Shows & Panels
Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- American Readiness: Renewable Power and Efficiency Technologies
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Delivering the Digital Government Mission
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal News Radio's National Cyber Security Awareness Month Special Panel Discussion
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- Government Perspectives on Mobility and the Cloud
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- The New Generation of Database
- Reimagining the Next Generation of Government
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
Nevada officials won't defend gay marriage ban
Tuesday - 2/11/2014, 3:40am EST
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- In an about-face, Nevada has decided against defending its constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, the latest step in a series of battles being waged across the nation on the volatile issue.
Nevada's attorney general and governor said Monday that they won't defend the state's gay marriage ban pending before a federal appeals court, saying a recent court decision made the state's arguments "no longer defensible."
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed a motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that said Nevada's legal arguments supporting the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable in light of the court's recent ruling that said potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.
"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.
Nevada's move comes as courts around the country and the federal government have chipped away at laws that prohibit same-sex marriage and benefits in recent months. Meanwhile, some states and interest groups have rallied to defend limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.
In a one-month span from December to January, two federal judges struck down state bans on gay marriage for the same reason Nevada dropped it case, concluding that they violate the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law."
Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said he agreed with the Democratic attorney general's action.
"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court," Sandoval said in an email to The Associated Press.
While it won't mean the ban will be lifted immediately, the state's move was hailed by gay rights advocates and civil libertarians.
"This is fantastic evidence the state has recognized that equality for all people in Nevada and certainly across the country is of utmost important," said Tod Story, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
The state's move was a reversal from January, when the attorney general's office filed a lengthy brief supporting the gay marriage ban that voters approved in 2002.
Eight same-sex couples, some married for decades, sued the state, arguing that the law is unconstitutional. A federal judge in Reno upheld the law in 2012, sending it to the appeals court in San Francisco.
One of the plaintiffs, Caren Jenkins, said she was delighted by the development, though it doesn't mean gay marriages are imminent in Las Vegas' wedding chapels.
"This issue is far from resolved. The constitutionality issue still needs to be dealt with," Jenkins said. "But it certainly is something to celebrate."
Tara Borelli, senior attorney with Lambda Legal, a gay rights advocacy group that represented the couples, said Nevada's move is "a signal there's no longer any excuse to defend this discrimination."
"I think it will send a powerful message to the court that no Nevada official is willing to defend the ban any longer," she said.
Leaders with the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a conservative group that pushed for Nevada's gay marriage ban, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
In an initial brief supporting the law, the state argued that Nevada's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a legitimate state interest, "motivated by the state's desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage."
But the same day Nevada's brief was filed, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in another case that changed the legal dynamics and left the attorney general's office immediately rethinking the state's position.
The court found that potential jurors could not be excluded from jury duty based on sexual orientation, extending to gays and lesbians a civil right that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously promised only to women and racial minorities.
Nevada lawmakers last year took the first step toward repealing the constitutional ban on gay marriage. If legislators approve Senate Joint Resolution 13 again next year, it would go to voters on the 2016 ballot.
Federal courts in other states have struck down similar bans, most recently in Utah and Oklahoma. Currently, 17 states allow gay marriage.
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the cases out of Utah and Oklahoma, with hearings scheduled for both in mid-April. Experts say the rulings could represent an emerging legal consensus that will carry the issue back to the Supreme Court. Attorneys general for 10 states filed an argument Monday with the court supporting Utah's ban.