On Tuesday, the Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit lifted the bans on gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada.
Currently, the 9th Circuit covers these 9 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The addition of Idaho and Nevada to the ranks of states allowing equal marriage would bring the total to 26. The panel of judges for the 9th Circuit for the case consisted of three judges: Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Marsha Berzon, and Judge Ronald Gould.
The decision came one day after the Supreme Court refused the appeals by 5 other states whose bans were also struck down. The 9th Circuit deemed the bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. Many find the news unsurprising due to the Supreme Court's rejection of appeals on Monday, which cleared a way for equal marriage rights in numerous states.
Nevada's final outcome for same-sex union will not happen as quickly as Idaho's, whose outcome will be decided in one week. Unless Idaho appeals to the Supreme Court and requests a hold on the decision, Tuesday's ruling will be put into effect next week. The recent pattern shown by the Supreme Court does not give confidence to proponents of traditional marriage.
The defendants of the bans argued that same-sex unions would be a detriment to society through a disruption of proper childcare. Proponents of traditional marriage stated that opposite-sex marriage provides "optimal parenting" and thus promotes child welfare.
Gay marriage advocates stated, "This proposition reflects a crass and callous view of parental love and the parental bond that is not worthy of response."
Defenders of traditional marriage also argued that the ban was not intended to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but on the ability to procreate. The opposing party claimed that regardless of the intent, the ban discriminated based upon sexual orientation and was thus unlawful.
A third point made by the defendants was the detrimental effects that same-sex unions would have on traditional marriages and relationships.
"Same-sex marriage will harm existing and especially future opposite-sex couples and their children because the message communicated by the social institution of marriage will be lost," the defendants of traditional marriage argued, according to the court opinion.
Same-sex union proponents responded by asserting, "There is no empirical support for the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage would harm-or indeed, affect-opposite-sex marriages or relationships."
After striking down the ban, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, "We, as judges, deal so often with laws that confine and constrain. Yet our core legal instrument comprehends the rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to love and to marry the individuals they choose. It demands not merely toleration; when a state is in the business of marriage, it must affirm the love and commitment of same-sex couples in equal measure. Recognizing that right dignifies them; in so doing, we dignify our Constitution."
