Federal appeals court hears arguments over impact of same-sex marriage

Attorney Deborah Ferguson, left, presents arguments against the gay marriage ban in Idaho at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Monday, Sept. 8, 2014. Jeff Chiu, AP

Attorney Deborah Ferguson, left, presents arguments against the gay marriage ban in Idaho at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Monday, Sept. 8, 2014. Jeff Chiu, AP

Attorney Deborah Ferguson, left, presents arguments against the gay marriage ban in Idaho at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Monday, Sept. 8, 2014.

Video of Monday’s arguments is here

Updated: 11:30 p.m. PDT

SAN FRANCISCO — A debate over whether children would be harmed or helped by legalizing same-sex marriage was the main focus when a federal appeals court in San Francisco waded again into the issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage.

The three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – two of whom have ruled in previous cases in favor of gay rights – reserved many of their most pointed questions Monday at the defenders of state bans in Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii.

Regardless of how the court ultimately rules, many legal observers – including one of the judges on the panel – believe the issue of gay marriage is heading for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. Many are speculating the Justice Anthony Kennedy may cast the deciding vote for a Supreme Court often split 5-4.

“We all know this is going to be decided one step up,” attorney Monte Stewart told the panel after arguing in favor of gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada.

“And we all know by whom,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt said to laughter in the court, referring to Kennedy.

Judge Marsha Berzon appeared critical of Stewart, saying he was sending a message that families headed by same-sex couples were “second-rate.”

“You’re sending a message that these are less desirable families” she said. “That is what you’re doing. That is what you say you’re doing.”

Stewart said he strongly disagreed.

The hearing is the first time since it declared California‘s gay marriage ban unconstitutional that the 9th Circuit is listening to arguments over same-sex weddings in a political and legal climate that’s vastly different than when it overturned Proposition 8 in 2012. State and federal court judges have been striking down bans in more than a dozen states at a rapid rate since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year.

In defending Idaho’s ban, Stewart told the panel that same-sex marriage would undermine children’s right to be raised by a father and mother. Same-sex marriage would undercut the message that a man who fathers a child should get in a relationship with the female mother, he said.

“This is a contest between two different messages,” Stewart said. “The message of man-woman marriage is: ‘Men, you’re valuable and important in the upbringing of the children you bring into this world. Women, you are valuable and important in the upbringing of children you bring into this world.’ Genderless marriage does not send that message. Indeed, it undermines it.”

Deborah Ferguson, an attorney representing gay marriage supporters opposed to Idaho’s ban, said children of same-sex couples don’t have the same protections as children of heterosexual couples.

“(They) don’t have two legal parents to protect them,” she said. “That is sending a powerful message. That tells those children that their parents’ marriages aren’t worthy of respect. That’s a very harsh message.”

This Story Filed Under

Comments