Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Brooke Adams | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah's plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage case outside of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Appeals court appears split on Utah’s same-sex marriage case
First Published Apr 10 2014 08:10 am • Last Updated Apr 14 2014 01:53 pm

Denver • During Thursday morning arguments before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — regarding Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage — the judges appeared split on the issue.

There were pointed questions from the three judges — Paul J. Kelly Jr., Carlos F. Lucero and Jerome A. Holmes — about studies, jurisdiction and standard of scrutiny.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

In the end, Judge Kelly appeared squarely on the side of the state, while Lucero voiced strong concerns with the law’s impact on children and couples married elsewhere.

That could leave Holmes as the swing vote in the case, which was taken under advisement.

Most questions came from judges Holmes and Lucero. But Kelly asked the plaintiffs’ attorney hard questions about state authority.

The judges also focused on harm to children of same-sex couples and couples married out of state.

Holmes, who is African American, asked how this is different from the Loving case, which in 1967 ended the ban on interracial marriage. Holmes suggested the same-sex ban also creates a second class of people.

Attorneys on each side had 30 minutes to press their best points before the three-judge panel, with Peggy A. Tomsic asking the judges to ensure marriage equality for all and Gene C. Schaerr asking them to preserve marriage rights only for opposite-sex couples.

The state argued that children benefit from being parented by a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled in December that the ban is unconstitutional, and eight other federal district court judges have come to the same conclusion since then. But the 10th Circuit is the first appellate court to weigh in on the same-sex marriage dispute since last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, which struck down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

story continues below
story continues below

The case could have repercussions for similar bans in 32 other states.

The state has framed its defense of Amendment 3, the constitutional ban approved by Utah voters in 2004, around the idea of what’s best for children. But on the eve of the hearing, the state distanced itself from research by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, which is highlighted in briefs it filed with the court to bolster its claim that opposite-sex parenting is the "gold" standard for children.

Schaerr said the state wanted to emphasize the "limited relevance" of Regnerus’ work to Utah’s central claims about why it is necessary to ban same-sex marriage.

"The state’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents," Schaerr said in a letter filed Wednesday evening. "The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of heterosexual parents."

Schaerr then acknowledged what many social science researchers and a federal judge in Michigan recently concluded: due to flawed methodology, the study "cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."

Tomsic also argues that the case is about family: couples who want to provide for and protect each other legally, and children who are demeaned and humiliated when their parents are unable to marry and provide them with the benefits and protections associated with the civil institution.

The court has prepared an overflow room to handle the crowds expected for the hearing. But anticipation is already running high.

Hundreds of people, mostly Coloradans, gathered outside the courthouse Wednesday evening in a show of support for the Utah plaintiffs — Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity; Karen Archer and Kate Call; and Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge.

David and Deanna Hirsch of Denver attended the rally with their daughter.

"We just celebrated our 13th wedding anniversary and I can’t imagine that we should be the only ones to have that right," Deanna Hirsch said. "Everyone should have the right to celebrate their anniversaries, to create the family they want. We wanted to bring our daughter to teach her that value, that everyone has the right to love whomever they want to love."

But residents of the 10th Circuit’s home state aren’t the only ones keeping close tabs on the Utah case. Appeals are pending in four other circuit courts and whatever the 10th Circuit — which is also hearing an appeal from Oklahoma on April 17 — decides may influence how those judges view their cases.

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.