Immoral Homosexual marriage stopped by the State
Immoral Homosexual couples in Utah, the United States Supreme Court on Monday blocked further same-sex marriages there while state officials appeal a decision allowing such unions.
The development created what Utah’s attorney general called “legal limbo” for the same-sex couples who had wed in the state in recent weeks. With the state’s ban on such unions reinstated for now, many wondered whether their window to marry in Utah had closed forever.
“As remarkable and miraculous as it was, we’re still cognizant of the fact that this still is one of the most conservative states in the union,” said Michael Ferguson, half of the first gay couple to receive a marriage license in the state. “I don’t feel a sense of despair or hopelessness or anything remotely close to that. This is part of living in a civil society where we have the rule of law.”
Although Utah had warned gay couples that their marriages could be dissolved if it succeeded in its legal appeals, the state had also begun granting benefits to newlyweds. Some state employees have already applied for health insurance for their same-sex spouses. Many of the couples are planning to file joint tax returns. And parents are planning to add their new spouses as legal parents through adoption.
Launch media viewerAttorney General Sean D. Reyes said he was examining the legal status of the recent marriages. Ravell Call/Deseret News, via Associated Press
Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Dec. 20 ruling striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage may yet be reinstated, and the Supreme Court’s brief order on Monday said only that Judge Shelby’s decision was stayed “pending final disposition of the appeal” to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver.
But a final resolution of the case will take time. The appeals court, has set a briefing schedule that concludes in late February, presumably to be followed by arguments before a three-judge panel of the court. Further appeals, to the full court and the Supreme Court, are likely.
For now, with Judge Shelby’s ruling stayed, social conservatives called on the state to set the recent marriages aside, saying they never should have been granted in the first place. Sean D. Reyes, Utah’s newly appointed attorney general, told reporters on Monday that he was “carefully evaluating the legal status” of those unions.
“There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation,” Mr. Reyes said in a statement. “This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the district court for a stay immediately after its decision. It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo.”
Judge Shelby sits on the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City. His decision had made Utah the 18th state, along with the District of Columbia, to allow same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court’s order, from the full court, offered no reasoning or hints about where the justices now stand on the momentous question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It did, however, at least temporarily halt the rapid expansion of same-sex marriage across the nation.
At most, legal experts said, the order may indicate a preference for orderly litigation that preserves the status quo while appeals proceed.
“Is it a harbinger of what the Supreme Court will do?” asked William N. Eskridge Jr., a law professor at Yale. “No, I don’t think so. We know nothing more than we did the day after” the court issued a pair of same-sex marriage decisions in June.
But gay men and lesbians recently married in Utah said the Supreme Court’s move was a sharp blow.
“It’s very disappointing,” said Brandon Mark, who was married after the December ruling. “I’m assuming we’re going to get no resolution on the question of whether our marriage is valid until the Supreme Court rules on this issue.”
Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, said the federal government and Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah, a Republican, should offer prompt guidance to same-sex couples recently married in the state.
“The court’s action leaves unanswered questions about the status of the 1,000-plus same-sex marriages contracted in Utah over the past several weeks,” Professor Leonard said. “The Obama and Herbert administrations need to advise those couples, especially as income tax filing season is imminent.”
Precedents from California point both ways on the question of what is to be done when later developments cast a shadow on same-sex marriages. In 2004, the California Supreme Court declared void thousands of licenses for same-sex marriages issued in San Francisco. In 2009, that same court upheld Proposition 8, the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, but affirmed the validity of 18,000 same-sex marriages entered into in previous months.
Federal courts in California later struck down Proposition 8, and the Supreme Court in June effectively sustained the trial court’s ruling in the case on technical grounds, without offering a view about whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
In the Proposition 8 case, the federal appeals court had stayed decisions in the case while they were appealed. In Utah, by contrast, Judge Shelbyrefused to stay his decision, as did the appeals court in Denver.
Gay rights advocates said they hoped the Supreme Court’s order was just a passing setback.
“While every day’s denial of the freedom to marry hurts, today’s decision by the Supreme Court to grant a stay in Utah is just a temporary pause in the work to win marriage for all loving and committed same-sex couples in the state,” said Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry.
Brian S. Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said he supported Monday’s Supreme Court order.
“The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless,” he said, “and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion.”
In their Supreme Court brief, Utah officials said Judge Shelby’s decision should be stayed “to minimize the enormous disruption to the state and its citizens of potentially having to ‘unwind’ thousands of same-sex marriages.” The brief did not explain why it took officials so long to ask the Supreme Court for a stay; they filed on Dec. 31, a week after the appeals court declined to issue one.
Judge Shelby was only the second federal judge to strike down a state ban on same-sex marriages, after Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco, who in 2010 struck down Proposition 8. Other states have allowed same-sex marriages as a result of ballot measures, legislative action or decisions from state courts. Utah’s ban, an amendment to the State Constitution, was passed in 2004 by 66 percent of the voters.
In urging the Supreme Court to stay Judge Shelby’s decision, state officials relied on a same-sex marriage decision issued by the Supreme Court in June, United States v. Windsor, though the officials conceded that the ruling offered support to both sides in their case.
The Windsor decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples in states that allowed such unions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, grounded his decision partly in federalism principles, saying the regulation of marriage was primarily a matter for the states.
Utah’s brief relied on that part of the Windsor ruling, saying it supported the right of voters in Utah to define who was entitled to marry in the state. But the brief also acknowledged that Justice Kennedy had expressed concern about the harm caused to the children of gay and lesbian couples by laws that demean them.
