SAN FRANCISCO — Three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are set to hear arguments Monday on gay marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii.
The hearings come as gay marriage supporters have piled up legal victories in federal courts across the country this year, nullifying bans in more than a dozen states.
On Thursday, the federal appeals court in Chicago rejected bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. Same-sex marriage opponents, however, scored a legal victory last week when a federal judge in Louisiana upheld that state’s ban.
“Until all 50 states get on board, it’s a legal battle from state to state,” said Tara Newberry, one of the plaintiffs in the Nevada case, who wants to marry her longtime partner. “The map is changing. But until the Supreme Court of the United States makes the determination, it’s state-by-state.”
The same day as the Chicago court ruled, 15 states that allow gay marriage and 17 that don’t asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all.
The Mormon church and four religious organizations also asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a statement Friday, said it joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the high court to hear Utah’s marriage case.
It was joined by The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Each teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The pro-gay marriage rulings have used the rationale the nation’s high court used in June 2013 when it invalidated the core of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for determining federal benefits.
That ruling didn’t directly address whether states can impose bans and led to an explosion of litigation.
But an increasing number of federal and state judges are adopting the court’s reasoning in the 2013 case to invalidate bans, ratcheting up pressure on the Supreme Court to address the issue directly, legal analysts say.
The 9th Circuit panel is under no deadline to rule.
