Judge Dale’s ruling was the eleventh by a federal trial judge to nullify a state ban on same-sex marriage. And, like the others, she relied to a considerable degree on the reasoning of the Supreme Court last June in
United States v. Windsor, striking down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Although the
Windsor decision did not spell out a specific constitutional test for judging laws that treat homosexuals less favorably, Judge Dale was required to treat that ruling as having imposed a stricter test on such laws. As a trial-level judge, she had to follow a
January ruling by the Ninth Circuit interpreting the
Windsor decision as embracing a “heightened scrutiny” constitutional standard for such cases. (Idaho is a part of the Ninth Circuit’s region.)
The Idaho judge used that test in finding a denial of equal protection for same-sex couples seeking to marry or to have their existing out-of-state marriages formally recognized by the state. But Judge Dale said the Idaho ban would have failed any constitutional test, because the state had not offered valid reasons to justify it.
