High court deals same-sex couples another win
PHOENIX — Gay marriage proponents marked another victory on Thursday when the Supreme Court rejected appeals from Arizona and Nevada involving the rights of same-sex couples.
The justices let stand an appeals court ruling striking down an Arizona law that made state employees in same-sex relationships ineligible for domestic partner benefits. The Nevada case was a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
The court's actions came amid a landmark week for gay rights. The Supreme Court issued rulings on Wednesday that struck down a provision of a federal law that denies federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for state laws that recognize marriage equality.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer denied that Arizona had targeted gay couples and slammed the court for not recognizing the state's need to balance its budget by limiting employee benefits.
“This case has never been about domestic partners, same-sex or otherwise,” Brewer said in a statement. “It has always been about the authority of elected state officials to make decisions with which we have been entrusted by the voters.”
Arizona's constitution bans gay marriage, and a 2009 law signed by Brewer repealed domestic partner benefits for state workers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s planned trip to Ethiopia riles some emigres
- Anti-Clinton crowd looks left to Sanders
- After year of Washington legal pot sales, taxes top $70M
- Pentagon leery of Russia’s ‘hybrid warfare’
- Volunteers key in marine rescues
- Some Texans fear military training mission has ulterior motives at Obama’s direction
- After years in obscurity, Medal of Honor recipient to be reburied with military honors
- Santorum charter flight tab broke $400K
- 66 riders safely evacuated as 400-foot Ferris wheel stops in Florida
- Arizona prison says 700 inmates again ‘refusing to comply’
- Instances of hacking may be up, but indictments against Chinese military impactful, experts say