“Homosexual persons may marry in Nevada, but like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex. That is, a homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry. Although the State appears to have drawn no distinction at all at first glance, and although the distinction drawn by the State could be characterized as gender-based, the Court finds that for the purposes of an equal protection challenge, the distinction is definitely sexual-orientation based.
“Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property. It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.” – United States District Court Judge Robert Jones
So here we have a bigoted Republican Mormon judge in a state where marriage vows are not taken very seriously at all, telling gay people who they can and can’t marry and using the logic of the 1960’s saying that blacks had the same right marry someone of the same race but not someone who is white.
A Bush appointee (are we shocked?) in August Jones held that Nevada’s election law giving voters the ability to select “None of the above” was unconstitutional. He was overruled by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 4. One member of that panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, criticized Jones’ handling of the case: “His dilatory tactics appear to serve no purpose other than to seek to prevent the state from taking an appeal of his decision before it print the ballots…. Such arrogance and assumption of power by one individual is not acceptable in our judicial system”
You just can’t make this stuff up folks. (And you wouldn’t want to.)