The development created what Utah’s attorney general called “legal limbo” for the same-sex couples who had wed in the state in recent weeks. With the state’s ban on such unions reinstated for now, many wondered whether their window to marry in Utah had closed forever.
“As remarkable and miraculous as it was, we’re still cognizant of the fact that this still is one of the most conservative states in the union,” said Michael Ferguson, half of the first gay couple to receive a marriage license in the state. “I don’t feel a sense of despair or hopelessness or anything remotely close to that. This is part of living in a civil society where we have the rule of law.”
Although Utah had warned gay couples that their marriages could be dissolved if it succeeded in its legal appeals, the state had also begun granting benefits to newlyweds. Some state employees have already applied for health insurance for their same-sex spouses. Many of the couples are planning to file joint tax returns. And parents are planning to add their new spouses as legal parents through adoption.
Launch media viewerAttorney General Sean D. Reyes said he was examining the legal status of the recent marriages. Ravell Call/Deseret News, via Associated Press
Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Dec. 20 ruling striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage may yet be reinstated, and the Supreme Court’s brief order on Monday said only that Judge Shelby’s decision was stayed “pending final disposition of the appeal” to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver.
But a final resolution of the case will take time. The appeals court, has set a briefing schedule that concludes in late February, presumably to be followed by arguments before a three-judge panel of the court. Further appeals, to the full court and the Supreme Court, are likely.
For now, with Judge Shelby’s ruling stayed, social conservatives called on the state to set the recent marriages aside, saying they never should have been granted in the first place. Sean D. Reyes, Utah’s newly appointed attorney general, told reporters on Monday that he was “carefully evaluating the legal status” of those unions.
“There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation,” Mr. Reyes said in a statement. “This is the uncertainty that we were trying to avoid by asking the district court for a stay immediately after its decision. It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo.”
Judge Shelby sits on the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City. His decision had made Utah the 18th state, along with the District of Columbia, to allow same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court’s order, from the full court, offered no reasoning or hints about where the justices now stand on the momentous question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It did, however, at least temporarily halt the rapid expansion of same-sex marriage across the nation.
At most, legal experts said, the order may indicate a preference for orderly litigation that preserves the status quo while appeals proceed.
“Is it a harbinger of what the Supreme Court will do?” asked William N. Eskridge Jr., a law professor at Yale. “No, I don’t think so. We know nothing more than we did the day after” the court issued a pair of same-sex marriage decisions in June.
But gay men and lesbians recently married in Utah said the Supreme Court’s move was a sharp blow.
“It’s very disappointing,” said Brandon Mark, who was married after the December ruling. “I’m assuming we’re going to get no resolution on the question of whether our marriage is valid until the Supreme Court rules on this issue.”
Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, said the federal government and Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah, a Republican, should offer prompt guidance to same-sex couples recently married in the state.
“The court’s action leaves unanswered questions about the status of the 1,000-plus same-sex marriages contracted in Utah over the past several weeks,” Professor Leonard said. “The Obama and Herbert administrations need to advise those couples, especially as income tax filing season is imminent.”
Precedents from California point both ways on the question of what is to be done when later developments cast a shadow on same-sex marriages. In 2004, the California Supreme Court declared void thousands of licenses for same-sex marriages issued in San Francisco. In 2009, that same court upheld Proposition 8, the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, but affirmed the validity of 18,000 same-sex marriages entered into in previous months.
Federal courts in California later struck down Proposition 8, and the Supreme Court in June effectively sustained the trial court’s ruling in the case on technical grounds, without offering a view about whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
In the Proposition 8 case, the federal appeals court had stayed decisions in the case while they were appealed. In Utah, by contrast, Judge Shelbyrefused to stay his decision, as did the appeals court in Denver.
Gay rights advocates said they hoped the Supreme Court’s order was just a passing setback.
“While every day’s denial of the freedom to marry hurts, today’s decision by the Supreme Court to grant a stay in Utah is just a temporary pause in the work to win marriage for all loving and committed same-sex couples in the state,” said Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry.
Brian S. Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said he supported Monday’s Supreme Court order.
“The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless,” he said, “and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion.”
In their Supreme Court brief, Utah officials said Judge Shelby’s decision should be stayed “to minimize the enormous disruption to the state and its citizens of potentially having to ‘unwind’ thousands of same-sex marriages.” The brief did not explain why it took officials so long to ask the Supreme Court for a stay; they filed on Dec. 31, a week after the appeals court declined to issue one.
Judge Shelby was only the second federal judge to strike down a state ban on same-sex marriages, after Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco, who in 2010 struck down Proposition 8. Other states have allowed same-sex marriages as a result of ballot measures, legislative action or decisions from state courts. Utah’s ban, an amendment to the State Constitution, was passed in 2004 by 66 percent of the voters.
In urging the Supreme Court to stay Judge Shelby’s decision, state officials relied on a same-sex marriage decision issued by the Supreme Court in June, United States v. Windsor, though the officials conceded that the ruling offered support to both sides in their case.
The Windsor decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples in states that allowed such unions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, grounded his decision partly in federalism principles, saying the regulation of marriage was primarily a matter for the states.
Utah’s brief relied on that part of the Windsor ruling, saying it supported the right of voters in Utah to define who was entitled to marry in the state. But the brief also acknowledged that Justice Kennedy had expressed concern about the harm caused to the children of gay and lesbian couples by laws that demean them.
