An Arizona District Court recently issued an emergency ruling that the state must recognize the marriage between Fred McQuire and George Martinez.   Before Martinez’s death, the partners of forty five years were married in California.   As described in this article, when Martinez was diagnosed with Prostate cancer, the two Arizona residents were married in California and filed an emergency request immediately upon their return home to have their marriage recognized by the state.

As Federal law does not award spousal social security benefits, nor veteran benefits, to surviving spouses that have been married less than nine months to a year, respectively, McQuire will not be able to stay in the couple’s home due to financial restrictions.   McQuire believes that his suit is not just about his relationship, stating, “People are being denied their rights of survivorship, their dignity, their right to live the rest of their lives in the way their spouse would want them to live.”

In his emergency motion, Judge John Sedwick states, “The court has not yet decided whether there is conflict between Arizona law and the Constitution, but the court has decided that it is probable that there is such a conflict so that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages.”   In response to the state’s argument that Arizona’s current laws that define marriage do not discriminate, Judge Sedwick “The reason why couples such as McQuire and Martinez may not marry is precisely because of their sexual orientation.”

Because he is the judge that will decide both of Arizona’s current suits that challenge the state’s current definition of marriage, Judge Sedwick’s motion to recognize McQuire and Martinez’s marriage is an important step in the fight for marriage equality.

If you or someone you know believe their civil rights have been violated,  the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Wisconsin and Indiana are the latest states to join the nation’s  movement for the  recognition of marriage equality.   Recently,  the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to strike down the states’ ban on same-sex marriage.

In his recently issued Opinion Judge for the 7th Circuit,  Richard Posner, “The argument that the states press hardest in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only reason government encourages marriage is to induce heterosexuals to marry so that there will be fewer ‘accidental births,’ which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to the the mother (unaided by the father) or to foster care.   Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.”

Judge Posner, “Many people disapproved of interracial marriage, and, more to the point, many people strongly disapproved (and still strongly disapprove) of homosexual sex, yet Loving v. Virginia invalidated state laws banning interracial marriage, and Lawrence v. Texas invalidated state laws banning homosexual acts.”

In response to Wisconsin’s argument that marriage should be dictated by what has been traditionally accepted, Judge Posner states,” Laws forbidding  black-white marriage dated back to colonial times and were found in northern as well as southern colonies and states.    Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance.   There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka’s ‘In the Penal Colony,’ and Shirley Jackson’s ‘The Lottery,’ bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that form a public-policy standpoint that are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween).   Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination -regardless of the age of the tradition.”

As this nation heads into unknown territory concerning the consequences of recognizing same-sex marriage, Loving v. Virginia gives us insight into how our  legal system has evolved and continues to do so to protect the basic freedoms of this nation’s people.    Thoughts from the past, how ever archaic and prejudiced they may have been,  should not be forgotten.    In his argument that marriage should be kept between people of the same race, a trial judge stated, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.   And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage.   The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”