Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Idaho Supreme Court has on Wednesday ruled against the implementation of a decision of the Court of Appeals earlier in the week which legalized same-sex marriages in Idaho and Nevada.
Reports indicate that the state has sought an injunction on the ruling because authorities plan to fight it by appealing to the 9th Circuit panel and the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Justice Anthony Kennedy has given supporters of the move until the end of Thursday to file a response to the decision.
Over 20 states in the country have ruled to permit gay marriages thus far. This week about 6 states were added to that list. The clamor for gay right has reached a high pitch over the past few years. Many pundits say the number of states in which gay marriage is legal could climb to nearly 40 by the end of the year as many legal battles over the contentious issue draw to a close.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had also applied to other states in the region, including Arizona, Alaska and Montana. Legal experts say the ruling of Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Idaho Supreme Court is also applicable to these states.
It is unclear how the plaintiffs will decide to respond to this development. However, legal experts say they are likely to file an application against the latest ruling of Justice Kennedy.
Gay couples have argued for equality in the country. According to the proponents of the legalization of gay marriages, the move will protect our core values and set millions of Americans free of "profound legal, financial, social and psychic harm."
Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt noted on Tuesday after the Appeals Court ruling that "The lesson of our constitutional history are clear: inclusion strengthens, rather than weakens, our most important institutions."
Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Idaho Supreme Court is reported to have displayed lukewarm attitude toward the subject of the legalization of gay marriages in the past. Although he is known to have been a hardline opponent to the motion in the past, last year he wrote that the Defense of Marriage Act was "invalid" as it seeks to "disparage and injure" legally married gay couples. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others," he wrote "the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
