Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[UVACoug]

OK, lawnerds, let's assume that the 10th circuit reverses Shelby, J. and says that Utah's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage passes constitutional muster. What happens to the couples who got married? Are those marriages still valid?

I would argue that they are, unless the 10th (or SCOTUS) explicitly declares that not only does Utah have the right to ban gay marriage, but the state never had the right to authorize gay marriages in the first place - that would be a huge leap, in my opinion. It's one thing to say a state has the right to define marriage, it's another to say that a state has no right to grant marriages, even if under court order to do so.

It's a matter of state law. The Tenth Circuit wouldn't be deciding the issue. It would likely end up being decided by the Utah Supreme Court.

[Applejack]

It's a matter of state law. The Tenth Circuit wouldn't be deciding the issue. It would likely end up being decided by the Utah Supreme Court.

I agree. The 10th/Scotus will tell us if the ban on gay marriage was constitutional or not, but the marriages that already happened will be valid until Gary H. invalidates them, the couples sue the state, and the Utah courts decide what to do with them.

[UVACoug]

I agree. The 10th/Scotus will tell us if the ban on gay marriage was constitutional or not, but the marriages that already happened will be valid until Gary H. invalidates them, the couples sue the state, and the Utah courts decide what to do with them.

Yep.

[Jacob]

It's a matter of state law. The Tenth Circuit wouldn't be deciding the issue. It would likely end up being decided by the Utah Supreme Court.

its not a difficult question the marriages would be invalid. the Law is crystal clear, if the Supreme Court says amendment 3 stands than those marriages are invalid. the same sex marriages would be no more valid than any other marriage between two beings not a man and woman. for any of those marriages to be valid the couple would have to prove that one of the partners is of the opposite sex from the other.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Clever.

[imanihonjin]

Clever.

I saw that a while ago and thought it was really stupid....but then we had that Trestin/Tristen/whateverhisnameis fasting and I now I believe this is an accurate portrayal of what happened in his home.

[falafel]

Clever.

Really?

[Jeff Lebowski]

New poll shows a majority of Utahns now support SSM:

http://blog.davidbbaker.com/2014/01/...poll-confirms/

Color me skeptical.

[Jeff Lebowski]

After years of talking about it, Utah seemed poised this year to finally pass a non-discrimination bill for housing and employment. But it looks like the recent gay marriage developments may kill the bill.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...tion-bill.html

Laura Bunker, president of United Families Utah, said her group will continue to oppose the bill because she believes there is a connection between same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination laws.

"Together, they cover more bases and ways of impacting our religious freedoms," she said, adding it's possible that a Utah nondiscrimination law could factor into the court's decision over same-sex marriage.

[byu71]

New poll shows a majority of Utahns now support SSM:

http://blog.davidbbaker.com/2014/01/...poll-confirms/

Color me skeptical.

I am skeptical too. I wouldn't be if the shift was from those opposing gay marriage to not giving a shit either way.

Some of the responses from friends who I know were opposed basically now is, I am tired of hearing about it. Hell, who cares? Maybe the pollster counted those responses as supporting gay marriage.

[Jacob]

Clever.

Now the gays are dumbing down clever? This can't stand!

[SeattleUte]

The linked article highlights the impoverished quality of Utah's arguments and some pretty crass turns of phrase in the Utah briefs. In the Supreme Court its brief refers to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association as "politically correct trade associations". I can't imagine using a term like "politically correct" in a legal brief much less in the Supreme Court, and disparaging these three iconic organizations that way is declasse.

The article also does a good job of summarizing the state's shifting positions every time it files a brief. The newest argument -- public policy says gender diverse classrooms are best for kids, so what's true for classmates must also be true for the parents of kids. What about this irony ? Utah's brief argues that gay marriage ought to be banned because diversity between parents is better for the kids. Yet a generation ago the LDS Church openly preached against interacial marriage and still does covertly in many places.

http://nyti.ms/19p83hD

I've said that ultimately gay marriage bans will be outlawed as failing to pass the rational basis test under Equal Protection case law. Utah's arguments highlight the irrationality of denying this basic liberty to gay couples.

[Jacob]

[QUOTE=SeattleUte;1062907]The linked article highlights the impoverished quality of Utah's arguments and some pretty crass turns of phrase in the Utah briefs. In the Supreme Court its brief refers to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association as "politically correct trade associations". I can't imagine using a term like "politically correct" in a legal brief much less in the Supreme Court, and disparaging these three iconic organizations that way is declasse.

The article also does a good job of summarizing the state's shifting positions every time it files a brief. The newest argument -- public policy says gender diverse classrooms are best for kids, so what's true for classmates must also be true for the parents of kids. What about this irony ? Utah's brief argues that gay marriage ought to be banned because diversity between parents is better for the kids. Yet a generation ago the LDS Church openly preached against interacial marriage and still does covertly in many places.

http://nyti.ms/19p83hD

What a lame title to that article. Of course 3 arguments are better than one in a legal brief.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What a lame title to that article. Of course 3 arguments are better than one in a legal brief.

Not three lousy arguments.

[Moliere]

The linked article highlights the impoverished quality of Utah's arguments and some pretty crass turns of phrase in the Utah briefs. In the Supreme Court its brief refers to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association as "politically correct trade associations". I can't imagine using a term like "politically correct" in a legal brief much less in the Supreme Court, and disparaging these three iconic organizations that way is declasse.

The article also does a good job of summarizing the state's shifting positions every time it files a brief. The newest argument -- public policy says gender diverse classrooms are best for kids, so what's true for classmates must also be true for the parents of kids. What about this irony ? Utah's brief argues that gay marriage ought to be banned because diversity between parents is better for the kids. Yet a generation ago the LDS Church openly preached against interacial marriage and still does covertly in many places.

http://nyti.ms/19p83hD

I've said that ultimately gay marriage bans will be outlawed as failing to pass the rational basis test under Equal Protection case law. Utah's arguments highlight the irrationality of denying this basic liberty to gay couples.