Same-Sex Marriage Advocates File Lawsuits Challenging Utah and Michigan Laws

iStockPhoto.com

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the merits of California's state constitutional amendment that barred same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry because a private party could not step into the shoes of the state government of California which had refused to appealA request made after a trial by a party that has lost on one or more issues that a higher court review the decision to determine if it was correct. To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal." One who appeals is called the "appellant;" the other party is the "appellee." the lower court's decision. While this allowed lower court opinions overturning Prop 8 to stand, opening the door for same-sex marriage in California, it set no national precedentA court decision in an earlier case with facts and legal issues similar to a dispute currently before a court. Judges will generally "follow precedent" - meaning that they use the principles established in earlier cases to decide new cases that have similar facts and raise similar legal issues. A judge may disregard precedent if a party can show that the earlier case was wrongly decided, or that it differed in some significant way from the current case..

In order to obtain a ruling on the merits from the nation's high court, same-sex marriage advocates have now filed a lawsuit against Utah, which is expected to defend its voter-passed constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage (Amendment 3) at every court.

In response to the federal suit, the state of Utah is arguing that "same-sex couples, who cannot procreate, do not promote the state's interests in responsible procreation (regardless of whether they harm it)." Additionally, Utah argues that the law is not discriminatory because "neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex."

Same-sex marriage advocates are arguing in opposition that the choice of a marriage partner is a "fundamental right and liberty interest."

The courts will likely require the state to meet the standard of showing that Amendment 3 meets a compelling governmental interest. In order to do so, the state will have to identify the harm caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

A similar lawsuit is being brought in Michigan by a lesbian couple. Michigan is using a different tactic in defending its law, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA (United States v. Windsor) gives states the authority to regulate marriage.