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

[Stone holm]

Well, I am certainly not worried about the Christian Right not liking us.

 

Neither am I, but not sure that is true of all of the GAs.

[Gray]

I disagree. People in the aggregate vilify their pet vices and trumpet their pet virtues. We are always as a society becoming more right and more wrong. I see no evidence that we are moving to a more right state all the time.

Actually it is how you tell revelation from the ramblings of your brain. I do not trust the revelation of anyone who is always happy with what they are told via revelation. They are either saints beyond by ken on the edge of translation or liars.

 

I see that we seem to have greater concern for the welfare and rights of women, children, and other minorities overtime. We're become less barbarous. There are a lot of things we all value that are crowdsourced rather than particularly revealed.

 

I think it's easy to find examples of uncomfortable revelations that we'd both agree are false - those coming from Warren Jeffs prison cell, for instance. 

[Stone holm]

I see that we seem to have greater concern for the welfare and rights of women, children, and other minorities overtime. We're become less barbarous. There are a lot of things we all value that are crowdsourced rather than particularly revealed.

 

I think it's easy to find examples of uncomfortable revelations that we'd both agree are false - those coming from Warren Jeffs prison cell, for instance.

I agree that many of our social values have improved, however, our economic system seems to be setting us back since it values competition over collaboration and places almost no value on human decency, in fact it seems anesthetize our sense of human decency

[Stargazer]

Our sexual attractions are set by age 5. Which sex you are sexually attracted to. No one is purely attracted just one sex. It is a continuum. 

 

I beg to differ.   I am without reservation purely attracted to just one sex.   Your absolutism is like pretty much any absolutism, false.

[california boy]

Wondering how Mormons are feeling about the new release of the HBO film,"The Case Against 8"  This documentary is not really about the election, but more about the lawsuit as a result of the election.

 

I just wonder if church members are as strongly supportive of stopping gay marriage as they were during the election.  How do you think it has affected the church?  Will it continue to effect the church in a positive way?  Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling?  Or do you write it off as activist judges?

 

I know this is really a different thread, but I can't start new threads for some reason.  I have asked the moderators, but no one has been able to tell me why.

[Stargazer]

Wondering how Mormons are feeling about the new release of the HBO film,"The Case Against 8"  This documentary is not really about the election, but more about the lawsuit as a result of the election.

 

I just wonder if church members are as strongly supportive of stopping gay marriage as they were during the election.  How do you think it has affected the church?  Will it continue to effect the church in a positive way?  Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling?  Or do you write it off as activist judges?

 

I know this is really a different thread, but I can't start new threads for some reason.  I have asked the moderators, but no one has been able to tell me why.

I'm not on HBO, so probably will not see this.  I still feel just as strongly about stopping gay marriage as before.  No change.  But since my state, Washington, has gone wholly over from an "all but marriage" civil union law, to complete anarchy (in my opinion) regarding marriage, my opposition is now moot.  I still feel the same, however.

 

My argument concerning gay marriage has been and continues to be that marriage means a contract between opposite sex couples, and no matter how much people twist the language to say otherwise, nothing has changed.  The fact that some people have managed to get legal recognition that same sex couples may call their unions marriage, does not change the fact that such relationships are not marriage.  It's a legal fiction, in other words.  But there's little use in attempting to get the law changed back to the way it was before, in Washington, so there we are.

 

CB, did you notice the little "Limited" label on your account?  That's why you can't start topics, and why you can't post more than a certain number of times per day.  And judging by Pa Pa's and Tacenda's experience, it's a life sentence.  I've never seen anyone return from that status (maybe they have, but I've not seen it).  Banned people have returned to full fellowship (e.g. Cinepro and John Williams), but it appears that "Limited" is the ultimate Limbo.

[california boy]

I'm not on HBO, so probably will not see this.  I still feel just as strongly about stopping gay marriage as before.  No change.  But since my state, Washington, has gone wholly over from an "all but marriage" civil union law, to complete anarchy (in my opinion) regarding marriage, my opposition is now moot.  I still feel the same, however.

