Source: Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post
What could become the first step in a legal challenge to Colorado's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage goes to court Wednesday, while a related case asks the court overturn Amendment 43, a voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage in Colorado as the union of one man and one woman.

Kate Burns and Sheila Schroeder, of Englewood, on Monday filed suit in Denver County Court, asking that Amendment 43 be declared unconstitutional.

No hearing date has been set on the lawsuit filed Monday, but Burns, 44, and Schroeder, 43, are scheduled to appear in Denver County Court Wednesday on trespassing charges stemming from their attempt to get a marriage license.

Last year, Burns and Schroeder went to the Denver Clerk and Recorder's Office on Sept. 24 to get a marriage license.

When they were told it was unlawful under state and federal laws, they refused to leave the counter and staged a sit-in until they were cited for a misdemeanor count of trespassing.

Burns said Monday evening that she and her partner of five years, both employees at the University of Denver, were prepared to take responsibility for whatever the court hands down, including the remote possibility of jail time.

"I have no problem going to jail to fight injustice, and that's what this is," she said.

Their attorney, Mari Newman, said the case reminds her of laws that used to outlaw interracial marriage but were declared unconstitutional.

"The right to marriage is fundamental," Newman said. "The government can't be telling us who we can and cannot marry."

The motion claims the marriage ban violates the due-process requirement of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment; equal protection under the law as required by the First and 14th amendments; and the First Amendment's protection against the government establishment of a religion, claiming Amendment 43's genesis was religiously motivated.

"We hope we get a chance to make a case for what is morally and constitutionally right in this state: fair treatment and equality," said Burns, who has been with her partner five years.

"Our minister is happy to marry us, but his hands are tied."

Currently Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage, after a 4-3 decision by the state's Supreme Court in 2003 that declared such a ban unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to amend the law to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Their lawsuit also claims Amendment 43 is unconstitutional, in part, because it was "religiously motivated" and has the effect "of establishing religion."

Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who helped put the amendment on the ballot, called the suit frivolous.

"If that's the case," he said, "we can throw out most of our laws because most are based on some moral perspective, and you could argue that is a religious foundation."

"We could even throw in the Declaration of Independence on those grounds: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . Creator."

Full article: The Denver Post - Same-sex marriage ban challenge set
Women sue over marriage | Rocky Mountain News