Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[beefytee]

Dumb question. We have been watching different states pass gay marriage laws for the last few years. But I have never noticed this happen, ie all of a sudden out of the blue a judge declares gay marriage legal or anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional or whatever and immediately they start doing gay marriages. Was Utah the first place this happened? Can I get Cliff's notes for why and how this happened?

IIRC, the other place this has happened was in Iowa where I believe their Supreme Court ruled that they must allow SSM.

Am I correct in saying this is the first time where a state has contested it that a federal court has overturned SSM bans?

One question for the lawyers. When a federal judge rules on something as broadly as this, why don't all states have to comply? i.e. Why would it be unconstitutional to block SSM in one state but not another? This doesn't seem to be an issue with the way the law was worded or some other technicality. Can other parties use this ruling to fight the law in other states or does the Supreme Court need to be involved to make it universal?

[Donuthole]

IIRC, the other place this has happened was in Iowa where I believe their Supreme Court ruled that they must allow SSM.

Am I correct in saying this is the first time where a state has contested it that a federal court has overturned SSM bans?

One question for the lawyers. When a federal judge rules on something as broadly as this, why don't all states have to comply? i.e. Why would it be unconstitutional to block SSM in one state but not another? This doesn't seem to be an issue with the way the law was worded or some other technicality. Can other parties use this ruling to fight the law in other states or does the Supreme Court need to be involved to make it universal?

A court ruling is only binding within its jurisdiction. The system is set up that way to prevent New York courts from unilaterally creating California law, to pick an extreme example. So a Utah Supreme Court ruling isn't binding on Arizona courts, because they are different jurisdictions. This actually happens within the state court system, as well. Many times we are faced with an identical issue in two cases before two different state district court judges. What one district court judge rules on the issue isn't binding on the other district court judge (in fact, most judges don't want to be told they should do something because their judicial peer did it that way). They would both be bound by the state supreme court on the issue, but if there's not a supreme court case (or an appellate court, if the state has one) on point, then there is no binding authority.

The federal court system is set up similarly. A federal district court ruling in Utah isn't binding on other federal district courts. However, if appealed to the 10th circuit, the ruling is binding upon all federal jurisdictions which fall within the 10th circuit. It still wouldn't be binding on the 9th circuit, for example. It could be cited as persuasive authority (i.e. "you should adopt the logic used by this court because it is similar to the situation in this case"), but it won't apply as binding authority to all federal circuit courts unless the SCOTUS weighs in.

Not sure if that helped at all.

[The_Douger]

A court ruling is only binding within its jurisdiction. The system is set up that way to prevent New York courts from unilaterally creating California law, to pick an extreme example. So a Utah Supreme Court ruling isn't binding on Arizona courts, because they are different jurisdictions. This actually happens within the state court system, as well. Many times we are faced with an identical issue in two cases before two different state district court judges. What one district court judge rules on the issue isn't binding on the other district court judge (in fact, most judges don't want to be told they should do something because their judicial peer did it that way). They would both be bound by the state supreme court on the issue, but if there's not a supreme court case (or an appellate court, if the state has one) on point, then there is no binding authority.

The federal court system is set up similarly. A federal district court ruling in Utah isn't binding on other federal district courts. However, if appealed to the 10th circuit, the ruling is binding upon all federal jurisdictions which fall within the 10th circuit. It still wouldn't be binding on the 9th circuit, for example. It could be cited as persuasive authority (i.e. "you should adopt the logic used by this court because it is similar to the situation in this case"), but it won't apply as binding authority to all federal circuit courts unless the SCOTUS weighs in.

Not sure if that helped at all.

So, if the 10th circuit serves Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and MOntana, they would all be subject to this decision but the states in the jurisdiction of the <insert whatever circuit court> is only binding in those particular states?

[Donuthole]

So, if the 10th circuit serves Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and MOntana, they would all be subject to this decision but the states in the jurisdiction of the <insert whatever circuit court> is only binding in those particular states?

No other state is bound by this decision, because it is not a 10th circuit decision. It is a Federal District Court of Utah decision. However, it has been appealed to the 10th circuit, and whatever the 10th decides will be binding on all federal courts in the 10th circuit. If it gets take up by the Supreme Court (which it almost certainly will), then it will have nationwide applicability.

[byu71]

No other state is bound by this decision, because it is not a 10th circuit decision. It is a Federal District Court of Utah decision. However, it has been appealed to the 10th circuit, and whatever the 10th decides will be binding on all federal courts in the 10th circuit. If it gets take up by the Supreme Court (which it almost certainly will), then it will have nation-wide applicability.

I wish they would do a poll to see if the people of the State want to spend the tax payers money to fight this beyond the 10th circuit. I am OK going that far because as I have said before, I have a problem with some guy overruling a majority of the people. If you can get 3-5 guys to do it, then so be it and move on.

[All-American]

First same-sex license was issued this morning in Utah County.

Well, great. How are we going to beat washington now?

[byu71]

No other state is bound by this decision, because it is not a 10th circuit decision. It is a Federal District Court of Utah decision. However, it has been appealed to the 10th circuit, and whatever the 10th decides will be binding on all federal courts in the 10th circuit. If it gets take up by the Supreme Court (which it almost certainly will), then it will have nation-wide applicability.

Could the courts compel BYU to allow married gay couples into school? I know BYU is a private institution, but can't a lot of private companies be compelled to treat gay married couples the same?

[The_Douger]

No other state is bound by this decision, because it is not a 10th circuit decision. It is a Federal District Court of Utah decision. However, it has been appealed to the 10th circuit, and whatever the 10th decides will be binding on all federal courts in the 10th circuit. If it gets take up by the Supreme Court (which it almost certainly will), then it will have nation-wide applicability.

thanks for clarifying. I have no idea how the courts work regarding this type of stuff.

[falafel]

No other state is bound by this decision, because it is not a 10th circuit decision. It is a Federal District Court of Utah decision. However, it has been appealed to the 10th circuit, and whatever the 10th decides will be binding on all federal courts in the 10th circuit. If it gets take up by the Supreme Court (which it almost certainly will), then it will have nationwide applicability.

Except they are still only interpreting Utah's constitutional provision, so I don't see how much direct applicability it would have to other states. There would still need to be a constitutional challenge made in those states.

[TripletDaddy]

Well, great. How are we going to beat washington now?

by relying on activist judges to overturn the will of the people!

[UVACoug]

Could the courts compel BYU to allow married gay couples into school? I know BYU is a private institution, but can't a lot of private companies be compelled to treat gay married couples the same?

That is an interesting question. BYU is a private institution, but it does get federal funding in the form of pell grants and tax exempt status. In Bob Jones University v. United States the Supreme Court held that the federal government could revoke Bob Jones University's tax exempt status for refusing to admit students that were engaged in interracial marriage. If Judge Shelby's decision stands, then there is a good chance that BYU will eventually be forced to choose between admitting same-sex couples or losing its tax exempt status.

[TripletDaddy]

That is an interesting question. BYU is a private institution, but it does get federal funding in the form of pell grants and tax exempt status. In Bob Jones University v. United States the Supreme Court held that the federal government could revoke Bob Jones University's tax exempt status for refusing to admit students that were engaged in interracial marriage. If Judge Shelby's decision stands, then there is a good chance that BYU will eventually be forced to choose between admitting same-sex couples or losing its tax exempt status.

gay marriage may lead to BYU finally being admitted into a BCS conference. yeah!

[Donuthole]

Except they are still only interpreting Utah's constitutional provision, so I don't see how much direct applicability it would have to other states. There would still need to be a constitutional challenge made in those states.

Of course. The ruling is only applicable beyond Utah insomuch as another state has a similar constitutional provision or seeks to amend their constitution to include something similar. And even then, it's only applicable when that provision or amendment becomes the subject of a lawsuit. A SCOTUS ruling isn't going to compel every state to adopt or expunge anything.

[UVACoug]

The more I read about this case, the more I am convinced that it is John Swallow's office that is most at blame for the current situation. The reasons the state lost the Tenth Circuit stay is because the state incompetently failed to ask Judge Shelby to stay any injunction before his decision was issued. Because they didn't ask for a stay until after Judge Shelby issued the injunction for the clerks to begin offering licenses, the standard for granting a stay became a lot harder to meet. Anytime you are seeking equitable relief (such as an injunction or stay), the burden of getting such relief is a lot higher if you are trying to change the status quo, as compared to trying to change the status quo. So, if the state were to ask for a stay before Judge Shelby issued his decision, they would be preserving the status quo and the standard would be lower. Because they didn't seek a stay until after the decision had been issued, their motion for stay is now seeking to change the status quo and is subject to a lot more scrutiny. Even if Judge Shelby had denied a motion to stay before the order had been issued, the Tenth Circuit would have applied the lower "preserve the status quo" standard.

Even if you are glad that Judge Shelby's decision is not stayed, you have to be disgusted at the complete incompetence of the Utah Attorney General's office here. They have no idea what they are doing. Hopefully Reyes can get things straightened out.

[UVACoug]

Of course. The ruling is only applicable beyond Utah insomuch as another state has a similar constitutional provision or seeks to amend their constitution to include something similar. And even then, it's only applicable when that provision or amendment becomes the subject of a lawsuit. A SCOTUS ruling isn't going to compel every state to adopt or expunge anything.

A SCOTUS ruling wouldn't compel every state to change its marriage laws, but it would subject state officials to liability (perhaps even personal liability) if they try to enforce marriage laws that the Court has determined are unconstitutional.