S. Dakota Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Same-Sex Couples Compared to Mixed-Race Couples

The Christian Post ^ | 1/13/14 | Michael Gryboski

[marshmallow]

A judge in South Dakota ruled the state constitution's definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it does not allow same-sex couples to marry.

In a decision rendered Monday, district court judge Karen E. Schreier ruled the South Dakota's Amendment C unconstitutional, but put a stay on her decision pending appeal.

Schreier drew a parallel to the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which declared interracial marriage bans unlawful.

"In Loving, the Supreme Court addressed a traditionally accepted definition of marriage that prohibited Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving from marrying," wrote Schreier.

"Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification."

In 2006, South Dakota was one of several states that passed by voter referendum a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Known as Amendment C, the ban also barred the Legislature from legally recognizing any form of same-sex couple union.

"Proposed amendment to South Dakota Constitution would define and recognize marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman," read Amendment C.

[I want the USA back]

Really stupid. Has nothing to do with discrimination.

[Rodamala]

give 'em 20 years and the headline will read:

S. Dakota Prepubescent Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Pedophile Marriage Compared to Same-Sex Couples

[Ancient Man]

What’s the gestation period in a male colon?

[Ransomed]

South Dakota only passed its amendment by 52% in 2006, one of the lowest margins, especially considering the year. Anyone from there know why it only passed by 2% back then?

When the formula for defining marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time you are going to get things like this. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130+ years ago.

FReegards

[The Great RJ]

Another case of where a vote of the people is nullified by an unelected federal judge. My bet is that within five years another unelected federal judge will legalize plural marriage

[DoodleDawg]

In Loving v. Viginia it was state laws being struck down on the grounds that they were a violation of the 14th Amendment. There was no amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage as between people of the same race. In South Dakota there is, and marriage has always been a state matter. I find it very disturbing that state Constitutions can be tossed aside like this where there is no clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

[SgtHooper]

So what! Just ignore the ruling and ban homo marriages.

[NKP_Vet]

You’re born black, you’re not born homosexual. End of story. Thank Roberts and Kennedy for destroying marriage in this country.Anyone with a brain knows marriage is about a man and woman coming together as one to bring children into the world. It has no other purpose. And children don’t come out of man’s anus. And it takes a man to make a baby not matter what the dykes want to believe. Perverted sex does not produce children. The US Supreme Court apparently thinks it does, and they also think that children do not require two parents of the difference sex to raise a child. Men not necessary in today’s feminized, braindead, politically-correct society. We are truly in our final days.

[Vaduz]

Being homosexual is a mental illness the PC mob still try to change that with all their little excuses.

[tbw2]

And the homosexual lobby ignores how many of its members were married or had kids via the traditional method, proving they could function as heterosexuals but now support the “let me do anybody I want” crowd.