Just Monday a complaint was filed in the Federal District Court, District of Arizona, by several plaintiffs against the state government in order to allow same-sex marriages in Arizona and the recognition of valid same-sex marriages from other states. See Connolly v. Brewer.

This complaint was not unexpected considering the dramatic changes that are occurring all over our country with this issue.

Over the last several years we have heard and felt a wave of change throughout our country, at least in regard to laws dealing with same-sex marriages. As the complaint aptly points out, “same-sex marriage is allowed in states where over forty percent of Americans live. Late last year, Hawaii becomes the sixteenth state to recognize same-sex marriage.” See Complaint p.2.

Whether you agree with the concept or not, and from its history, the state of Arizona does not, the issue of same-sex marriages is relevant and is gaining support.

The plaintiffs involved in this suit are same-sex couples who were either validly married outside the state of Arizona and now reside here, or live here and cannot be married because of Arizona’s law. They, as a class, are challenging Arizona’s law that prohibits same-sex marriages. The complaint alleges Arizona’s law denies these plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, equal protection of the laws of the United States and due process.

Since at least 1996 Arizona has not allowed same-sex marriages, it does not recognize these marriages as valid, whether they occurred in our state or any other state. In fact, Arizona defines marriage with these words, “A valid marriage is contracted by a male person and a female person with a proper marriage license …” See A.R.S. 25-125(A). If you review the history of our state on this issue it is obvious that both the legislature and the voters have consistently agreed same-sex marriages should be invalid.

Some would consider this “well-settled law.” This complaint is now challenging the law of Arizona because the Supreme Court issued a decision that changed the landscape of same-sex marriages.

Just this year, in a case titled United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the United States, the supreme law of the land, found that the definition of marriage in Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (aka “DOMA”) was unconstitutional. See 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013). DOMA defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman.” The Supreme Court held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Since it was the Supreme Court that held the definition was unconstitutional, then the complaint alleges Arizona’s definition is also unconstitutional. The complaint supports itself with explanations of, and citations to, precedent.

The bottom line is that the complaint makes a compelling argument that if the supreme law of the land holds the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, then Arizona’s laws that define marriage as such are also unconstitutional. This is no longer a moral argument, it is a legal one.

It has moved beyond the dinner table and into the courts. The legislature might not like it, the voters might not like it, yet the reality IS the Supreme Court has made a legal decision contrary to Arizona’s law and, as such, I predict Arizona’s current laws regarding same-sex marriages will be declared unconstitutional.