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

[Daniel2]

The culture war has been lost.

I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy... I'd say the culture war has been won.

[Stone holm]

I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy... I'd say the culture war has been won.

Well, yes I can understand that point of view, I was looking at it from the Church's political warfare perspective. The adoption of Prop 8 was the high tide and also the turning point for those who opposed SSM.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I figure that SCOTUS will ultimately declare that gay marriage bans are a violation of the 14th amendment.  Just my prediction - nothing more.

 

But, as you are saying, I think that some groups will continue to fight it... even with a SCOTUS ruling.  Unfortunately, I see gay marriage becoming the "abortion" type issue of this generation.

[Buckeye]

I figure that SCOTUS will ultimately declare that gay marriage bans are a violation of the 14th amendment.  Just my prediction - nothing more.

 

But, as you are saying, I think that some groups will continue to fight it... even with a SCOTUS ruling.  Unfortunately, I see gay marriage becoming the "abortion" type issue of this generation.

 

As a cultural touchstone, I think gay marriage will become more like interracial marriage than abortion.  The fundamental difference is this: abortion, even for pro-choice supporters, is not something "good" that enhances life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  Abortion is a choice that should be open to women in a very tough situation, but it is not inherently good in itself.  It's just the best option amongst several bad ones.  (To be clear, I'm not embracing this view, just presenting it as I hear it)  Marriage on the other hand is viewed by supports as a fundamental good.  That's why we have celebrations and gift-gifting for weddings.  Not so for abortions. 

[rockpond]

As a cultural touchstone, I think gay marriage will become more like interracial marriage than abortion.  The fundamental difference is this: abortion, even for pro-choice supporters, is not something "good" that enhances life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  Abortion is a choice that should be open to women in a very tough situation, but it is not inherently good in itself.  It's just the best option amongst several bad ones.  (To be clear, I'm not embracing this view, just presenting it as I hear it)  Marriage on the other hand is viewed by supports as a fundamental good.  That's why we have celebrations and gift-gifting for weddings.  Not so for abortions. 

 

I agree with you've written here.  I should have been more clear -- I think the similarity is that gay marriage, like abortion, will become this "litmus test" for politicians... constantly brought up even though nothing is likely to change the SCOTUS ruling.

[bluebell]

As a cultural touchstone, I think gay marriage will become more like interracial marriage than abortion.  The fundamental difference is this: abortion, even for pro-choice supporters, is not something "good" that enhances life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  Abortion is a choice that should be open to women in a very tough situation, but it is not inherently good in itself.  It's just the best option amongst several bad ones.  (To be clear, I'm not embracing this view, just presenting it as I hear it)  Marriage on the other hand is viewed by supports as a fundamental good.  That's why we have celebrations and gift-gifting for weddings.  Not so for abortions. 

 

Except maybe for women like this-

 

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/why-i-filmed-my-abortion

 

If enough people start to believe that abortion should be seen as a 'positive' thing that can be celebrated with absolutely no sadness or guilt, even when it is the the result of purely selfish and irresponsible choices, there really could come a time when SSM becomes an abortion-like issue.

[Buckeye]

Except maybe for women like this-

 

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/why-i-filmed-my-abortion

 

If enough people start to believe that abortion should be seen as a 'positive' thing that can be celebrated with absolutely no sadness or guilt, even when it is the the result of purely selfish and irresponsible choices, there really could come a time when SSM becomes an abortion-like issue.

 

I really can't envision the day when people have an "abortion shower" or "abortion reception."  Even for those who view it purely as a medical procedure, there's no more reason to celebrate an abortion than to celebrate passing a gall stone. 

[bluebell]

I really can't envision the day when people have an "abortion shower" or "abortion reception."  Even for those who view it purely as a medical procedure, there's no more reason to celebrate an abortion than to celebrate passing a gall stone. 

 

I don't think that abortion will ever be celebrated like a wedding is usually celebrated, but we do have an example of the opportunity to get an abortion being celebrated (as in 'greatly admired', one of the definitions of the term).

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that outlook grew in popularity.

[Stone holm]

I figure that SCOTUS will ultimately declare that gay marriage bans are a violation of the 14th amendment.  Just my prediction - nothing more.

 

But, as you are saying, I think that some groups will continue to fight it... even with a SCOTUS ruling.  Unfortunately, I see gay marriage becoming the "abortion" type issue of this generation.

I agree and so long as one party can gratuitously pick up votes with it, they will. If , however, it becomes politically toxic like racism, it will cease to be an issue of significance.

[rockpond]

I agree and so long as one party can gratuitously pick up votes with it, they will. If , however, it becomes politically toxic like racism, it will cease to be an issue of significance.

 

That's a good point... with opinion polls going the way that they have been there's a good chance that a decade or two down the road it will look more like racism than abortion.

 

I think that I'd like to retract my statements in #628 and #630... you and Buckeye have convinced me.

