This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/26/texas-ban-gay-marriage-unconstitutional-judge

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Texas's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, federal judge rules Texas ban on gay marriage 'demeans dignity' and is unconstitutional – judge
(35 minutes later)
A federal judge has struck down Texas’s ban on gay marriage, but is leaving it in place pending a ruling by an appeals court later this year. A federal judge on Wednesday struck down Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that it “demeans the dignity” of same-sex couples “for no legitimate reason.”
Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction on the ban Wednesday, then suspended his ruling. Two gay couples had challenged the state’s constitutional amendment and a longstanding law banning gay marriage. US district judge Orlando Garcia stayed his ruling pending an appeal by state officials, so marriage practices in the state were not set to change immediately.
Under federal court rules, a judge may suspend a law if he or she believes the plaintiffs have a strong case and will suffer if the law is enforced. In a methodically argued 48-page ruling, Garcia said that the Texas ban “conflicts with the United States constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.”
Garcia said his injunction against Texas enforcing its ban will take effect once an appeals court has a chance to rule on the issue. A US supreme court ruling last year that found a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) to be unconstitutional was central to the judge’s ruling. In United States v Windsor, the high court ruled that a federal definition of “marriage” as between a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
The ruling is the latest in a recent series of victories for gay rights activists. “Now, the lower courts must apply the supreme court’s decision in Windsor and decide whether a state can do what the federal government cannot – discriminate against same-sex couples,” Garcia wrote.
The answer was no.
The plaintiffs in the Texas suit were two couples. One was a lesbian couple who were married in Boston in 2009 and have a child together, although the non-biological mother had not undergone a formal adoption process. The second was a gay pair who have been together 17 years and are seeking to get married in Texas. Both couples include a US air force veteran.
Federal judges in recent weeks have struck down gay marriage bans in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia without trials. At least 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow marriage by same-sex couples.
Earlier this month, a district judge in Virginia found that the state’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage violated the 14th amendment. A challenge to Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriages opened on Tuesday. Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that state attorney generals would not be required by the department of justice to defend their state’s bans on same-sex marriage.
Garcia’s decision in Texas overturned a constitutional amendment that enjoyed wide approval when it was passed in 2005. Proposition 2, as the amendment was known, passed a statewide referendum by a margin of 76-24.
Garcia found the amendment to be a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection before the law. “Texas’ current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason,” Garcia wrote.
“In this case, it is clear that Plaintiffs suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment under the law on the basis of their sexual orientation, and this stigmatic harm flows directly from Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage,” Garcia wrote.
“Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration – it is a constitutional mandate,” Garcia wrote.
“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas legislature, but in compliance with the United States constitution and supreme court precedent.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.