Connect with us

Breaking: Judge Rules State Has Right To Limit Marriage To Straight Couples

Published

on

var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};

Rules Government Has Interest In Keeping Marriage Between Heterosexual Couples

A federal judge in Nevada has ruled against a same-sex couple’s attempt to win marriage equality, claiming that the state of Nevada does have a legitimate interest in reserving marriage to heterosexual couples. The couple stated denying them the institution of marriage violated their equal protection rights.

Judge Robert Clive Jones, 65, appointed by George W. Bush, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

In his decision, below, Judge Jones claims that in decisions like Romer, where animus was at the center of the state’s decision to deny marriage to same-sex couples, the law can overturn that attempt.

But in this case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, the judge explained his refusal to rule in favor of the plaintiffs:

Because the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest, because the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage is rationally related to furthering that interest, and because the challenged laws neither withdraw any existing rights nor effect a broad change in the legal status or protections of homosexuals based upon pure animus, the State is entitled to summary judgment.

Overall, the judge’s ruling is clearly filled with religious-themed beliefs not based in the law, or equality, but in the Bible.

Judge Jones noted:

The conceivable benefits to society from maintaining a distinction between traditional marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships provide a rational basis for the State of Nevada to maintain the distinction, even if one result of the distinction is the stigmatization of same-sex relationships or if bias was one motivating factor.

and

Because the family is the basic societal unit, the State could have validly reasoned that the consequences of altering the traditional definition of civil marriage could be severe.

and

[T]here are additional reasons to promote the traditional institution of marriage apart from mere moral disapproval of homosexual behavior, and these reasons provide a rational basis for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in the context of civil marriage. Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule, and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman.

and

The State has not crossed the constitutional line by maintaining minor differences in civil rights and responsibilities that are not themselves fundamental rights comprising the constitutional component of the right to marriage, or by reserving the label of “marriage” for one-man–one-woman couples in a culturally and historically accurate way.

Noting the case “will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Scottie Thomaston at Prop 8 Trial Tracker adds:

The judge’s ruling against the plaintiffs was anticipated after he expressed skepticism about their case at the initial hearing. As we reported:

[]Judge Jones seemed skeptical in general about allowing any such expert testimony, saying that to do so would require him to sit “as a legislature” (14). ”This area you’re talking about,” he said, “is so broad it’s across the entire United States. You’re asking them to summarize thousands of incidences.” Attorneys, he said, should tell courts what the law is, and he specifically questioned the course of action taken by Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop 8 case in California with regard to allowing expert opinion on the changing shape of marriage in the United States and the difficulties faced by LGBT individuals.An attorney for the state of Nevada raised the point that there are currently several petitions pending with the Supreme Court on the issue of marriage equality and the Defense of Marriage Act, to which Judge Jones responded, “It makes sense to get this decided and off with the circus train.” In particular, Judge Jones noted that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Prop 8 case, in which it singled out the fact that California had extended and then withdrawn equal marriage rights from gay and lesbian couples, differentiated that case from Sevcik, since Nevada had never extended such rights.

2:12-cv-00578 #102

http://www.scribd.com/embeds/114957672/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-2hd404y9a686gqegen3z

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Unconstitutional Conspiracy’: Judge Blasts Trump Administration Officials

Published

15 hours ago

on

January 15, 2026

By

A Reagan-appointed federal judge declared that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had “conspired” to chill First Amendment rights in a case involving pro-Palestinian student protesters.

Senior Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, on Thursday said that Rubio and Noem had “failed in their duty to uphold the constitution,” as Politico’s Kyle Cheney reported.

Judge Young’s remarks were reported in real time by journalists covering the proceedings and shared on social media as the hearing unfolded.

“What happened here is an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people, to twist the laws,” Judge Young said, denouncing the lack of any actual policy. “Two cabinet secretaries conspired … they intentionally, knowing what they were doing, counseled by professionals who cautioned them, nevertheless went ahead to pick off these people with the intention that your clients would be chilled. And did so rather effectively, by the way.”

Judge Young, 85, also invoked President Donald Trump.

“The big problem in this case,” Young said, “is that the cabinet secretaries and ostensibly the president of the United States are not honoring the First Amendment.”

Young, who has served on the bench for over four decades, continued, saying, “let’s talk the truth here,” as he denounced decisions made at DHS that directed professionals to be “taken off anti-terrorist investigations.”

“They were taken off human trafficking investigations all to look up … what dirt they could find on this group … the very highest levels of the DHS decided – that’s the best use of those people.”

He called it “chapter and verse about how the government can be weaponized against a disfavored group.”

According to All Rise News editor-in-chief Adam Klasfeld, Judge Young also slammed President Trump.

“It’s fairly clear that this President believes, as an authoritarian, when he speaks, everyone, everyone, in Article II, is going to toe the line absolutely.”

According to Reuters, Judge Young indicated that he would issue an order presuming immigration actions against the plaintiffs’ members were retaliatory unless the government could prove otherwise in court.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Take Vitamins’: Johnson and White House Scramble to Keep GOP Members Showing Up

Published

17 hours ago

on

January 15, 2026

By

With a razor-thin margin, Speaker Mike Johnson is urging House Republicans to show up for work — in D.C., not their district offices — and warning their absences could hamper President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“It’s dicey some days,” Johnson told reporters. “I told everybody … ‘no risk-taking, take vitamins and stay healthy and be here,’” The Washington Post reported.

The White House is also keeping an eye on members’ attendance, and has instructed Republicans to forego appearing with President Trump if there is a House vote scheduled.

“The president does not like it when he hears about members missing votes,” one person close to Trump told the Post.

READ MORE: Trump on 2026 Midterms: ‘We Shouldn’t Even Have an Election’

At risk are bills that cannot be brought to the floor because, as happened this week, Democrats in Washington outnumbered Republicans.

One near-casualty was legislation close to the president’s long-term agenda, which had to be postponed for lack of Republicans. The bill was The Shower Act, which is officially named the “Saving Homeowners from Overregulation With Exceptional Rinsing Act.”

President Trump for years has complained about water pressure regulations, and demanded removal of requirements that lower the amount of water coming out of faucets and showerheads.

Republicans have been down several voting members this month, as the Post reported.

“One Republican missed House votes because of a car crash that left him badly bruised. Another is recovering from brain surgery, while yet another was away from Washington while caring for his wife, who is dealing with a bout of cancer,” the Post noted.

There is also the sudden resignation of U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and the sudden death of U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA).

“And then there’s Rep. Wesley Hunt. The two-term Texan lawmaker, who is in a heated GOP primary for Senate, has spent so much time on the campaign trail back home that his missed votes have become a salient issue in the race,” the Post noted.

Hunt’s absence, and that of four other GOP lawmakers, forced Speaker Johnson to pull the Shower Act from a floor vote last week.

This week, it passed.

READ MORE: House Majority Flip Could Trigger Sweeping Probes Into Trump Inner Circle: Democrat

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

House Majority Flip Could Trigger Sweeping Probes Into Trump Inner Circle: Democrat

Published

19 hours ago

on

January 15, 2026

By

If Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November, multiple investigations into senior Trump administration officials would begin, a Democratic lawmaker said.

“Stephen Miller should lawyer up,” said U.S. Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), responding to video of his remarks earlier Thursday.

Congressman Ryan had been speaking with Pablo Manríquez, the editor of Migrant Insider on Substack, who said to the New York Democrat that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller “seems to be operating sort of as a shadow president at this point.”

“Can you think of any legal liability he could face on the back end of this presidency?” Manríquez asked.

READ MORE: Trump on 2026 Midterms: ‘We Shouldn’t Even Have an Election’

“Well,” Ryan responded, “there’s gonna be legal, and I think criminal liability for multiple members of this administration, certainly including Stephen Miller.”

“They continue to just violate the law, violate the Constitution, violate our moral standing and values as Americans,” he alleged.

Ryan said that Democrats across multiple House committees “are already readying investigations … to be ready on day one, when we retake the majority, when the voice of the people are brought back here to the House.”

Democrats currently appear likely to get that chance.

According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report on Thursday, “House ratings show Dems as modest favorites for control, as Republicans would need to win two thirds of Toss Ups (67%) to keep the majority.”

Wasserman also noted that eighteen House races had moved in the Democrats’ direction.

READ MORE: ‘Chaos and Crisis’: Trump Sparks Alarm After Ramping Up Insurrection Act Threat

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.