Haven't seen any one diary this yet so here we go.
Yet again a state judge in a very red state has ruled in favor of marriage equality.
More beneath the squiggle.
Judge J. Dale Younger, a state circuit court judge in Jackson County, MO (where Kansas City, MO is located) has ruled that the state's statutory and constitutional ban on recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed out of state violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The opinion is quite blunt really. How else would you characterize a statement (unfortunately I can't seem to copy and paste and transcribing is a royal pain so my quotations will be brief) such as
Must the defendants [governor, attorney general, other state officials and the city of Kansas City] recognize out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples that are legal in the jurisdiction in which they are contracted--just as it recognizes all other similarly valid out of state marriages? Then answer is yes. To the extent [various statutes and portions of the state constitution] purport to compel to a different conclusion they are invalid.
And that's just the opening paragraph.
The decision was concluded on equal protection grounds. One aspect of the case that makes such a ruling relatively easy is that Missouri has a long history, both in practice and by law, of recognizing ALL OTHER legal out-of-state marriages, including common-law, and first-cousin marriages which the state does not permit as well as marriages involving parties that Missouri would consider under the age of consent. At least it did until the state passed laws banning marriage equality in-state and the recognition of valid out-of-state same-sex marriages and followed up those laws with a constitutional amendment in 2004. Because the change marked a significant and noteworthy departure from prior state practice the judge had an easy time finding an equal protection violation and was able to base his ruling on the sexual orientation of the plaintiffs.
One other interesting wrinkle: Kansas City provides benefits to domestic partners though it does not do so on the same level as benefits are provided to the spouses of married heterosexual employees. In fact the judge notes that in order to qualify for domestic partner benefits an applicant must provide a statement affirming under oath that they are not legally married. So any couple legally married in another state would run the risk of submitting a false statement if they were to apply for benefits available on the basis of domestic partnership.
This is of course only a partial win (as it doesn't mandate that the state issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples) and will undoubtedly be appealed. But like all of the other recent rulings it builds on the record. And in a piece of sweet irony it also finds the defendants to be liable for court costs.