UI panel discusses same-sex marriage
COEUR d'ALENE - Attendees were given a real-world look at constitutional law during a University of Idaho sponsored panel discussion focused on same-sex marriage Wednesday.
The discussion, which was broadcast from Boise to the UI-Coeur d'Alene Center, took place on Constitution Day and featured three speakers who are at the center of Idaho's same-sex marriage debate. Last week, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Latta v. Otter, a case challenging both state statute and a voter-approved change to the state's constitution that banned same-sex marriage.
Shaakirrah Sanders, an associate professor of law and the event's moderator, began the discussion by introducing Deborah Ferguson and Craig Durham, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, as well as Tom Perry, the legal counsel for Gov. Butch Otter.
"We are not expecting the panelists to discuss the merits of same-sex marriage but how constitutional law applies under the circumstance of this very public issue," Sanders said.
In his opening statement, Perry told the audience that Latta v. Otter was a good opportunity to see how constitutional law works and encouraged attendees to delve into the various court rulings on what he called a very tough decision.
"Both sides have seen some fantastic advocacy and it's really worth a look," Perry said.
When the panel was asked to discuss how the Idaho case is unique when compared to the many other states that are in appellate courts across the nation arguing the issue, Perry broke down the states into three groups.
"Some states are like Idaho in that they have a two-tier system now with both state statute and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage," Perry said. "Many took the middle-ground and just have state statutes prohibiting it. Then you have states like New York and California that allow it."
"Idaho has the most draconian of the same-sex bans out of the states being heard in the 9th Circuit," Ferguson countered, "because the door is also locked and dead-bolted since it prohibits same-sex activities as well."
After more discussion on various aspects of the issue, all three of the speakers agreed that the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to render a nationwide decision on the issue. To illustrate that point, Ferguson used the example of one of the plaintiffs in Idaho's appellate court case - a same-sex couple that legally wed in another state and moved to Idaho, where their marriage is not recognized.
"The consensus amongst all of the courts ruling on this issue is that the question needs to go to the Supreme Court," Ferguson said. "Throughout the country things have developed quickly and it's extraordinary how quickly this issue will be back in the hands of the Supreme Court."