Utah judge strikes down gay marriage Ban

[Highlord Laan]

Saw that coming. The supreme court is such a pack of moral cowards that they'll never "risk setting a precedent" and anger their political paymasters.

[Simon_Jester]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 10th circuit rules in favor of Utah, can't the proponents take it back to the Supreme Court for an actual ruling? Right now they just said "Hold off on the weddings until the appeal is heard."

Oh, sorry. Got confused. I thought the case was going to the Supreme Court, or at least on an appeal that would take it there.

Instead, the fact is that the ruling comes from the state supreme court, and is being appealed to the 10th Circuit, and Utah simply went to the Supreme Court to get a stay.

[bilateralrope]

Which would be worse:
- Block gay marriages for now. Then having the ruling allow gay marriages.
- Allow gay marriages for now. Then have the ruling block them.

I'm thinking the second option would be worse, as I can't see how existing gay marriages would be allowed to remain if the final ruling goes against them and I'd hate to be told that my marriage has become invalid. Meaning that I can't read much into the stay beyond the supreme court being unsure how the appeal judge will rule.

[Omega18]

Which would be worse:
- Block gay marriages for now. Then having the ruling allow gay marriages.
- Allow gay marriages for now. Then have the ruling block them.

I'm thinking the second option would be worse, as I can't see how existing gay marriages would be allowed to remain if the final ruling goes against them and I'd hate to be told that my marriage has become invalid. Meaning that I can't read much into the stay beyond the supreme court being unsure how the appeal judge will rule.

The thing is there would be no possible way in practice that the Supreme Court would have ruled that existing marriages were invalid if the stay had not been issued and such an adverse ruling was only made by the Supreme Court. That would realistically be a 2015 ruling at which point there would simply be vastly too much chaos if previously legally valid marriages (used presumably as the basis for things like singing mortgage agreements and the like along with specific government policies including issuing green cards) were suddenly ruled to not be valid.

While your argument definitely would still theoretically legally apply as an option, there are other clear compelling legal arguments for the marriages to remain valid because there has simply never been a case not involving fraud where clearly legally valid marriages in the US were later held to be invalid. (The case where such retroactive invalidation has occurred involving gay marriages basically all involve clerk and recorders and the like issuing gay marriages without a court issuing a ruling saying they are legally allowed and a state ban on such marriages does not apply. The only exceptions to this rule are one or two cases where a gay couple got a marriage license without the clerk realizing they were issuing them to a couple which were both of the same sex.) The principle basically is the government can't take away marriage licenses since they were legally considered to be validly issued at the time. (Clearly if such things routinely occurred that would create extreme uncertainty for married couples and all sorts of uncertainly and complications for those who might count on such status when evaluating things such as the assets of the couple as part of some sort of business deal or the like.)

Even if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs suing to strike down Utah's ban on gay marriage, I would still think its much more likely the Supreme Court will hold those existing issued gay marriages to be valid. This would also have to apply with regards to state recognition to all gay Utah residents who had married out of state prior to injunction being issued (they were considered part of the previous court ruling) as well as most likely anyone out of state who had a valid gay marriage prior to the stay being issued who later moves to Utah. (The last would probably be required under general fairness rules regarding state reciprocity of such status ordinarily and not being able to discriminate against people who were not state residents as a specific date, plus simply administrative problems in determining who was a valid Utah resident during the key period in question under another policy.)

The Supreme Court basically is leaving its options open and probably trying to discourage other lower level appeals courts from not issuing stays for the moment if they make a similar ruling, although it does seem the door slightly open for invalidation of those marriages for the moment. (This may be more about the Supreme Court trying to buy some extra time and at least have the appeals court hear the case first than the court necessary ultimately deciding to rule against gay marriage.) I suspect the effective realistic possibility of those marriages being invalidated will be addressed fairly soon if Utah or some other organization within the state tries to fight recognizing them. (Essentially if they are held to be valid until the Supreme Court rules on this matter next year that is simply too long to realistically suddenly reverse things, although putting them on hold would definitely not rule out them eventually being held to be valid even with an otherwise adverse ruling.)

