Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

The legalization of gay marriage in North Dakota is approaching

December 30, 2013 - Andrea Johnson
What's the difference between Utah's constitutional ban against gay marriage and North Dakota's? Nothing, and that very likely means gay marriage will be legal in this state far sooner than most people expect.

Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Utah's ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Last week, the 10th Circuit Court in Denver turned down Utah's request for an emergency stay that would have put a halt to gay marriage in that state. Utah now plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah's constitutional amendment, passed in 2004, reads: "Marriage consists of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." North Dakota's constitutional amendment, passed by voters the same year, is identical to Utah's.

The Supreme Court has already ruled last summer that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Under that ruling, gay couples who live in states where gay marriage is legal are entitled to receive federal benefits. The Utah case ought to give the Supremes a chance to finish the job and make gay marriage legal across the whole of the United States.

Perhaps legislators will decide to be sensible and pass uniform marriage laws so that anyone who is married in one state is also married in another. That should apply equally to first cousin couples, gay couples and couples of varying ages.

Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, District of Columbia, New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, and Utah. It is illegal in other states.


Article Comments



Jan-13-14 11:30 PM

Husband and wives????

Apparently anatomy in marrige makes no differance now..

Really sick and perverted.. every one of them...


Jan-06-14 12:27 PM

The Supreme Court has issued a stay in the Utah case. It will probably end up being heard by the whole Supreme Court.


Jan-05-14 7:14 PM

What do you call the Bill of Rights?


Jan-05-14 1:31 PM

the constitution doesnt give people rights it is there to govern the goverment. and as long as it doesnt cost the taxpayer ANY MONEY. just go be as q u e e r as one wants to be, but it has already cost the taxpayer money just wasting time on it,


Jan-05-14 12:44 AM

Like it or not, it will be defined as marriage under the law and they will refer to each other as husbands and wives. Anything other than marriage will be considered a violation if the equal protection clause of the Constitution.


Jan-04-14 11:41 PM

gay unions, yes; gay marriage--physically impossible. It has nothing to do with religion-only anatomy.


Jan-04-14 10:32 PM

Yes, life is messy. There are thousands of gay couples raising kids who want to be legally married and have no desire to be cured. So, do we make laws based on the way people actually live or based on how religious people wish people live? Frankly, There is a large part of me that would be happiest with a very traditional, well ordered society with no gay marriage. I was raised Catholic. But, just as I have no doubt that my mandatory counseling idea will never come to pass and would be far too hard to enforce, I also know that gay marriage is inevitable and denying it is both unfair and unrealistic.


Jan-04-14 7:06 PM

Andrea, so you supported the mandated 12 month counseling before a divorce would be final. How would you expect to get an unwilling partner in for that counseling? Life if messy, learn to live with it.


Jan-04-14 1:04 PM

willgarr Jan-02-14 4:32 PM p orno grafic

Is that how YOU view gay marriage???????


Jan-04-14 8:17 AM

Andrea if you made the laws half the people would be counselors and the other half would be in counseling.


Jan-03-14 5:01 PM

Probably not. I think the state has a legitimate interest in promoting stable marriages and giving preferred status to married couples with the tax code.


Jan-03-14 4:30 PM

If I made the laws, I would make it both harder to get married and harder to get divorced. To get married, I'd require that couples undergo a few sessions of counseling with the counselor of their choice, religious or secular, that covered each person's position on such things as financial planning, child rearing, conflict management and other matters of import such as who will clean the kitchen, make supper and mow the lawn. Before a couple with children were permitted to get a divorce, I would also require marriage counseling and a one or two year mandated waiting period before the divorce could be finalized. I'd waive those requirements in the case of domestic violence, abuse, adultery or a felony conviction. But I'd allow gay marriage and polygamy (under the same conditions as everyone else.) It seems to me that good, stable, long lasting marriages ought to be promoted. Occasionally my more authoritarian side conflicts with my more libertarian impulses. But I don't rule the world.


Jan-03-14 3:19 PM

So why do you wish to expand failure?


Jan-03-14 1:39 PM

Wow. I leave this thread for a few days and when I come back, it's jumped the tracks faster than a train going through Casselton.


Jan-03-14 1:04 PM

PJ, marriage has been trampled, and nearly destroyed. You libs are winning the war. But for hundreds of years, long before our country came into fruition; marriage was between a man and a woman. Because there are aberrations in nature as Andrea touts, doe not mean we abolish the norms.

Jan-03-14 10:47 AM

It is a proven fact that homophobic men have latent homosexual tendencies. Whereas men who have no problems with gays do not. What can we infer with this about many posters here? Can we infer that they are closet gays themselves in denial?


Jan-02-14 3:34 PM

When liberals cannot find another source they head out to Hollywood looking for Wisdom..

Remember when they tried the celebrity game shows about 15 years ago and they had to quit becasue they found out how REALLY stupid many of these celebrities really are????


Jan-02-14 3:32 PM

John Fugelsang

Yup and Johns the first one you would catch with his dog in his bed preforming..


Jan-02-14 12:34 PM

Acceptance of a person does not mean no desire for a method to correct any abnormalities whether it be from burns, birth defects, etc.


Jan-02-14 10:54 AM

okay, abnormalities---is that better?


Jan-02-14 7:55 AM

The egg came first. The egg came from a crossbreed between two different looking birds and hatched out a chicken that is unlike either parent.

You didn't see Phil Robertson wearing a t-shirt that said gay gay gay on it did you? No it said happy happy happy.


Jan-01-14 6:07 PM

My gosh. Did I say anything against accepting homosexuals? Did I say we are to force medications or trials on minors? Once a treatment has been proved safe by the AFD officials, who is to say it would be considered any different than insulin or any other medical injections. I am for research. Society demands treatments for defects all the time, willgarr. Guess we should stop all research to save and change lives. I believe this country should lead the way in researching discoveries into what causes homosexuality.


Jan-01-14 4:35 PM

Quite possible these are Children of the Devil sent here to draw from the Word of God...


Jan-01-14 4:34 PM

God versus the sinners... God versus the people who decry the scripture in the Bible..

Who do you think in the end of your life will win?

I suspect God finsihes and Wins any War you wage against him..

Just my opinion of course.. But I'm sure not going to be the one to try my luck..


Jan-01-14 3:46 PM

At the moment, it is not possible to change sexual orientation through drug treatment or through psychiatric treatment. It would also be unethical in the extreme to try potentially dangerous drug therapies on minors and on anyone else who doesn't want it.


Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web