This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/mississippi-law-protecting-opponents-of-gay-marriage-is-blocked.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Mississippi Law Protecting Opponents of Gay Marriage Is Blocked | Mississippi Law Protecting Opponents of Gay Marriage Is Blocked |
| (about 7 hours later) | |
| A federal judge blocked — less than an hour before it was to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday — a Mississippi law that would have given a wide range of special protections only to those who oppose same-sex marriage. | A federal judge blocked — less than an hour before it was to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday — a Mississippi law that would have given a wide range of special protections only to those who oppose same-sex marriage. |
| In a 60-page ruling, Judge Carlton W. Reeves of United States District Court said the law created “a vehicle for state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” | In a 60-page ruling, Judge Carlton W. Reeves of United States District Court said the law created “a vehicle for state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” |
| And by setting aside particular beliefs for protection as opposed to religious convictions in general, the law unconstitutionally “put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others.” He concluded by issuing a preliminary injunction against the law from taking effect. | |
| Rob McDuff, a lawyer who argued against the law along with the Mississippi Center for Justice, said in a statement that “the federal court’s decision recognizes that religious freedom can be preserved along with equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” | Rob McDuff, a lawyer who argued against the law along with the Mississippi Center for Justice, said in a statement that “the federal court’s decision recognizes that religious freedom can be preserved along with equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” |
| Mississippi’s political leaders, who had staunchly defended the law, pledged to appeal. | |
| “The law simply provides religious accommodations granted by many other states and federal law,” Gov. Phil Bryant said in a statement. “I am disappointed Judge Reeves did not recognize that reality. I look forward to an aggressive appeal.” | |
| Though state legislatures across the country considered laws this year to explicitly protect those who object to same-sex marriage, Mississippi’s law, known as H.B. 1523, was the most definitive one to pass, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. | Though state legislatures across the country considered laws this year to explicitly protect those who object to same-sex marriage, Mississippi’s law, known as H.B. 1523, was the most definitive one to pass, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. |
| The measure, which was scheduled to go into effect on Friday, is not a version of a traditional religious freedom act, which gives legal backing to those who argue that a given law infringes on their beliefs. Mississippi already has such a law on the books. Instead, it would create an array of protections specifically for those who believe that marriage is only for opposite-sex couples, that sexual relations are reserved for marriage and that gender identity is determined immutably by anatomy at birth. | The measure, which was scheduled to go into effect on Friday, is not a version of a traditional religious freedom act, which gives legal backing to those who argue that a given law infringes on their beliefs. Mississippi already has such a law on the books. Instead, it would create an array of protections specifically for those who believe that marriage is only for opposite-sex couples, that sexual relations are reserved for marriage and that gender identity is determined immutably by anatomy at birth. |
| Under the law, those who act according to these beliefs in foster care, counseling, school administration, facility rentals and wedding services would be fully shielded from a host of potential government actions, including hiring or firing decisions, the charging of fees or the issuing of state contracts. | Under the law, those who act according to these beliefs in foster care, counseling, school administration, facility rentals and wedding services would be fully shielded from a host of potential government actions, including hiring or firing decisions, the charging of fees or the issuing of state contracts. |
| The law would also allow court clerks to refuse to grant wedding licenses to same-sex couples as long as accommodations were made for the applicants to receive their licenses anyway. Judge Reeves struck down that last element in a separate ruling on Monday, saying that while state officials were free to disagree with it, the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. | The law would also allow court clerks to refuse to grant wedding licenses to same-sex couples as long as accommodations were made for the applicants to receive their licenses anyway. Judge Reeves struck down that last element in a separate ruling on Monday, saying that while state officials were free to disagree with it, the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. |
| In a footnote in his ruling on Thursday night — Judge Reeves, who was appointed by President Obama and is the second African-American federal judge in Mississippi — compared Mr. Bryant’s remarks on a state’s “right to self-governance” when it comes to gay marriage to former Gov. Ross Barnett’s 1962 speech before the Legislature in which he invoked states’ rights to oppose the integration of the University of Mississippi. | |
| Mississippi’s law was condemned by civil rights activists, business groups and a number of the state’s mayors, particularly along the tourism-dependent Gulf Coast. But given its lack of Fortune 500 headquarters and its uncontested conservative political landscape, Mississippi did not face the same broad backlash as North Carolina did after passing a law restricting bathroom access for transgender people. | Mississippi’s law was condemned by civil rights activists, business groups and a number of the state’s mayors, particularly along the tourism-dependent Gulf Coast. But given its lack of Fortune 500 headquarters and its uncontested conservative political landscape, Mississippi did not face the same broad backlash as North Carolina did after passing a law restricting bathroom access for transgender people. |
| There have been multiple legal challenges with a wide array of plaintiffs: gay and straight, transgender and not. Lawyers in the case, which arose from suits filed by the Mississippi Center for Justice and the Campaign for Southern Equality, argued that the law was motivated by animus toward gay and transgender people and that it unconstitutionally endorsed and provided exclusive protection for “certain narrow religious beliefs.” | There have been multiple legal challenges with a wide array of plaintiffs: gay and straight, transgender and not. Lawyers in the case, which arose from suits filed by the Mississippi Center for Justice and the Campaign for Southern Equality, argued that the law was motivated by animus toward gay and transgender people and that it unconstitutionally endorsed and provided exclusive protection for “certain narrow religious beliefs.” |
| Lawyers for the state responded that the law did not affect the rights of gay or transgender people and that it would not favor a particular religious doctrine any more than conscientious objector laws do. | Lawyers for the state responded that the law did not affect the rights of gay or transgender people and that it would not favor a particular religious doctrine any more than conscientious objector laws do. |
| “Protection of free conscience and the free exercise of religion are legitimate and compelling governmental interests,” lawyers for the state said in a motion. It is reasonable to protect the convictions outlined in the law, they continued, “even though plaintiffs disagree with those beliefs and find them ‘offensive.’ ” | “Protection of free conscience and the free exercise of religion are legitimate and compelling governmental interests,” lawyers for the state said in a motion. It is reasonable to protect the convictions outlined in the law, they continued, “even though plaintiffs disagree with those beliefs and find them ‘offensive.’ ” |
| But Judge Reeves countered that there were already laws in Mississippi that protect religious beliefs from government interference. The difference, he said, is that those laws protect all beliefs and not specific ones, which the judge ruled would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. | But Judge Reeves countered that there were already laws in Mississippi that protect religious beliefs from government interference. The difference, he said, is that those laws protect all beliefs and not specific ones, which the judge ruled would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. |
| “If three specific beliefs are ‘protected by this act,’ it follows that every other religious belief a citizen holds is not protected by the act,” he wrote, saying that Christians who hold different views would “become second-class Christians” in Mississippi. | “If three specific beliefs are ‘protected by this act,’ it follows that every other religious belief a citizen holds is not protected by the act,” he wrote, saying that Christians who hold different views would “become second-class Christians” in Mississippi. |
| Judge Reeves also said the law would establish “a broad-based system by which L.G.B.T. persons and unmarried persons can be subjected to differential treatment based solely on their status.” | Judge Reeves also said the law would establish “a broad-based system by which L.G.B.T. persons and unmarried persons can be subjected to differential treatment based solely on their status.” |