[Borgholio]

Utah is not recognizing gay marriages performed since the federal judge issued his initial ruling.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ourt-stay/

(CNN) – Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday.

Officials say more than a thousand marriage licenses between gay and lesbian couples were issued in the 17 days between the initial ruling and the high court's Monday order blocking enforcement.

"Based on counsel from the Attorney General's Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice," said the governor's Chief of Staff Derek Miller in a letter to cabinet officials.

"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages– that is for the courts to decide. The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."

I call foul on this one. I was always under the impression that a license issued legally must be recognized no matter what. Am I mistaken?

[Gaidin]

Utah is basically interpreting the hold as it wants to. In order to force them to recognize the marriages the court would basically have to give the state a blunt force trauma order of "you will recognize those married so far" as far as I can tell as a layman.

[Kitsune]

This is the thing I do not see. . . .
Utah's officials almost have to know that the appeals court is almost certain to find against them because they refused to put it on hold.
Let us say the the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the state wins, it only delays the fact that within ten years, maye a bit more, it will be revisisted and flipped just like Bowers v Hardwick.

[Lord MJ]

This is the thing I do not see. . . .
Utah's officials almost have to know that the appeals court is almost certain to find against them because they refused to put it on hold.
Let us say the the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the state wins, it only delays the fact that within ten years, maye a bit more, it will be revisisted and flipped just like Bowers v Hardwick.

My one concern is the court going even further to the right in the coming years. The next justice to either retire or die is Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and since she doesn't plan on retiring when Obama's president, there is a chance a Republican would appoint her successor. Which would give the conservatives a clear majority on the court.

[Kitsune]

Eve the court does pay attention to public opinion. . . .May claim not to but given a few more years, the pulse will have likely turned definitive. I think it has already turned but not sure if it is definitive yet. I think Oregon will overturn their gay marriage ban in November. Virginia at least has an outside change of overturning it as well although suspect more like 2015 or 2016.

[Pelranius]

Utah is not recognizing gay marriages performed since the federal judge issued his initial ruling.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ourt-stay/

(CNN) – Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday.

Officials say more than a thousand marriage licenses between gay and lesbian couples were issued in the 17 days between the initial ruling and the high court's Monday order blocking enforcement.

"Based on counsel from the Attorney General's Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice," said the governor's Chief of Staff Derek Miller in a letter to cabinet officials.

"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages– that is for the courts to decide. The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."

I call foul on this one. I was always under the impression that a license issued legally must be recognized no matter what. Am I mistaken?

This should be grounds for another suit (post-modernist and surreal though that may seem).

[Borgholio]

Feds say that they will recognize gay marriages performed before the stay order:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/us ... &referrer=

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday said that it would recognize as lawful the marriages of 1,300 same-sex couples in Utah, even though the state government is refusing to do so.

Wading into the fast-moving legal battle over same-sex marriage rights in one of America’s most socially conservative states, the administration posted a video on the Justice Department’s website making the announcement. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that the federal government will grant federal marriage benefits to the same-sex couples who had rushed to obtain marriage licenses after a federal judge last month unexpectedly struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder said in the video. “These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds.”

The Justice Department’s intervention added a further sense of whiplash to the highly charged dispute, which began on Dec. 20 when a Federal District Court judge, Robert J. Shelby, ruled that Utah’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated the federal Constitution.

As same-sex couples flooded county clerk offices in Utah, the state government asked a higher-court to block the order while it appealed the ruling, but a federal appeals court declined to do so and the marriages continued. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay, bringing a halt to further same-sex marriages while the litigation continues. That decision effectively left the status of those same-sex couples in legal limbo.

Then, on Wednesday, the office of the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, said that the state will not recognize as lawful the same sex marriages already licensed while it presses forward with its appeal of the ruling.

“The original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts,” Derek Miller, the chief of staff to Mr. Herbert, wrote in a memo to state officials. “It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages.”

But Mr. Holder said the federal government would not do likewise. He invoked as an historic call for equality a June ruling by the Supreme Court that struck down a ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriages that are legal under state law, saying the Justice Department was “working tirelessly to implement it in both letter and spirit.”

“In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they are in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder said. “And we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available.”