[Daniel2]

Like Utah (and other states), Arkansas puts a stay on the marriage rulings, as expected:

Arkansas Supreme Court stays ruling overturning same-sex marriage ban

http://m.arktimes.com/arkansas/blogs/Post?basename=arkansas-supreme-court-stays-ruling-overturning-same-sex-marriage-ban&day=16&id=ArkansasBlog&month=05&year=2014

Posted by Max Brantley on Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM

NO TIME FOR SMILES: It was a happy day Saturday when Kristin Seaton and Jennifer Rambo received the first same-sex marriage license issued legally in Arkansas. News today will prevent similar scenes, at least for a while.

At 4:30 p.m. today, with many of the justices at an out-of-state conference, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Chris Piazza's ruling last Friday that Arkansas law and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

It was a one-sentence order without any elaboration granting motions by the state and four counties for a stay.

Here it is.

This will again end the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Arkansas. It's been an on-and-off process in a handful of counties since Saturday, with most of some 500 licenses issued in Pulaski County. Video above from Fox 16's David Goins shows one of the last ceremonies at the Pulaski County Courthouse.

Piazza's decision will now go through the appeal process. A record of the lower court case must be prepared. A briefing schedule must be set and probably oral arguments. The court takes a two-month recess each summer. Even with an expedited schedule, it's uncertain if the case can be decided this calendar year, when two of the current justices — Cliff Hoofman and Donald Corbin — will be replaced by Rhonda Wood and the winner of a race between Judge Robin Wynne and Tim Cullen. Typical there's about 2.5 months for briefing after a record and transcript is completed. Part of this record has already been completed and it's not an extensive record. It conceivably could be completed by fall.

One question is whether the decision can be reached before the November election, when it could become prime political fodder. The Republican Party has long made opposition to same-sex marriage one of its bedrock campaign issues. National Democrats tend to favor marriage equality, but most leading Democratic candidates in Arkansas — including Gov. Mike Beebe and candidateMike Ross — have said they favor the idea of marriage being between a man and woman.Sen. Mark Pryor and leading congressional candidates have said the same.

Both the plaintiffs in the marriage case — married couples and couples hoping to be married — and the state had argued that the likelihood of their prevailing on appeal was one key factor the court should consider in issuing a stay. Both argued irreparable harm if their motion was denied, though the state's showing on this point was slim — the possibility of different handling of licensing in counties and the possibility that, someday, licenses issued might be held to be invalid. Plaintiffs argued that these were not evidence of tangible harm, but continued denial of constitutional rights was tangible harm. Six counties were named defendants (Pulaski, Washington, Lonoke, White, Saline and Conway), along with state agencies that apply laws in ways discriminatory to married same-sex couples. Other counties not named in the case took the view that Piazza's ruling didn't apply to them absent a Supreme Court ruling. Marion County issued one license on Monday, then stopped.

The Arkansas Supreme Court years ago struck down criminal sodomy laws before the U.S. Supreme Court did, relying on the individual rights section of the state Constitution. It also invalidated a 2008 law aimed at preventing gay couples from adopting or being foster parents. More recently, it opened the door to child custody in a home with an unmarried same-sex couple. But court membership has changed since the major rulings and political pressure remains high in Arkansas on the side of discrimination against gay people, in both marriage and employment. Polls show a majority in Arkansas now favor civil unions and also show a decline in opposition to same-sex marriage, which was approved as a constitutional amendment in 2004 by 75 percent of voters. In 2004, it was opposed only in some liberal regions in Pulaski and Washington counties (not coincidentally where most marriage licenses have been issued this week.)

Marriage equality plaintiffs expected the stay. For now, they'll go back to the law books and Arkansas will return to the marital status quo. Indelible, though, are the photographs, video and written accounts of hundreds of happy people, tasting equality for themselves and their families for the first time, if only briefly.

In related news, the judge in Oregon has declared his ruling will be issued this Monday at noon:

Federal judge to issue Oregon gay marriage ruling Monday

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Federal-judge-to-issue-Oregon-gay-marriage-ruling-Monday-259574761.html?mobile=y

By Nigel Duara, Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated PressMay 16, 2014

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge says he'll issue a decision next week on a constitutional challenge to Oregon's same-sex marriage ban.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane has notified attorneys that he'll publish his decision at noon Monday.

Four gay and lesbian couples brought suit arguing Oregon's marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples. Democratic Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said the ban is legally indefensible and refused to offer arguments supporting it.

State officials have said same-sex marriages could begin almost immediately after a decision.

McShane heard arguments on the case in April, and rejected an attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to intervene.

The group argued it should be allowed to defend the ban on behalf of its Oregon members after the attorney general's decision. But McShane said the attorney general is accountable to Oregon voters, not a third party.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Judges in seven other states have struck down bans on gay marriage, though officials are appealing. More challenges are pending.

The most recent was Tuesday, when U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale overturned Idaho's ban. On Thursday, a federal appeals court placed the ruling temporarily on hold while it decides whether to issue a lengthier stay while Idaho's governor and attorney general appeal.