 

My argument concerning gay marriage has been and continues to be that marriage means a contract between opposite sex couples, and no matter how much people twist the language to say otherwise, nothing has changed.  The fact that some people have managed to get legal recognition that same sex couples may call their unions marriage, does not change the fact that such relationships are not marriage.  It's a legal fiction, in other words.  But there's little use in attempting to get the law changed back to the way it was before, in Washington, so there we are.

 

CB, did you notice the little "Limited" label on your account?  That's why you can't start topics, and why you can't post more than a certain number of times per day.  And judging by Pa Pa's and Tacenda's experience, it's a life sentence.  I've never seen anyone return from that status (maybe they have, but I've not seen it).  Banned people have returned to full fellowship (e.g. Cinepro and John Williams), but it appears that "Limited" is the ultimate Limbo.

Thanks for your reply.  Sounds like nothing has changed for you.  And I can fully understand as an active member why you continue to support the church's position.  

 

I am just wondering.  You call gay marriage "legal fiction".  Can I ask how you can hold that legal opinion when virtually every court both district and federal has ruled in favor of gay marriage being a legal right?  Understanding that legal opinion being different than personal opinion.

 

And thanks for the explaination on my "limited" status.  Looks like I am in limbo for ever.  Still not quite sure why.  But that is ok. I don't often start threads anyway.

[thesometimesaint]

I beg to differ.   I am without reservation purely attracted to just one sex.   Your absolutism is like pretty much any absolutism, false.

 

I think you misunderstand. Attraction isn't necessarily limited to sexual attraction(A desire to have sex with). We have all seen drop dead gorgeous people of both sexes, and still have no desire to have sex with them.

http://www.posh24.com/fun_pics/from_ugly_ducklings_to_absolutely_drop_dead_gorgeous

[Stone holm]

I think you misunderstand. Attraction isn't necessarily limited to sexual attraction(A desire to have sex with). We have all seen drop dead gorgeous people of both sexes, and still have no desire to have sex with them.

http://www.posh24.com/fun_pics/from_ugly_ducklings_to_absolutely_drop_dead_gorgeous

 

Hm....well....possibly a greater attraction than to say some trolls don't you think?

[Stargazer]

Thanks for your reply.  Sounds like nothing has changed for you.  And I can fully understand as an active member why you continue to support the church's position.  

 

I am just wondering.  You call gay marriage "legal fiction".  Can I ask how you can hold that legal opinion when virtually every court both district and federal has ruled in favor of gay marriage being a legal right?  Understanding that legal opinion being different than personal opinion.

 

And thanks for the explaination on my "limited" status.  Looks like I am in limbo for ever.  Still not quite sure why.  But that is ok. I don't often start threads anyway.

 

By the way, "legal fiction" is not necessarily a pejorative.  I studied law a bit (not as a law student preparing for the bar, but as an amateur), and legal fictions are around us all the time.  Half the time the word "person" is used in statutes, it is used after defining it as something other than a living breathing human being.  There's a reason the Left gets all upset about corporations being regarded as "persons".  It is because, in law, they are.  This is a legal fiction, and a useful one, despite the hair-tearing.

 

In order for two persons of the same sex to "marry" each other, because in law marriage defaults to a matter between opposite sex individuals, it is necessary to redefine "marriage" in statutory law.  Thus gay marriage is a legal fiction.  Doesn't make it any less real in effect, you will note, but most people in the world will still not regard marriage as including same-sex-relationship contracts, any more than they would regard Boeing Aircraft Company as a human.

 

As to why you are Limited?  It was something you wrote.   I have no idea what it was, and I doubt the mods will tell you.  So, it is not something that you can learn from.  I find eternal Limitedhood to be eminently unfair.

[Stone holm]

I hope you will understand if some of us, who hold different points of view, are not as delighted. In any case, my guess is the 10th Circuit will stay it, and back we go to the Supremes. They already struck down DOMA saying it was up to the states to decide, and now a federal judge has said it's not up to the states to decide after all. Dueling rulings, something's gotta give.

 

Actually, the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA said that if the State extended the right, that the Federal government couldn't take it away under Federalism.  The question of whether a State could deny the right was not decided.  That question did reach the SCOTUS in the Prop 8 case, but the SCOTUS never ruled on it because they dismissed the appeal for lack of standing of those bringing the Appeal.  So Prop 8 was struck down by the lower Court, but no one with standing under Federal law appealed that decision so when the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing that left the trial court decision standing.

[Stone holm]

By the way, "legal fiction" is not necessarily a pejorative.  I studied law a bit (not as a law student preparing for the bar, but as an amateur), and legal fictions are around us all the time.  Half the time the word "person" is used in statutes, it is used after defining it as something other than a living breathing human being.  There's a reason the Left gets all upset about corporations being regarded as "persons".  It is because, in law, they are.  This is a legal fiction, and a useful one, despite the hair-tearing.

 

In order for two persons of the same sex to "marry" each other, because in law marriage defaults to a matter between opposite sex individuals, it is necessary to redefine "marriage" in statutory law.  Thus gay marriage is a legal fiction.  Doesn't make it any less real in effect, you will note, but most people in the world will still not regard marriage as including same-sex-relationship contracts, any more than they would regard Boeing Aircraft Company as a human.

 

As to why you are Limited?  It was something you wrote.   I have no idea what it was, and I doubt the mods will tell you.  So, it is not something that you can learn from.  I find eternal Limitedhood to be eminently unfair.

 

Marriage as a civil status exists because of civil statutes,  corporations also exists because of civil statutes.  In that sense both are legal fictions because they are a status that exists simply because the government says it exists.  One could argue that marriage exists outside the law as it was created by God, but if that is the case, as it is for persons of certain religious beliefs, then it really isn't important what the civil law has to say about it except for the conferral of civil benefits.  Given that it is irrelevant except for the conferral of civil benefits, then one has to wonder why there is such a hubbub about what the civil government does with respect to the definition of marriage.  Corporations have no God given right to exist, God doesn't care at all whether they exist or not -- so when we find that they have certain inalienable rights of speech then one has to wonder what god gave them those inalienable rights or have they some how taken on such rights through evolution into a sentient entity?

[Daniel2]

Another judge in the southern states issues a ruling:

Judge Chris Piazza invalidates Arkansas's same-sex marriage ban

http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/blogs/Post?basename=judge-chris-piazza-invalidates-arkansass-same-sex-marriage-ban&day=09&id=ArkansasBlog&month=05&year=2014

Posted by Max Brantley on Fri, May 9, 2014 at4:58 PM

Circuit Judge Chris Piazza today invalidated the Arkansas ban on same-sex marriage and recognition of marriages legally entered by same-sex couples in other states.

An appeal is expected. The judge did not stay his ruling, though the state probably can be expected to request a stay.

The order came after county clerks ofices closed for the week. But they can expect a flood of applicants Monday morning. Pulaski County Clerk Larry Crane said he'd be ready with software to issue gender-netural marriage licenses Monday morning

The lawsuit challenged both the state constitution and statutory bans.

An important question now is how quickly the appeal can be completed and decided by theArkansas Supreme Court. The court takes a summer recess and briefing schedules can take months after the record of the case is completed. It's an open question whether plaintiffs would be better off with the current Supreme Court or with a new court with two new members in January succeeding Justices Cliff Hoofman and Jim Gunter. Appeals CourtJudge Rhonda Wood is unopposed for one seat. She ran as a "conservative" candidate and spent much of her time visiting Republican groups, an activity seen by many as an indicator that her rulings will dovetail with GOP ideology, including opposition to same-sex marriage. Appeals Court JudgeRobin Wynne and Tim Culle, are running for another open seat. Gunter was on the court when the same-sex adoption law was struck down in a unanimous decision. Hoofman was not; he later succeeded Robert Brown.

The plaintiffs included legally married couples unable to divorce in Arkansas, be issued birth certificates with names of both parents and other rights routinely available to other married couples. The suit named state officials and county clerks, who issue marriage licenses. Plaintiffs also included minor children.

Attorneys Cheryl Maples, who spoke of her lesbian daughter's hope to be married someday in the course of developing the case, and Jack Wagoner represented numerous plaintiffs. A federal case filed by Wagoner is also pending that raises equal protection arguments under the U.S. Constitution.

Piazza held a three-hour hearing April 17.

It was the second historic ruling by Piazza related to sexual orientation. In 2010, Piazza struck down the initiated act that prevented same-sex couples from adopting or being foster parents. The law was intended to prevent same-sex couples from parenting by barring any cohabitating couople. Since the law prevented same-sex couples from marrying, the initiative prevented them from adopting children from the state or participating in the foster parent program.

He wrote then:

Due Process and Equal Protection are not hollow words without substance. They are rights enumerated in our constitution that must not be construed in such a way as to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Arguments in the current case included the landmark federal Windsor case, in which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional the federal law hat prohibited equal rights under the law to people who are legally married. The state Constitution's equal protection clause also was invoked, though the state argued that the subsequent voter-approved amendment overrode that. And the Loving case that ended state bans on interracial marriage also was mentioned. The state contended the federal Windsor decision preserved state sovereignty over marriage. Maples argued that, other than "animus" toward gay people, there was no rational basis for the laws.

[Stone holm]

This thread is setting some kind of record on this subject without being locked by the moderators, congratulations!

[Daniel2]

Agreed, Stoneholm. Kudos and thanks to everyone for keeping this thread civil.

Meanwhile, the AP reports in Arkansas...

ARKANSAS TO APPEAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/arkansas-plans-appeal-same-sex-marriage-ruling

By CHRISTINA HUYNH

— May. 11, 2014 10:56 AM EDT

EUREKA SPRINGS, Ark. (AP) — The state's top lawyer will ask the Arkansas Supreme Court to review a lower court's decision to overturn a 2004 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel announced his intent to appeal to the high court late Saturday night, but not before 15 licenses were issued for same-sex couples in northwest Arkansas' Carroll County, heralding the arrival of gay marriage in the Bible Belt.

"Thank God," Jennifer Rambo said after Carroll County Deputy Clerk Jane Osborn issued a marriage license to her and Kristin Seaton, a former volleyball player at the University of Arkansas. The Fort Smith couple had traveled overnight to ensure they'd be first in line, and wed moments later on a sidewalk near the courthouse.

Carroll County was believed to be the only county that issued marriage licenses Saturday. Several courthouses were open for early primary-election voting but staffers said they were not prepared to issue marriage licenses.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza paved the way for the marriages Friday with a ruling that removed a 10-year-old barrier, saying a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2004 banning gay marriage was "an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality." Piazza's ruling also overturned a 1997 state law banning gay marriage.

McDaniel has asked Piazza to suspend his ruling, but also formally said late Saturday he wants the state Supreme Court to take up the matter. That appeal has not yet been filed.

But because Piazza didn't issue a stay, Arkansas' 75 county clerks were left to decide for themselves whether to grant marriage licenses. That caused confusion among county clerks, Association of Arkansas Counties executive director Chris Villines said.

"The court didn't give us any time to get the kinks worked out," he said.

It isn't clear how many counties would issue same-sex marriage licenses Monday, Villines said Saturday after a conference call with clerks from around the state.

Rambo, 26, and Seaton, 27, arrived in Eureka Springs about 2 a.m., slept in a Ford Focus and awoke every half-hour to make sure no one else would be at the head of the line.

Initially, deputy clerk Lana Gordon said she wasn't sure she had the authority and shooed people from her office.

"We just walked out of here crying," Rambo said.

When Osborn intervened, other same-sex couples let Rambo and Seaton return to their place in line.

"And some of these people here have been waiting 50 years and they still instructed us to come up front," Rambo said.

Jason Owens, an attorney for four of the six counties named in the lawsuit over the gay marriage ban, said he'll ask Piazza for guidance Monday how to proceed.

"My clients want to follow the law. We just want to know what the law is, essentially," Owens said.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that a law forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Using language similar to that from the Supreme Court, state and federal judges nationwide have struck down other same-sex marriage bans and ordered states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Jerry Cox, president of the Arkansas Family Council, which promoted Arkansas' ban, said Piazza's decision to not suspend his ruling will create confusion if a stay is issued.

"Are these people married? Are they unmarried?" Cox said. "Judge Piazza did a tremendous disservice to the people of Arkansas by leaving this in limbo."

McDaniel last week became the first statewide elected official to announce he personally supports gay marriage rights, but would continue to defend the state's ban in court.

Eureka Springs, an Ozark Mountain town of about 2,000, is known for its arts environment and liberal policies in the otherwise conservative northwest Arkansas. In 2007, the city council unanimously approved a proposal to create a domestic partner registry. The partnerships confer no special legal status.

Among those who let Rambo and Seaton back up front were Zeek Taylor, 67, and **** Titus, 65, who have been together 40 years.

Taylor confronted Gordon, the deputy clerk, about closing the office, saying "Your job is to issue marriage license to everyone that's here."

Paul Wank, 80, of Eureka Springs, interrupted the exchange, pointing his black cane at Gordon.

"You don't have to be hateful sir," the deputy clerk said.

"You've been hateful to people like me for years. So keep up," Wank said. "You're doing everything you can to stall."

[Stargazer]

Marriage as a civil status exists because of civil statutes,  corporations also exists because of civil statutes.  In that sense both are legal fictions because they are a status that exists simply because the government says it exists.  One could argue that marriage exists outside the law as it was created by God, but if that is the case, as it is for persons of certain religious beliefs, then it really isn't important what the civil law has to say about it except for the conferral of civil benefits.  Given that it is irrelevant except for the conferral of civil benefits, then one has to wonder why there is such a hubbub about what the civil government does with respect to the definition of marriage.  Corporations have no God given right to exist, God doesn't care at all whether they exist or not -- so when we find that they have certain inalienable rights of speech then one has to wonder what god gave them those inalienable rights or have they some how taken on such rights through evolution into a sentient entity?

 

I'll admit that I don't know where you were going with this.  

 

Of course corporations don't exist as a matter of natural right.  So what?  Marriage, on the other hand, is a natural human right, that humans have regulated for the good of society by passing statute laws restricting it with regard to consanguinity and lawful consent (i.e. persons related too closely may not marry, and they must be lawfully capable of giving assent).

 

There has never been a recognized natural right for persons of the same sex to marry each other.  Now there are a number of jurisdictions where a civil license may be given for it.  The only thing left is for a license for non-monogamous marriage, including a person marrying him- or herself.  I am sure that will the next step.

[california boy]

I'll admit that I don't know where you were going with this.  

 

Of course corporations don't exist as a matter of natural right.  So what?  Marriage, on the other hand, is a natural human right, that humans have regulated for the good of society by passing statute laws restricting it with regard to consanguinity and lawful consent (i.e. persons related too closely may not marry, and they must be lawfully capable of giving assent).

 

There has never been a recognized natural right for persons of the same sex to marry each other.  Now there are a number of jurisdictions where a civil license may be given for it.  The only thing left is for a license for non-monogamous marriage, including a person marrying him- or herself.  I am sure that will the next step.

Slippery slope arguments never win anyones point.  You can make a slippery slope argument over ANYTHING.

[Daniel2]

And now, Idaho:

BOISE — U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale has ruled Idaho's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

In her 57-page decision, Dale stated, "Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love."

Gov. Butch Otter responded in a written statement: "In 2006, the people of Idaho exercised their fundamental right, reaffirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Today’s decision, while disappointing, is a small setback in a long-term battle that will end at the U.S. Supreme Court. I am firmly committed to upholding the will of the people and defending our Constitution.”

The court's injunction is effective 9 a.m. Friday.

On Tuesday, Otter filed a pre-emptive motion requesting an immediate stay should the state lose. That motion is pending before the court.

Here more reaction on the ruling:

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry: "Today's ruling from the federal court in Idaho is the latest in more than a dozen rulings unanimously holding marriage discrimination unconstitutional. From Idaho to Arkansas, Utah to Michigan, the courts are affirming that there is no good reason for government to deny marriage to committed couples. As gay couples and their families begin to share in the joy and security of the freedom to marry, hearts and minds are opening, discrimination's barriers are falling, and we're moving our country to the right side of history. As the federal appellate courts now take up these marriage cases, America is ready for the freedom to marry."

Monica Hopkins, Idaho ACLU executive director: "This is about fairness and equality. Idaho couples will now be able to access the over 1,000 civil rights and responsibilities that are accessed through the inst of marriage. Congratulations to all of them and all of us that Idaho is a state that stands up for fairness and equality."

Hopkins last day as ACLU director is Friday, the same day Idaho's same-sex marriage injunction goes into effect. She is leaving Idaho to lead the ACLU affiliate in Washington D.C.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/101/#storylink=cpy

[Daniel2]

Dup

[rockpond]

A federal judge has struck down Idaho's gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. A stay on the ruling is now pending. Governor Otter demonstrated his failure to understand this ruling as well as the dozens of other rulings ending gay marriage bans by responding with this statement:

"In 2006, the people of Idaho exercised their fundamental right, reaffirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Today’s decision, while disappointing, is a small setback in a long-term battle that will end at the U.S. Supreme Court. I am firmly committed to upholding the will of the people and defending our Constitution.”

He is correct, however, that the long-term battle will end at SCOTUS.

[Stone holm]

I'll admit that I don't know where you were going with this.  

 

Of course corporations don't exist as a matter of natural right.  So what?  Marriage, on the other hand, is a natural human right, that humans have regulated for the good of society by passing statute laws restricting it with regard to consanguinity and lawful consent (i.e. persons related too closely may not marry, and they must be lawfully capable of giving assent).

 

There has never been a recognized natural right for persons of the same sex to marry each other.  Now there are a number of jurisdictions where a civil license may be given for it.  The only thing left is for a license for non-monogamous marriage, including a person marrying him- or herself.  I am sure that will the next step.

Interesting, not convincing but interesting, I thought there was some mention of the pursuit of happiness as at least an inalienable right. So when I see a dog try to inseminate someone's leg, I am observing an unnatural act, same with steers who get confused about gender in the barnyard. A "natural right" is nothing more than what rights a culture at the time tolerates. There was a time when a certain segment of American society thought it was the natural right that persons of a certain skin color and descent be the servants and subservient to others of differing skin color and descent. And there are those today who believe that the natural place of the woman is in the kitchen and nursery. Natural rights when asserted in this manner are nothing more than the assertions of conclusions in lieu of rational discussion. However, the right to marry is considered a special and significant human right because of the obligations, trust, and expression of intimacy it conveys. It is also considered a spiritual and religious rite. Some Christians accept it as a sacred rite regardless of the match up of genders, we on the other hand do not. So do we say to them, no you have no right to your beliefs or to your version of happiness because it is offensive to us, even though it does not physically harm us or our property, or that of any other person who has not consented? That is the question which cannot be answered by statements about natural or unnatural, or by the long standing traditions. Over the greater length of history women were considered property, but I doubt even the most conservative American would make that argument today, well maybe some Southern conservatives might try.

[rockpond]

A federal judge has struck down Idaho's gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. A stay on the ruling is now pending. Governor Otter demonstrated his failure to understand this ruling as well as the dozens of other rulings ending gay marriage bans by responding with this statement:

"In 2006, the people of Idaho exercised their fundamental right, reaffirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Today’s decision, while disappointing, is a small setback in a long-term battle that will end at the U.S. Supreme Court. I am firmly committed to upholding the will of the people and defending our Constitution.”

He is correct, however, that the long-term battle will end at SCOTUS.

 

As of this morning, the federal judge has refused to put a stay on her ruling.  Looks like gay couples will be able to marry in Idaho on Friday.

[Daniel2]

As of this morning, the federal judge has refused to put a stay on her ruling.  Looks like gay couples will be able to marry in Idaho on Friday.

Here's the article confirming Rockpond's report:

Judge refuses to stay Idaho same-sex marriages

http://m.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/judge-refuses-to-stay-idaho-same-sex-marriages/article_87ec2b9e-db8d-11e3-b7ed-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=jqm

Kyle Green

Mike Chase, center left, kisses his partner Matthew Montoya on the steps of the Idaho Statehouse during a rally in support of same sex marriage in Boise on Tuesday night May 13, 2014. U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale ruled earlier in the day that Idaho's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. (AP Photo/The Idaho Statesman, Kyle Green)

Updated 7 hours ago

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal magistrate judge has refused to put gay marriages on hold in Idaho pending an appeal from the state's governor.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale wrote Wednesday morning that Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's appeal isn't likely to succeed, and so there's no reason to keep same-sex couples from seeking marriage licenses or marrying on Friday.

On Tuesday, Dale struck down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban in response to a lawsuit from four Idaho couples.

Dale said Idaho's law unconstitutionally denies gay and lesbian couples their fundamental right to marry and wrongly stigmatizes their families. She said the state must start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Friday morning.

Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

Otter has vowed to appeal the ruling.

]

[Daniel2]

There's also news on the attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to intervene in the Oregon case that went to trial a few weeks ago:

Federal judge denies national organization's attempt to intervene in Oregon's gay marriage case

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/federal_judge_denies_national.html#incart_river

By Dana Tims | dtims@oregonian.com 

on May 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM, updated May 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM

A U.S. District Court judge in Eugene has denied a motion by the National Organization for Marriage to intervene in Oregon's gay marriage case.

Judge Michael McShane issued his decision Wednesday morning from the bench after an hour of oral arguments. NOM said it would appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The group also said it would seek a stay on any further action by McShane.

After McShane gave his decision, lawyers in the case met with him in his chambers to ask for 24 hours' notice on his decision in the broader case -- whether to overturn Oregon's ban -- so officials could be prepared to conduct same-sex weddings immediately.

The judge offered no signal on whether he would agree to that, or when he might rule in the broader case. If he does decide to overturn Oregon's prohibition, he could let gay weddings proceed immediately, or he could stay any weddings pending appeals.

Wednesday's decision is the latest twist in Oregon's gay marriage case, in which four gay couples filed federal lawsuits seeking to overturn the state's ban. Voters in 2004 passed a constitutional amendment limiting marriages to one man and one woman.

McShane consolidated the lawsuits into one case and heard oral arguments last month. In an unusual feature, no one argued in favor of the ban. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year striking down a federal ban on gay marriage, said she would not defend Oregon's prohibition.

The National Organization for Marriage filed a motion to intervene in the case in defense of Oregon's ban; that's the motion that was denied Wednesday.

Senior politics reporter Jeff Mapes is covering the case in Eugene. Come back tooregonlive.com/politics for more updates and details on the decision.

-- Dana Tims, Jeff Mapes

[Stone holm]

As of this morning, the federal judge has refused to put a stay on her ruling.  Looks like gay couples will be able to marry in Idaho on Friday.

It may or may not end with a SCOTUS decision. If the SCOTUS does not find that the gays have a Constitutional right to SSM, that will not end the quarrel, it just means that the political fight will continue and certain States will be marginalized as SSM is adopted by legislatures in a growing number of States. The culture war has been lost. But the Christian Right can be counted on to keep up the fight, so it can continue to be a politically divisive issue, unfortunately it will just make them look bad.