US judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban as 'state-imposed inequality'
| Washington
A federal judge in San Antonio Wednesday struck down a Texas constitutional amendment and state statutes barring same-sex couples from marrying or having their out-of-state marriages officially recognized, saying such laws violate the couples鈥� right to equal treatment.
US District Judge Orlando Garcia announced his decision two weeks after hearing arguments by lawyers for two same-sex couples challenging the Texas measures and by state officials defending those measures.
鈥淭his Court holds that Texas鈥� prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution鈥檚 guarantees of equal protection and due process,鈥� Judge Garcia declared in his 48-page opinion.
鈥淭exas鈥� current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason,鈥� he wrote.
鈥淎ccordingly, the Court finds these laws are unconstitutional and hereby grants a preliminary injunction enjoining [Texas officials] from enforcing Texas鈥� ban on same-sex marriage.鈥�
The judge said he would stay implementation of the injunction pending resolution of expected appeals.
Garcia is the fourth federal judge to strike down a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage since December. Judges in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia have issued similar decisions.
The decisions are significant because they come in conservative states that took the extra, burdensome step of enacting amendments to their state constitutions limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
All four judges who struck down the constitutional amendments were appointed by Democratic presidents. Judge Garcia was appointed by former President Clinton.
The Texas decision means that the same-sex marriage issue likely will soon be presented as an appeal to the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans. The Utah and Oklahoma cases are already on appeal at the Tenth Circuit in Denver, and the Virginia decision is heading to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond.
If the three appeals courts reach conflicting outcomes in the cases it would almost guarantee the intervention of the US Supreme Court.
Judge Garcia鈥檚 decision raises the same issues and reaches the same conclusions that each of the three other judges decided. He said the Texas ban violates the same-sex couples鈥� right to equal treatment and violates what he said was a fundamental right to marry regardless of gender orientation.
He did not cite a Supreme Court case explicitly recognizing such a right.
The judge rejected the state鈥檚 justifications for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Texas had argued that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would increase the likelihood that children would be raised by their own father and mother in a stable household. The state also argued that the limit would help encourage 鈥渞esponsible procreation鈥� among heterosexual couples.
The judge said he found no rational basis supporting to the state鈥檚 claims.
Lawyers for Texas had argued that the fundamental right to marry does not include a right to marry someone of the same sex.
The judge said the Supreme Court鈥檚 rulings in gay rights cases and a decision striking down a ban on interracial marriage established that the right to marry could not be limited.
鈥淭he Court finds that Texas cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen鈥檚 decision,鈥� he said.
Judge Garcia acknowledged that his ruling was invalidating actions by Texas voters and Texas lawmakers. But he said his role was to uphold the rights of all Texans.
鈥淭oday鈥檚 Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,鈥� he said.
鈥淲ithout a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,鈥� he said.
The case is Cleopatra De Leon v. Rick Perry (13CV982). It was heard in the San Antonio division of the Western District of Texas.
