On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge issued a decision in a South Dakota case challenging that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Karen E. Schreier ruled that the ban, enacted as a constitutional amendment in 2006, is unconstitutional. She based her decision on Loving v. Virginia:

In Loving, the Supreme Court addressed a traditionally accepted definition of marriage that prohibited Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving from marrying. Because Virginia’s laws deprived that couple of their fundamental right to marriage, the Court struck down those laws. Little distinguishes this case from Loving. Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 20) is granted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 43) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SDCL 25-1-1, SDCL 25-1-38, Article 21, § 9 of the South Dakota Constitution, and any other provision of state law that precludes people from marrying, or refuses to recognize an existing marriage, solely because the individuals are of the same gender are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants are enjoined from enforcing those laws or otherwise declining to issue a marriage license solely because the applicants are of the same gender.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate judgment will be entered and the effects of that judgment will be stayed until the judgment is final.
Dated January 12, 2015.

The case, Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, was filed in June 2014. Minneapolis attorney Joshua Newville represented the plaintiffs, and Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges officiated the wedding of the couple that initially challenged the ban.

A stay is in effect until Schreier’s judgment is finalized. “Because this case presents substantial and novel legal questions, and because there is a substantial public interest in uniformity and stability of the law, this court stays its judgment pending appeal,” Schreier wrote.

Here’s the decision:
[gview file=”http://thecolu.mn/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/sd.pdf”]

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, released a statement saying:

“Today’s ruling out of South Dakota affirms what nearly every court in the past year has held: loving and committed same-sex couples are guaranteed the freedom to marry by the U.S. Constitution. Every day of denial is a day of tangible hardships for same-sex couples and their families. The Supreme Court should take up a case as soon as possible and end marriage discrimination once and for all.”