Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation
Nevada

Federal judge in Nevada denies challenge to state’s ban on same-sex marriage

Homosexuals may marry, just not each other
Thursday, November 29, 2012

LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A federal judge in Nevada has rejected a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of eight gay couples challenging the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

On Thursday, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, of the U.S. District Court in Nevada, said the state can limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Chief Judge Robert C. Jones

In its suit, Lamba Legal charged that Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and relegates same-sex couples “to only a second-class status.”

Jones, a George W. Bush appointee who is Mormon, ruled that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not “prohibit … the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships.”

“Homosexual persons may marry in Nevada, but like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex. That is, a homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry,” he wrote.

Jones also warned that marriage rights for LGBT people could lead to “an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, and single-parent families … or other unforeseen consequences,” and that “maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman” is necessary because heterosexual couples could produce children.

“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,” Jones said, in his ruling.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs signaled that the case will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.

“This is not the end of this fight,” said a spokesperson for Lambda Legal. “We will appeal and continue to fight for these loving couples, who are harmed by Nevada’s law barring marriage for same-sex couples.”

“We are confident this ruling will be overturned on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Lamda Legal, in a statement.

The ruling in Nevada comes just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court is due to consider whether it will hear any of several cases addressing marriage equality, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8.

The Nevada ruling is here.

Share this article with your friends and followers:

Archives: , , , ,

Filed under: Nevada

43 more reader comments:

  1. BOO!

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:54pm
  2. hope that judge dies a very painful public death

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:55pm
  3. This dude is a judge in a place that’s known as Sin City & he’s worried about gay marriage? Hmm – weird.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:56pm
  4. He just set himself up for having his ruling completely overruled in the Ninth Circuit.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:56pm
  5. These laws are the biggest challenge to ALL of the State’s and the Fed’s protection of equal protection. This judge needs to be impeached and removed, he obviously cannot figure out what equal protection means!

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:57pm
  6. grrr fight not over but still angry.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:58pm
  7. A George W appointee, how shocking

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:58pm
  8. What an asshole. Stating that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals–because they can still marry someone a heterosexual would marry! That’s not the point of marriage, you idiot.

    He sucks.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:59pm
  9. I call bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 9:59pm
  10. “He is in more dire need of a blow job, then any other white man I know.” Robyn Williams

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:00pm
  11. Even judges get elected.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:00pm
  12. Does he even know what he’s talking about? Seriously, the guy needs to look up the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:00pm
  13. that’s unacceptable to wish for a judge’s death. That’s not how you win hearts, mind and get people behind the cause. Please keep that in mind.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:01pm
  14. Leen Bean, that’s exactly what I was thinking. Las Vegas, a place dedicated to sex, money and debauchery, and he’s worried about the gays!

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:02pm
  15. The key is to find out what laws he used to base his ruling on and pick it apart, or find another that contradicts the one he used. The mistake is in believing decisions are all based on moral ground and not the laws, blaming the president who appointed them is old news and makes the cause weaker.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:03pm
  16. This judge needs to be removed from the bench

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:03pm
  17. what an idiot response. They can get married… But the homos have to marry opposite sex. They aren’t being denied “marriage” at all. They are just barred from marrying the people they love, is all.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:03pm
  18. oh wow dumb judge just made a challenge he soon wont forget.we will win.equal rights means equal rights to everyone.one more person one more hurdle.we got this.ppl in nevada stand up for your rights.you deserve a fair trial right?

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:03pm
  19. I hope he ends up with a gay son-in-law married to his daughter. I suspect this is another case of a public official forcing group of people to accept his religious beliefs by abuse of power. There is no valid argument to support his belief that homosexual men can marry women and thus alreayd equal by the law.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:13pm
  20. I think the 9th Circuit will probably slam this down. The same ridiculous argument was made in other cases that the 9th Circuit has ruled on in which it found the bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:25pm
  21. Wish you all could come to Canada were we try to be fair and equal! Good luck!

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:26pm
  22. just wait till the supreme court takes the cases

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:28pm
  23. Stupid!!!

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:34pm
  24. Alan, I still wonder why we keep “Land of the free” in our anthem…

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:43pm
  25. Boo

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 10:51pm
  26. I get confused with all this Anti-marriage ban? denies ban? I don’t know whether to like or not….. I guess I have to read the article. I so lazy

    Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 11:22pm
  27. It’s the same old argument to prevent GAYS from marrying GAYS! The ban has already been proven to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 12:29am
  28. WTF

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 12:58am
  29. This is the same state Harry Reid represents. Lol

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 1:13am
  30. He essentially ruled on the case without hearing a shred of constitutional evidence. He’s a coward. He knows if he heard the case, there’s nothing constitutional about the ban. He would either have to make up something to go against the constitution, or rule that it’s unconstitutional, which would piss off conservative voters.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 3:05am
  31. I would never in my life marry a female..that goes against MY beliefs and my born sexuality!!!!!!

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 3:46am
  32. he’s just a bigoted idiot. (probably hires hookers too).

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 4:15am
  33. Makes you wonder what country we really live in don’t it ?

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 5:17am
  34. Prostitution is legal, but same sex marriage is not. That’s some real family values you’ve got going on there Nevada.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 5:29am
  35. It will be over turned. His argument is purely personal bias with on legal weight behind it. As I stated on another post about this… Considering he is a moron it’s not surprising however, those heteroes who can’t have children should also be banned from getting married. After all, since they can’t procreate it wouldn’t be a “traditional institution of civil marriage” and therefore they don’t deserve the same protections under the law.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:02am
  36. On to the Supreme Court, with 2 precedents in our favor, Lawrence v. Texas and Evans v. Roemer, both majority opinions by swing Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:04am
  37. It will go to the Circuit Court and be overturned. His arguments are laughable and embarrassing to his career.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:08am
  38. With all the DOMA rulings going the way of progressive thought the fact that this dinosaur ruled against us is but a blip on the timeline. His ruling will be overturned. The inertia is for full equality, and he will not be able to stop the inevitable…

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:10am
  39. God Dammit.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:10am
  40. WOW … I was just talking to a friend about logic flying out the window when hatred gets in the way. By DEFINITION any child born to a gay/lesbian couple NOW is born out of wedlock so how do these statement even make sense?

    Jones also warned that marriage rights for LGBT people could lead to “an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, and single-parent families … or other unforeseen consequences,” and that “maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman” is necessary because heterosexual couples could produce children.

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:20am
  41. Speaking of … any idea when we may get an announcement from SCOTUS?

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:21am
  42. How sad. How is that man an impartial judge again???

    Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:53am
  43. Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 at 11:57am