In Loving, the Supreme Court addressed a traditionally accepted definition of marriage that prohibited Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving from marrying. Because Virginia’s laws deprived that couple of their fundamental right to marriage, the Court struck down those laws. Little distinguishes this case from Loving.
Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 20) is granted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 43) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SDCL 25-1-1, SDCL 25-1-38, Article 21, § 9 of the South Dakota Constitution, and any other provision of state law that precludes people from marrying, or refuses to recognize an existing marriage, solely because the individuals are of the same gender are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate judgment will be entered and the effects of that judgment will be stayed until the judgment is final. Dated January 12, 2015.
Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier.
EDIT: I did not realise that librarisingnsf also posted about this in Kossacks for Marriage Equality.
I did look first before posting, honest (though my post is a bit longer and includes a link to the entire document issued by the District Court).
Must be my slow Internet connexion.
More below the orange bustle.
The US District Court for South Dakota struck down (but stayed its decision pending appeal) South Dakota's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
It cited numerous cases and legal theories in its decision (available at Scribd).
As I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), much of the Scribd document is impenetrable to me, but I do recognise tired arguments when I see them.
South Dakota trotted out all of the tired old arguments: it ain't traditional, slippery slope of polygamy or incest, &c.
The couples in question that brought the suit are legally married in Minnesota. One couple applied for relief when South Dakota denied one of them the right to change his name on a driver's licence, citing its constitution. Other couples that joined the suit are legally married in places like Iowa and Connecticut; South Dakota does not recognise those marriages.
They sought relief, as having ID that doesn't match your Social Security card is a demonstrable financial harm, inheritance is unequally treated, &c.
Should this go to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, that would include my state (Nebraska), which seems to be spoiling for a fight and wants to be the last state standing.
Unless South Dakota drops the case, the fight is not over.
1:51 PM MT: We know how the Party of Fiscal Responsibility is going to play this. Spend as much South Dakota tax money as possible to fight as long as possible.
They are not interested in governance. They are interested in breaking governance, and every tax dollar spent on a quixotic quest to deny equal rights and protection is a dollar they don't have to spend on education, infrastructure, or jobs.