| 
			 The hearing in an ornate century-old building in Denver, Colorado, 
			is the first at a regional U.S. appeals court since a Supreme Court 
			ruling last June forced the federal government to extend benefits to 
			same-sex married couples in states where gay marriage is legal. 
 			In cases since, eight federal judges have used that decision to rule 
			in favor of same-sex couples.
 			This new round at the next tier of the federal bench could alter 
			that trend as cases move closer to resolution at the ideologically 
			divided U.S. Supreme Court.
 			Unlike the landmark ruling on federal benefits, the cases making 
			their way through the courts now raise a more fundamental question: 
			Does the U.S. Constitution extend to same-sex couples the same right 
			to marry opposite-sex couples have?
 			Hearing Thursday's case is a panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of 
			Appeals consisting of two Republican-appointed judges and one 
			Democratic appointee. 			
			
			 
 			RAPID PROGRESS THROUGH COURTS
 			The legal fight over same-sex marriage has proceeded rapidly. In 
			2003 Massachusetts' top court declared a state constitutional right 
			to same-sex marriage, and the next year Massachusetts became the 
			first of the 50 states to begin issuing licenses to gay couples. A 
			total of 17 states plus the District of Columbia now permit same-sex 
			marriage; 33 states do not.
 			This new battle testing whether the U.S. Constitution covers gay 
			unions appears to be moving even faster. The 10th Circuit will hear 
			a challenge to an Oklahoma same-sex marriage ban on April 17 and, 
			separately, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 
			May is scheduled to take up a Virginia same-sex marriage ban.
 			By the end of the year the Supreme Court is likely to face several 
			appeals from lower courts, including from the 10th Circuit, testing 
			a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
 			Before the judges on Thursday is a law adopted by Utah voters in 
			2004 defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. 
			Three couples, one gay and two lesbian, challenged the law. The lead 
			plaintiffs are Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, who were denied a 
			marriage license by the Salt Lake County clerk's office last year.
 			A decision in the case, and in the Oklahoma dispute, could take 
			months.
 			The Kitchen case started in March 2013 and was among a handful of 
			lawsuits seeking marriage rights pending when the Supreme Court last 
			year granted federal tax and other benefits in U.S. v. Windsor. Most 
			of the estimated 50 lawsuits now working their way through the 
			courts were filed since.
 			
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			 
			CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
 			In December, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby struck down the Utah 
			law, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal 
			protection and due process of law. Relying on the high court's 
			reasoning favoring gays and lesbians, Shelby wrote that Utah's law 
			known as Amendment 3 "places same-sex couples in an unstable 
			position of being in a second-tier relationship.
 			Utah's appeal will be argued by Gene Schaerr, among a group of 
			private lawyers hired by the state. He is a former law clerk to 
			Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who last June 
			bitterly protested the 5-4 decision in U.S. v. Windsor.
 			In Schaerr's brief to the 10th Circuit, he argues the sociological 
			value of opposite-sex couples, emphasizing "that moms and dads are 
			different, not interchangeable, and that the diversity of having 
			both a mom and dad is the ideal parenting environment."
 			Representing the gay couples and urging the 10th Circuit to affirm 
			Shelby's decision will be Peggy Tomsic, a lawyer in a Salt Lake City 
			firm. Her team is being aided by the National Center on Lesbian 
			Rights, which like the ACLU and Lambda Legal have been coordinating 
			much of the new nationwide litigation.
 			More than 200 groups and individuals have submitted "friend of the 
			court" briefs, hoping to influence the judges. 			
			
			 
 			The case is Kitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al in the 10th U.S. 
			Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-4178
 			(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; editing by Howard Goller and Grant 
			McCool) 
			[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |