Jennifer Nelson January 7, 2014
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an order Monday stopping gay marriage in Utah. The justices stayed a permanent injunction that struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
“The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,†the justices wrote in the order in Herbert, Gov. of UT, et al. v. Kitchen, Derek, et al., 13A687.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, whose office asked for the stay, said in a statement, “There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation. 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.
“Utah’s Office of Attorney General is carefully evaluating the legal status of the marriages that were performed since the District Court’s decision and will not rush to a decision that impacts Utah citizens so personally.
“I believe this was a correct decision by the Supreme Court. There is an order to the legal process and this decision is just another step in that process. Both legal teams have much work to do before the case is presented before the 10th Circuit Court on an expedited basis. I believe the stay indicates an interest by the Supreme Court in this case and as I have said before, pursuing the legal process to get a final answer from the highest court benefits all citizens of Utah,†Reyes said.
More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples had gotten married since a federal judge ruled Dec. 20 that the ban on same-sex marriage violated gay and lesbian couples’ constitutional rights.
The couples should not have “married” without knowing of the permanent legality of the “marriage”.
Besides, it’s a states right issue and has no standing before SCOTUS.
The 14th amendment says otherwise. The 14th amendment was put in the constitution to stop just such an argument.
“States’s rights” have long been a pretext for bigots, segregationists, and those seeking to discriminate.
You can’t take away people’s civil and constitutional rights via a public referendum!!! Good Grief!! That would effectively be amending the constitution… ILLEGALLY.
In the DOMA majority ruling Kennedy cited the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 5th Amendment. The 14th says states cannot deny due process or equal protection either. Therefore the Courts, if they have any respect for precedent and stare decisis, MUST rule any same sex marriage ban
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
You are clearly on the wrong side of the courts Brains. A state can not write a constitutional ban that singles out a group to deny them what other groups are granted, and these amendments are held to a higher level of scrutineer, but it is perfectly legal define marriage as between one man and one woman based on the the unique attribute that only heterosexuals can procreate. They have the right to define marriage as heterosexual as much as they have a right to define marriage as between two. Adding homosexuals to the definition of marriage discriminates against other unions and those who choose to not have their unions licensed by the state.
Your UPPER CAPS do not change the facts.
I have more respect for the legal opinion of Justice Scalia than I do for yours, IE. He doesn’t agree with you.
That 14th Ammendment thing is going to pose a problem for your learned legal opinion, too.
I have as much respect for your legal opinion as you do mine. so that’s that.
TWENTY NINE states have constitutionally defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
The 14th amendment is not an axe that can be wielded to strip states of their legislative rights through court decrees.
As before, time will tell!
The Supremes will eventually weigh in on this and likely hang their hat on the 14th Amendment. Conflicting opinions from federal district judges only go on so long before the Supreme Court takes a case to reconcile the differences.
Bigotry is the only reason to deny gay folks the right to marry each other. America is passing the bigots by. They will spew, kick and scream from the curb they’ve been booted to, it will not matter. It will not seem fair to them, it never does.
I would not bet on that Bandana..marriage is a state license and issue..it will apply to all men and women equally if it states that each can only marry the opposite gender. Next on the docket will be polygamy if this is case.
The California decision, on which so many put there hope, is overturning a state constitutional amendment, and is not in the same ballpark as discrimination based on race per state statues.
IE,
I cannot procreate therefore I cannot marry??
Get over it!! It is the same old circular argument that you seem to always use.
Yes I guess he is unaware that old argument was discussed during the SCOTUS DOMA oral arguements and was dismissed with mockery and scorn along with the “skim milk” marriage argument of civil unions.
If the Courts(?) have any respect for the Constitution they must MUST decline to hear the cases in which they have NO standing. “Precedent and stare decisis” are disrepected by SCOTUS on a daily basis and are pretexts for anti-Americans to destroy our great United States of America.
Good grief!! Learn the Constitution and quit mindlessly repeating what you read in your newsletter.
And, the 14th doesn’t apply because lawyers in black robes say it does. The next group of 9 lawyers sitting in Washington can say just the opposite of this group.
Are you a lawyer?
NO, I’m more qualified. I can read and comprehend.
Is the 14th amendment in the constitution or not? If it is then it applies. Who are you Frank Luntz or George Orwell?
And does the federal constitution supercede public referendums and state constitutions or where you asleep in HS civics class?
My father taught HS civics and American history thank you very much.
Oh and the “Destroy the United States” garbage argument has been used for every bigoted diccriminatory practice you can imagine for 200 years.
List of things that were “Anti-american” and would “Destroy the United States” according to conservatives:
Ending slavery
Allowing blacks and other minorities to serve on juries, hold office and vote
Allowing women to vote
Forming unions
Ending child labor
Desegregating the Armed Forces
Desegragating the public schools
Social Security
Giving blacks and minorites civil rights
Allowing interracial marriage
Allowing girls and women to play sports(Title IX)
Allowing women in the military
Medicare/Medicaid
Electing Clinton
Electing Obama
Don’t ask Don’t tell
Ending Don’t ask Don’t tell
Allowing LGBT marriage
Well, 14th Amendement Scholar and Son Of Civics Teacher, how many of the items on your list were at one time found to be Constitutional by your holy SCOTUS? You must not have been a good student of your father to use such a lame example.
Items at one time found Constitutional:
Slavery
Not allowing blacks to vote
Child labor
Segragation of schools and the military
No Federal welfare
Civil rights for non-whites
Not allowing interracial marriaqe
Not allowing women to have combat roles in the military
Don’t ask/don’t tell
Not allowing homosexual marriage
All of these things are now unConstitutional, but the words of the Constitution haven’t changed. But the lawyers sitting on that bench in Washington, DC have changed, so what do you want to put your fate in: laws that don’t change or lawyers who do?
You left out conservatives sinking the Titanic and blowing up the space shuttle.
Just think about it. If the U. S. Constitution is the law we follow, a state could have tax money funded abortion clinics in every city, weed could be sold from state owned vending machines in Walmart, homosexuals could marry their brothers, heterosexuals could marry their sisters, and residents wouldn’t be allowed to own firearms.
And folks not wanting to live in that state could move to a state that doesn’t have those allowances.
Comments are closed.