Federal judge rules SC gay marriage ban unconstitutional

The judge ruled that his order would not take effect right away, giving the state a chance to appeal.

Bruce Smith/AP/File
In this Oct. 15, 2014, file photo, Colleen Condon, left, and her partner Nichols Bleckley appear at a news conference in Charleston, S.C., shortly after filing a federal lawsuit seeking the right to marry in South Carolina. On Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2014, US District Judge Richard Gergel ruled in their favor in the case, striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional. He gave the state a week to appeal his ruling before marriage licenses will be issued.

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down South Carolina's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional, opening the door to such marriages but also giving the state a week to appeal.

US District Judge Richard Gergel, ruling in the case of a same-sex couple from Charleston who sued to be married, found South Carolina's state constitutional ban "invalid as a matter of law."

He also blocked any state official from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights to be married. But Gergel wrote that order would not take effect until noon Nov. 20, allowing Attorney General Alan Wilson a chance to appeal to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. A spokesman for Wilson said the attorney general is reviewing the order.

However, the 4th Circuit already has struck down Virginia's gay marriage ban, a ruling that applied to other states in the circuit. The US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that case last month. South Carolina is the only state in the circuit that has refused to allow such marriages.

Gergel wrote that the 4th Circuit decision is the ruling precedent in South Carolina.

The appeals court, he wrote, has "recognized a fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry and power of the federal courts to address and vindicate that right."

He added that any attempt by Wilson to overrule the decision in the Virginia case belongs in the 4th Circuit or the US Supreme Court.

The judge wrote a week's delay will give Wilson a chance to appeal or for the US Supreme Court to consider an appeal by gay marriage supporters of a decision by the 6th US Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upholding gay marriage bans in four states.

The South Carolina case was brought by Colleen Condon and Nichols Bleckley, who applied for a same-sex marriage license in Charleston County last month.

But before it could be issued, the state Supreme Court blocked issuing licenses until a federal court in Columbia ruled in another gay marriage challenge. In that case, a couple wants the state to recognize their same-sex marriage performed in Washington, D.C.

Condon and Bleckley sued to be married in Charleston after the state Supreme Court action.

Meanwhile, the nation's highest court was considering Wednesday whether to block Kansas from enforcing is ban on gay marriage while federal courts review a legal challenge.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of two lesbian couples denied marriage licenses. A federal judge ordered the state to stop enforcing its ban as of 5 p.m. Tuesday – when county courthouses were closed for Veterans Day.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt appealed to US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She put the federal judge's order on hold and gave the ACLU a chance to respond to the state's request to maintain the ban for now.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Federal judge rules SC gay marriage ban unconstitutional
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today