Utah asks Supreme Court to block gay marriage

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Utah asks Supreme Court to block gay marriage

Paul Foy, Associated Press 6 p.m. EST December 31, 2013

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah took its fight against gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the high court to suspend same-sex unions that became legal when a judge struck down the state's voter-approved ban.

The heavily Mormon state wants the marriages to stop while it appeals a judge's decision, which said banning gay couples from marrying violates their right to equal treatment under the law.

In papers filed Tuesday, the state asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to overturn a decision that has led to more than 900 gay marriages in Utah. Sotomayor handles emergency requests from Utah and other Rocky Mountain states.

Sotomayor responded with a request for legal briefs from same-sex couples by Friday at noon. She can act by herself or get the rest of the court involved.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/31/utah-gay-marriage/4267207/

[Fearless]

1. They won't.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

2. "Affront" to Utah? The SCOTUS must rule on an affront?

from the article linked and several others:

"Numerous same-sex marriages are now occurring every day in Utah," Utah lawyers complain in the filing. "Each one is an affront not only to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels, but also to this court's unique role as final arbiter."

affront (əˈfrʌnt)
n
1. a deliberate insult
vb (tr)
2. to insult, esp openly
3. to offend the pride or dignity of
4. to confront defiantly

Since when did The Constitution of the United States become a vehicle to smooth over the hurt feelings of one group of people? Since when does their hurt feelings trump the rights of citizens? The rights denied same sex couples (ie; hospital visitations, guardianship of children, joint income tax benefits, pension benefits, spousal insurance benefits, etc.) all have a real value.

Utah still has not shown any "emergency" caused by same-sex marriages. In fact, the Utah governor's office indicated last week that just the opposite is true (bolding mine):

Dear Cabinet,

Thanks to each of you for providing an analysis of the impacts to the operations in your respective agencies based on the recent federal district court ruling on same sex marriage. As indicated in your responses, many agencies will experience minimal or no impact.

For those agencies that now face conflicting laws either in statute or administrative rule, you should consult with the Assistant Attorney Generals assigned to your agency on the best course to resolve those conflicts. You should also advise your analyst in GOMB of the plans for addressing the conflicting laws.

Where no conflicting laws exist you should conduct business in compliance with the federal judge's ruling until such time that the current district court decision is addressed by the 10th Circuit Court.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Derek B. Miller

Chief of Staff

Governor's Office

State of Utah

"LITTLE OR NO IMPACT" is definitely NOT an emergency.

[NCLefty]

4. Isn't SCOTUS *THE* final arbiter of law in this country?

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

5. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law - big difference.

In simplest of terms the SCOTUS can really only do four things:

1. Rule that a law fits within the scope of the constitution - it remains as a law.
2. Rule that a law is unconstitutional, in full or in part - then the law or the part is no longer a law.
3. Send the case back to a lower court for a new ruling, or
4. Refuse to hear the case, at which point either decision 1 or 2 above is whatever the next lower court declared.

[Zorra]

3. Somehow I just can't see Justice Sotomayor doing anything that would be unconstitutional.

[NCLefty]

6. Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

The court issued a brief order blocking any new same-sex unions in the state.

The order grants an emergency appeal by the state following the Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

More than 900 gay and lesbian couples have married since then.

The high court order will remain in effect until the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to uphold Shelby's ruling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/utah-gay-marriage_n_4548931.html

Apparently, it's an emergency, y'all.

[DemocraticWing]

7. We had to know this was going to happen.

It's pretty established precedent by now that courts will put a stay on pro-equality decisions until they reach the highest court. I'm actually not terribly upset with it when done immediately, because it has to suck to have your marriage stuck in legal limbo like those couples in Utah do now.

Thankfully I don't think we have to worry about this until after 2015...I think this case leads to our Loving v. Virginia then.

[NCLefty]

8. Utah Will Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages That Have Already Been Performed: Governor's Office

The office of Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) said same-sex couples who were married after the state's ban on gay marriage was struck down, but before the Supreme Court halted gay marriages in the state, will not be recognized as legally married.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/utah-gay-marriage_n_4562488.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices#comments

[joeybee12]

9. What an asshole...

And not a surprise.