Utah and New Mexico this week! Yay for progress.
The Utah's judge ruling seemed really strong and was based on the Inter-racial marriage ruling from 1967, seems like if it is up-held will make it exceptionally easy for 2014 to add many more states to having gay marriage (maybe all of them?).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/192781988/2-13-cv-00217-90
Some of the more important pieces:
"...Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection anddue process under the law. The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for norational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional. ...
...The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many opposite-sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children. Under the State’s reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate. This proposition is irreconcilable with the right to liberty that the Constitution guarantees to all citizens. ...
...The State’s second argument is that the Plaintiffs are really seeking a new right, not access to an existing right. ....But the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia,388 U.S. 1 (1967). Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the race of their chosen partner. ...The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. ..."
Decision then assessed and denounced the state's rational arguments one-by-one: "Responsible Procreation," "Optimal Child-Rearing," "Proceeding with Caution [on expanding rights]," "Preserving the Traditional Definition of Marriage." -- "In its briefing and at oral argument, the State was unable to articulate a specific connection between its prohibition of same-sex marriage and any of its stated legitimate interests."
"...Plaintiffs Karen Archer and Kate Call contend that their rights to due process and equal protection are further infringed by the State’s refusal to recognize their marriage that was validly performed in Iowa. The court’s disposition of the other issues in this lawsuit renders this question moot. Utah’s current laws violate the rights of same-sex couples who were married elsewhere not because they discriminate against a subsection of same-sex couples in Utah who were validly married in another state, but because they discriminate against all same-sex couples in Utah."
--U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby