Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[rockpond]

Same-sex couples shatter marriage records in Utah

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57310957-219/sex-county-marriages-couples.html.csp

Three quarters of the more than $49,000 spent on marriage licenses in the first week same-sex marriage was legalized came from gay and lesbian couples.

By Marissa Lang

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Dec 26 2013 02:46 pm

Updated 25 minutes ago

In the week since a federal judge overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, the number of weddings in the state has skyrocketed, shattering records and accruing thousands of dollars for Utah’s 29 counties.

As of close of business Thursday, more than 1,225 marriage licenses had been issued in Utah since last Friday, according to numbers obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune. Of those, at least 74 percent were issued to gay and lesbian couples.

That’s more than 905 same-sex couples who received marriage licenses in a week punctuated by holidays and limited — in some counties — by when their clerk began to adhere to U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s order.

Marriage licenses in Utah cost between $30 and $50, depending on the county.

With an average marriage license costing $40, counties in Utah made a grand total of more than $49,000 in the three-and-a-half days most county clerk’s offices were open this week.

About three-quarters of that money came from gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses.

"It’s been really dramatic," said Weber County Clerk Ricky Hatch, who doled out 144 marriage licenses since Monday in an office that typically averages about eight per day. "I would guess on Monday we were seeing 90 percent same-sex couples. It’s dropping back now to where it’s a lower percentage."

Salt Lake County had the most marriages in the state this week, which is typical. But the numbers themselves were anything but.

Shattering a previously held record of 85 marriages in a given day, Salt Lake County handed out 353 on Monday — their first full day of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Since last Friday, Salt Lake County gave out about 705 certificates, of which more than 90 percent were same-sex couples, said Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen, who estimated that the majority of opposite-sex couples on the books were served before Judge Shelby’s ruling came down late Friday afternoon.

Davis County issued the second-largest amount of marriage licenses in the state this week — 150 total licenses — but officials said they were not tracking how many went to same-sex versus opposite-sex couples.

"It’s definitely more than we usually see," said Brian McKenzie, Davis County’s elections director who estimated the office would typically see between 45 and 60 couples in the same amount of time near the holidays. "We’re not counting same-sex couples any differently than opposite-sex couples. We treat them all the same: Enter their names into the computer and then move on and help the next couple in line."

But not all counties saw a crush of couples seeking marriages.

Several of Utah’s smaller counties had no takers at all for licenses this week. Beaver, Daggett, Emery, Piute, Rich and San Juan County — which only began accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples on Thursday — reported zero marriage licenses this week.

"We’ve literally had no one, zero," said Vicky McKee, the clerk of Daggett County, population 1,090. "There’s certainly no run on marriage licenses here."

One worker in Sevier County, which has a population of 20,700, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, marveled at how slow the clerk’s office has been.

"We’ve been offering same-sex licenses since Tuesday, but I don’t think we’ve done a single one," said the man, who asked not to be identified. "I don’t know why."

Piute, a small county of about 1,500 people in the center of the state, was the one county Thursday not granting licenses to same-sex couples.

The county wasn’t giving licenses to opposite-sex couples either.

County Clerk Valeen Brown was on vacation until Monday, officials said. So, Piute officials suspended all marriage license activity until Brown returns.

Workers in the office doubted it would make much difference.

The chances of couples breaking down the door to get married in Piute are slim to none, they said. Piute has seen only one marriage license request in the past three months, said county worker Lisa Tenney.

Utah County — which made national news this week when Shelly Eyre and her partner Cheryl Haws declared that they would sue its clerk for denying gay and lesbian couples licenses in the immediate aftermath of U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling that overturned a statewide ban on same-sex marriages — was doling out certificates Thursday to all.

According to Bryan Thompson, the county’s clerk and auditor, about 25 couples came in Thursday seeking marriage licenses. Of those, five were same-sex couples, all of whom were granted the certificates.

"Moving forward, we probably won’t keep track of how many same-sex couples versus opposite-sex couples we issue licenses to," Thompson told The Tribune. "I don’t see any reason to differentiate between them."

mlang@sltrib.com

Don't be fooled Daniel, they just want to get legally married so that they can officially be "monogamish".

[rockpond]

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. I don't think there is a growing divide as to whether SSM should be supported within the Church, I think there may be a growing divide as to whether we should be fighting against SSM outside the Church. That is a much different question.

I see the former as a theological question and the latter as a legal or political question.

Regarding the legal question, I agree, there's a growing divide. That was supported by BYU's own survey results (which I don't have at my fingertips, sorry).

Concerning the theological question, I have no evidence just my own personal experience and the various discussion groups that seem to support the idea of acceptance within the church for gay couples. I think that support for recognize SSM within the church is very small, but growing. And the past couple years we've seen prominent members (not leaders) be publicly supportive of the idea (Greg Prince, Bill Bradshaw, for example). I seem to encounter more and more members and local leaders who are also think the church could one day recognize gay marriages. I fully accept that we could all be wrong but the current trajectory is giving mixed signals.

[mtomm]

Rockpond, when you mean acceptance are you implying gay sealings or just the fact that gays would be welcome and participate in all things except a temple sealing?

[Stone holm]

I see the former as a theological question and the latter as a legal or political question.

Regarding the legal question, I agree, there's a growing divide. That was supported by BYU's own survey results (which I don't have at my fingertips, sorry).

Concerning the theological question, I have no evidence just my own personal experience and the various discussion groups that seem to support the idea of acceptance within the church for gay couples. I think that support for recognize SSM within the church is very small, but growing. And the past couple years we've seen prominent members (not leaders) be publicly supportive of the idea (Greg Prince, Bill Bradshaw, for example). I seem to encounter more and more members and local leaders who are also think the church could one day recognize gay marriages. I fully accept that we could all be wrong but the current trajectory is giving mixed signals.

I believe that group to be not small, but microscopic. Although I believe you will see a change in the gender stereotyping, that is the big change that is looming in the future as the present generation of leadership dies out and our policies become non sustainable. With regards to SSM, we will eventually have to drop the political campaign...the sooner the better if we do not want to be isolated and marginalized, we can retain our beliefs and doctrines, but only if we exit the crusade sooner rather than later. Otherwise, things will get nasty.

[Kenngo1969]

I live in Alabama in the 1960's. Everyone rode in a school bus. The white kids were bused to the white school and the black kids were bused passed the white school to a very inferior black school. Separate But Equal were not equal.

You have a time machine?  That'd be cool.  (And no, I don't mean to make light of the very real, pernicious evils of segregation.) Had your fingers or your eyes not betrayed you, I assume you meant to say that you lived in Alabama in the 1960s.  You know me, though: I can never let a good typo go unnoticed or unridiculed.  Sorry.)

 

P.S.:  Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, anyone?

[Calm]

You have a time machine? That'd be cool. (And no, I don't mean to make light of the very real, pernicious evils of segregation.) Had your fingers or your eyes not betrayed you, I assume you meant to say that you lived in Alabama in the 1960s. You know me, though: I can never let a good typo go unnoticed or unridiculed. Sorry.)

P.S.: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, anyone?

K R should have ended his career with that movie, all downhill from there. ....but I am thinking of another thread in Social so won't continue with that thought.

[thesometimesaint]

You have a time machine?  That'd be cool.  (And no, I don't mean to make light of the very real, pernicious evils of segregation.) Had your fingers or your eyes not betrayed you, I assume you meant to say that you lived in Alabama in the 1960s.  You know me, though: I can never let a good typo go unnoticed or unridiculed.  Sorry.)

 

P.S.:  Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, anyone?

 

Darn fumble fingers.

[Stargazer]

Not really. The concept of the activist judge, I believe was framed during the desegregation battles where judges were actually drafting busing plans etc.

 

No, you're wrong.  Judicial activism is a concept that has been around for hundreds of years.  It is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as the "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."  Thomas Jefferson considered John Marshall to be an activist judge, for example.

 

The case at bar, as it were, is a classic example of judicial activism.

 

The interesting thing is this: the Supreme Court struck down the federal DOMA on US Constitutional ground, saying that the matter of marriage is a state issue.  Now a federal judge has struck down a state statute on the matter, because, get this, it violates the US Constitution.  So, the federal government can't legislate this because its a state issue, and the states can't legislate on it because its a federal issue.  Head spinning yet?

 

There is no way SCOTUS can uphold this decision. 

[Stargazer]

It wouldn't matter a whit if he did. The case was tried on the merits of the law.

 

No, the case was tried on the personal feelings of the judge.  If the federal government cannot defend traditional marriage, via the DOMA, then the federal government cannot promote gay marriage by striking down a state statute.  IMHO.

[Stone holm]

No, the case was tried on the personal feelings of the judge.  If the federal government cannot defend traditional marriage, via the DOMA, then the federal government cannot promote gay marriage by striking down a state statute.  IMHO.

No that is not true. The DOMA is not actually good precedent for much of anything because of the way the votes split out. But Kennedy in his decisive opinion, used judicial restraint in not reaching the question of the constitutional question to determine whether the State could discriminate, he merely said where the State had chosen not to discriminate, the Federal legislature could not overrule the States position. The question of whether the State could discriminate was not before the Court in the DOMA case, it was in the Prop 8 case, but that was dismissed for lack of standing to appeal. The various SCOTUS opinions, however, gave he trial Court in the Utah case plenty to work with. Interestingly, however, the statements of Scalia were the ones most quoted as he gratuitously argued that Kennedy's opinion could be used to declare laws such as that in Utah unConstitutional, and the trial court agreed and fulfilled his prophecy.

[Daniel2]

No, the case was tried on the personal feelings of the judge.  If the federal government cannot defend traditional marriage, via the DOMA, then the federal government cannot promote gay marriage by striking down a state statute.  IMHO.

Guess we'll see... bring it on!

[rockpond]

No, the case was tried on the personal feelings of the judge. If the federal government cannot defend traditional marriage, via the DOMA, then the federal government cannot promote gay marriage by striking down a state statute. IMHO.

A SCOTUS decision upholding Judge Shelby's ruling would not be "the government promoting gay marriage". It would be the judicial branch agreeing that a state amendment violated the US Constitution. Which is, of course, the job of the judicial branch of our government.

CFR that the case was tried on the "personal feelings of the judge" or kindly retract the statement.

[jwhitlock]

A SCOTUS decision upholding Judge Shelby's ruling would not be "the government promoting gay marriage". It would be the judicial branch agreeing that a state amendment violated the US Constitution. Which is, of course, the job of the judicial branch of our government.

CFR that the case was tried on the "personal feelings of the judge" or kindly retract the statement.

 

Horse apples. The end effect of the ruling is to promote SSM, no matter how you want to hide behind the way you reword it here.

 

Your CFR is also invalid. It should be clear to anyone that judges often let their personal views drive their judgments. In this case, Shelby is disregarding any reasonable procedure by cramming this ruling down the throat of the state of Utah by fiat. If you would bother to read his ruling, his uses as phrases like this:

 

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason"

indicate clearly that he has a personal agenda in this matter, since he's basically parroting SSM advocate sound bites.

[thesometimesaint]

No, the case was tried on the personal feelings of the judge.  If the federal government cannot defend traditional marriage, via the DOMA, then the federal government cannot promote gay marriage by striking down a state statute.  IMHO.

 

It was still tried on its merits. We had/have two mutually conflicting decisions. The State(government) obviously has an obligation to one degree or another to promote and protect marriage. It also has an obligation to allow freedom of conscience. How this will all turn out in the USSC.  I don't have a clue.

[thesometimesaint]

Horse apples. The end effect of the ruling is to promote SSM, no matter how you want to hide behind the way you reword it here.

 

Your CFR is also invalid. It should be clear to anyone that judges often let their personal views drive their judgments. In this case, Shelby is disregarding any reasonable procedure by cramming this ruling down the throat of the state of Utah by fiat. If you would bother to read his ruling, his uses as phrases like this:

 

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason"

indicate clearly that he has a personal agenda in this matter, since he's basically parroting SSM advocate sound bites.

 

The end effect is to allow SSM. That is quite different than promoting it.

 

Hate to burst your bubble but, the US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Federal Judges have all the legal authority they need over state, including Utah, laws.

 

Either gay couples have a fundamental right to marry or they don't. Let's rephrase the decision just a little bit and see what you'd say about dignity. The state’s current laws deny its heterosexual citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same heterosexual couples for no rational reason.

 

Make a legally sustainable reasonable reason for prohibiting SSM, by the state. The state of Utah failed to do it. Who knows maybe you can make one.

[california boy]

The end effect is to allow SSM. That is quite different than promoting it.

 

Hate to burst your bubble but, the US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Federal Judges have all the legal authority they need over state, including Utah, laws.

 

Either gay couples have a fundamental right to marry or they don't. Let's rephrase the decision just a little bit and see what you'd say about dignity. The state’s current laws deny its heterosexual citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same heterosexual couples for no rational reason.

 

Make a legally sustainable reasonable reason for prohibiting SSM, by the state. The state of Utah failed to do it. Who knows maybe you can make one.

No one has been able to make a legally sustainable reasonable reason for prohibiting SSM.  That is why SSM keeps winning in the courts.  Simply, there is no rational legal reason to not allow gay marriage.  Fear of doomsday is not a rationally leagal argument.

[JLHPROF]

No one has been able to make a legally sustainable reasonable reason for prohibiting SSM.  That is why SSM keeps winning in the courts.  Simply, there is no rational legal reason to not allow gay marriage.  Fear of doomsday is not a rationally leagal argument.

 

Truthfully, I couldn't care less about the ruling for the following reasons:

 

1. Marriage is from God, not the state.  I don't care what the state thinks about marriage and I don't like asking their permission (license) to marry.

2. God wouldn't consider SSM as actually being a marriage, so no matter what the paper document says, they still aren't married.

3. The only marriages that mean ANYTHING are those sealed across an altar by correct priesthood authority and made valid for time and eternity and approved by God.  No other marriage means anything.

4. The state can legally pass a law allowing a horse to marry a dog and pronounce them married.  They're still not married and neither are two men or two women.

 

So frankly, the state can do what it wants as long as it leaves real marriages alone.

[thesometimesaint]

Truthfully, I couldn't care less about the ruling for the following reasons:

 

1. Marriage is from God, not the state.  I don't care what the state thinks about marriage and I don't like asking their permission (license) to marry.

2. God wouldn't consider SSM as actually being a marriage, so no matter what the paper document says, they still aren't married.

3. The only marriages that mean ANYTHING are those sealed across an altar by correct priesthood authority and made valid for time and eternity and approved by God.  No other marriage means anything.

4. The state can legally pass a law allowing a horse to marry a dog and pronounce them married.  They're still not married.

 

So frankly, the state can do what it wants as long as it leaves real marriages alone.

 

That begs the question. What is a "real" marriage in the eyes of the law? It wasn't that long ago that blacks in some states in this country couldn't be legally married. From that fact of law came the phrase "Jumping the broom".

[Stone holm]

Horse apples. The end effect of the ruling is to promote SSM, no matter how you want to hide behind the way you reword it here.

 

Your CFR is also invalid. It should be clear to anyone that judges often let their personal views drive their judgments. In this case, Shelby is disregarding any reasonable procedure by cramming this ruling down the throat of the state of Utah by fiat. If you would bother to read his ruling, his uses as phrases like this:

 

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason"

indicate clearly that he has a personal agenda in this matter, since he's basically parroting SSM advocate sound bites.

Traditional marriage was not under attack, the question was only whether a minority was under attack. It could be argued that DOMA was an attempt by the Federal Legislature, Congress, could interfere with the Right of the States to govern marriage. Which is why it was overturned, but because of the 14th Amendment the Federal courts have certain obligations to protect individual liberties from being trampled on by the majority via State actions. It's not clear, however, how SCOTUS will discharge this obligation. Marriage is considered a fundamental right. So the question becomes to what extent that right is going to be extended to gays to pick their marriage partners.

[thesometimesaint]

No one has been able to make a legally sustainable reasonable reason for prohibiting SSM.  That is why SSM keeps winning in the courts.  Simply, there is no rational legal reason to not allow gay marriage.  Fear of doomsday is not a rationally leagal argument.

 

I keep looking for one, but I haven't seen one yet. Who knows, but that someday someone will be able to do it.

 

I don't fear it per say. I just haven't seen any legally sustainable reason given yet. As long as it is between consenting legal adults practiced in the privacy of their own home. It really isn't for me, or the state, to say. Theoretically, I guess, if homosexuality ever became the dominate relationship, then I guess it might become an issue of the survival of the species. I don't foresee that as ever becoming the case though.

[california boy]

Truthfully, I couldn't care less about the ruling for the following reasons:

 

1. Marriage is from God, not the state.  I don't care what the state thinks about marriage and I don't like asking their permission (license) to marry.

2. God wouldn't consider SSM as actually being a marriage, so no matter what the paper document says, they still aren't married.

3. The only marriages that mean ANYTHING are those sealed across an altar by correct priesthood authority and made valid for time and eternity and approved by God.  No other marriage means anything.

4. The state can legally pass a law allowing a horse to marry a dog and pronounce them married.  They're still not married and neither are two men or two women.

 

So frankly, the state can do what it wants as long as it leaves real marriages alone.

You are right on. (well maybe except for the marrying barnyard animals.)  It is too bad more members of the church including the leaders didn't think like you did when the whole Proposition 8 was going on. It would have saved 40 million dollars that could have gone for something more productive.  And people would have much less prejudice against the church.

[Stone holm]

Horse apples. The end effect of the ruling is to promote SSM, no matter how you want to hide behind the way you reword it here.

 

Your CFR is also invalid. It should be clear to anyone that judges often let their personal views drive their judgments. In this case, Shelby is disregarding any reasonable procedure by cramming this ruling down the throat of the state of Utah by fiat. If you would bother to read his ruling, his uses as phrases like this:

 

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason"

indicate clearly that he has a personal agenda in this matter, since he's basically parroting SSM advocate sound bites.

Interesting since a lot of the quotes were of Scalia. Several Courts have concluded that no rational reason exists. The problem is that religious beliefs are not allowed as reasons for obvious reasons.

[california boy]

Looks like another 2 million will be thrown at gay marriage by the state of Utah.  How they can justify spending that kind of money when they have no real defense to make is beyond me.  Maybe someone who thinks this is a good idea can give some insight on what the state will argue in the Supreme Court that justifies discriminating against gays.  Here is the article.

 

Defending Amendment 3 may cost Utah $2M

[Stone holm]

Looks like another 2 million will be thrown at gay marriage by the state of Utah.  How they can justify spending that kind of money when they have no real defense to make is beyond me.  Maybe someone who thinks this is a good idea can give some insight on what the state will argue in the Supreme Court that justifies discriminating against gays.  Here is the article.

 

Defending Amendment 3 may cost Utah $2M

None that you are likely to hear on this board. It's going to be pretty tough most of the arguments have been decimated. They will have to avoid the equal rights argument. I suspect their best bet is some kind Federalism argument, etc. They will lose at the Appellate level, but they might be able to put together some Federalism argument if the State hasn't shut all the doors on the policy arguments. Why spend that money on an eventually lost cause is not clear.

[california boy]

None that you are likely to hear on this board. It's going to be pretty tough most of the arguments have been decimated. They will have to avoid the equal rights argument. I suspect their best bet is some kind Federalism argument, etc. They will lose at the Appellate level, but they might be able to put together some Federalism argument if the State hasn't shut all the doors on the policy arguments. Why spend that money on an eventually lost cause is not clear.

I don't see how they can avoid the equal rights argument.  Isn't that the core of the issue for gay marriage?  Certainly the federal government does not have the right to regulate marriage in any state.  But they do have a right to insure equality of all Americans.  Those rights trump state's rights, especially when the can not point to any harm gay marriage has on a state other than we don't like it.