Here's a link to my full story at spokesman.com on today's arguments over Idaho's invalidated same-sex marriage ban at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. After today’s arguments, attorney Deborah Ferguson, who made the arguments on behalf of four Idaho couples who challenged the ban, issued this statement:

“Today’s arguments reflected the Ninth Circuit panel’s thorough preparation and careful attention to the serious constitutional issues raised by Idaho’s discriminatory marriage laws. In the past few months, three other federal appeals courts have ruled that laws that deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry deprive their families of equal dignity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hope the Ninth Circuit will reach the same conclusion and strike down these unjust laws.”

Sue Latta, the lead plaintiff in the case, said, “Traci and I were thrilled to be able to watch our case being argued in one of our country’s most important courts. The judges clearly have studied the case very carefully, and we are hopeful the court will rule soon that the state must treat our family with the same respect as it treats other families.”

Jon Hanian, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, said, “We’re not going to have any comment beyond what was said in court.”

Deputy Idaho Attorney General Scott Zanzig said, “We’re glad to have the case submitted, and we’re appreciative of the fact that the 9^th Circuit is going to consider our appeal. I think it’s always difficult to tell just from being at the arguments how things are going to go. … We’re looking forward to a decision.”

Asked why the state opted to yield all its time for arguments to Gov. Butch Otter’s private attorney, Monte Neil Stewart, rather than split the time between Otter’s and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s attorneys – including Zanzig, who was present at the counsel table for the arguments – Zanzig said he couldn’t go into detail on that point. “In the 9^th Circuit, you get a very short time to argue, and breaking it up can be difficult on anyone being effective,” he said. “But in terms of why that choice was made … I can’t comment on pending cases.”

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia who’s been tracking same-sex marriage cases around the country, said the arguments didn’t go well for the state. “I’m glad I wasn’t trying to make those arguments,” he said. “It’s tough when it’s that difficult an argument to make. I just don’t think that those judges were going to be persuaded, and I don’t think they were.”

The state’s arguments focused on how it believed the ban was better for Idaho children in the long run; when pressed by the judges, attorney Monte Stewart suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage would be worse for Idaho kids than the proliferation of divorce that followed no-fault divorce laws. Said Tobias, “That’s not a winning argument, I don’t think.”