to the full roster of nonrecused judges, the Ninth Circuit Court has denied Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's demand for an en banc rehearing of his same-sex marriage appeal. The National Center For Lesbian Rights reacts:

“The Ninth Circuit correctly recognized that there is no need to reconsider the panel’s decision that Idaho’s marriage ban violates basic constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The Ninth Circuit’s decision striking down the Idaho marriage ban is consistent with the rulings of three other federal appeals courts, which have rightly concluded that our Constitution cannot tolerate the profound harm that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry inflicts those couples and their children.”

Three judges dissented from the majority. The dissenting opinion, which goes on and on for many pages, cites the 1970 Baker V Nelson ruling.

IDAHO: Governor & AG Ask SCOTUS To Stop All Those Icky Same-Sex Marriages

Via the Associated Press:

Idaho's governor and attorney general have filed separate petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting against gay marriage and arguing that the state's case has national consequences. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Idaho since an October ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has struck down bans across the West. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's filing Friday states that the issue is a matter of a state's right to define marriage without the federal government's involvement. "This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance: Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman," Wasden said in the petition.

Last month the state was ordered to pay $400K to the lawyers for the plaintiffs who overturned Idaho's ban. (Tipped by JMG reader Rob)

IDAHO: Gov. Butch Otter Asks SCOTUS To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Appeal

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter today filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in which he demands that they hear the appeal from his state over any others.

If this Court is prepared to decide the constitutionality of state man-woman marriage laws - as amicus believes it should - it is important that the Court have before it at least one case in which state officials will vigorously defend those laws on the merits. Unless state representatives in one case are mounting such a defense — including an explanation of why the man-woman definition of marriage satisfies any form of heightened scrutiny — neither the Court nor the public can be assured that the ultimate decision will be the product of a fair contest between opponents who made the strongest possible arguments on both sides.

Although the officials in the cases now before the Court have been well represented, none has demonstrated a willingness to mount such a defense. Perhaps they believe this Court will inevitably reject all the arguments for heightened scrutiny, thus making a defense under such a standard superfluous. Or perhaps some fear (incorrectly) that a vigorous defense will impugn the parenting skills of same-sex couples and thus be offensive to gays and lesbians. Whatever the reason, these officials’ presentations have left an important viewpoint unrepresented, and it is one that needs to be vigorously presented in this Court.

That is a main reason Governor Otter respectfully suggests that the Court ensure that the Idaho case Otter v. Latta, - in which the Governor is a named party - is among the cases the Court uses as “vehicles” for deciding the constitutionality of the man-woman definition. Unlike the laws now before the Court, Idaho’s definition has been vigorously defended, in part on the ground that it satisfies the heightened scrutiny that the Ninth Circuit held applies to such laws. And unlike those cases, the Ninth Circuit in Latta purported to address Idaho’s heightened-scrutiny defense. Moreover, Latta will likely be before the Court in a very few days: Unless the Ninth Circuit quickly grants the pending petition for rehearing en banc, amicus intends to seek this Court’s review by January 5, 2015.

Read the full brief at Equality Case Files.