In Oregon, Portland attorneys Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton filed a lawsuit in October on behalf of two women in a relationship for more than 30 years. Two months later, the American Civil Liberties Union and lawyers from two firms went to court on behalf of a lesbian couple and a gay couple.

Oregon law has long prohibited same-sex marriage. Its ban, approved by 57 percent of voters, came months after Multnomah County briefly issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Multnomah includes Portland and is the state's largest county.

About 3,000 gay couples were allowed to marry before a judge halted the practice. The Oregon Supreme Court later invalidated the marriages.

Advocacy groups say they have collected enough signatures to ask voters in November whether same-sex marriage should be legal. They have said they would discard the signatures if the judge rules in their favor. The group has until July 3 to submit just over 116,000 valid signatures.

Seventeen states so far, seven pending rulings in favor, and now plus one, wirh Oregon---a total of 25 states favoring same-sex marriage--half the Union.

With such a vast array of lower federal and state courts having weighed in on the matter, and so many starts, stops, and stays being issued till the appeals process is completed, it appears marriage equality is very close to reaching the boiling point and is at the threshold of the Supreme Court.

With so many judges in so many states, it's hard to believe that anyone could believe that SCOTUS will do anything less than mandate full marriage equality nationwide. I believe the plethora of rulings and public support from around the country also differentiates the issue of same-sex marriage from abortion. History will regard whichever case reaches SCOTUS first more akin to Loving v. Virginia, rather than Roe v. Wade.

[Stargazer]

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

 

It really doesn't matter if they win points.  And I don't generally hold with slippery slope arguments, either, except that in retrospect one can see that a given slippery slope argument held water.  This one definitely does.

 

We have gone from vice squads entrapping homosexuals in the breaking of the law to now homosexual marriage.  At each stage in this process I have heard people making slippery slope arguments, and others pooh-poohing those arguments.  That would never happen, they said.  Except it did.  Now we have homosexual marriage in a couple of states and it's trending elsewhere.  There is talk about using homosexual marriage to justify polyamorous marriages of one type or another.  And naturally there are those pooh-poohing the "slippery slope" argument.  Just like you!     And it will happen.  That is my prediction, at least, and will we have reached the bottom of the slippery slope at that time?  I have no idea.  I don't know how far down it can go.

[thesometimesaint]

It really doesn't matter if they win points.  And I don't generally hold with slippery slope arguments, either, except that in retrospect one can see that a given slippery slope argument held water.  This one definitely does.

 

We have gone from vice squads entrapping homosexuals in the breaking of the law to now homosexual marriage.  At each stage in this process I have heard people making slippery slope arguments, and others pooh-poohing those arguments.  That would never happen, they said.  Except it did.  Now we have homosexual marriage in a couple of states and it's trending elsewhere.  There is talk about using homosexual marriage to justify polyamorous marriages of one type or another.  And naturally there are those pooh-poohing the "slippery slope" argument.  Just like you!     And it will happen.  That is my prediction, at least, and will we have reached the bottom of the slippery slope at that time?  I have no idea.  I don't know how far down it can go.

 

Here is my prediction SSM will never anything more than a small minority position. What can not be justified is the mistreatment of anyone because of SSM.

[Tacenda]

Here is my prediction SSM will never anything more than a small minority position. What can not be justified is the mistreatment of anyone because of SSM.

[frank_jessop]

Interesting legal times ahead, for sure.

[rockpond]

Here is my prediction SSM will never anything more than a small minority position.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

Public opinion in the U.S. seemed to shift to a majority being in favor of gay marriage back in 2012.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2014

[rockpond]

It really doesn't matter if they win points.  And I don't generally hold with slippery slope arguments, either, except that in retrospect one can see that a given slippery slope argument held water.  This one definitely does.

 

We have gone from vice squads entrapping homosexuals in the breaking of the law to now homosexual marriage.  At each stage in this process I have heard people making slippery slope arguments, and others pooh-poohing those arguments.  That would never happen, they said.  Except it did.  Now we have homosexual marriage in a couple of states and it's trending elsewhere.  There is talk about using homosexual marriage to justify polyamorous marriages of one type or another.  And naturally there are those pooh-poohing the "slippery slope" argument.  Just like you!     And it will happen.  That is my prediction, at least, and will we have reached the bottom of the slippery slope at that time?  I have no idea.  I don't know how far down it can go.

 

What was the "slippery slope" that led to legalized gay marriage?

[thesometimesaint]

What do you mean by that?

 

Public opinion in the U.S. seemed to shift to a majority being in favor of gay marriage back in 2012.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2014

 

That between 1&1/2 and 2&1/2% of the population is homosexual. I see no evidence that a significant percentage of people will actually become homosexual. The acceptance of SSM is unrelated to the actual prevalence of homosexuality.

[Daniel2]

As expected, Oregon just became the 25th state. No stay was issued, and same-sex marriages have already begun:

Judge Strikes Down Oregon Gay Marriage Ban

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ruling-expected-monday-oregon-gay-marriage-ban-23773256

By JONATHAN J. COOPER

Associated Press

May 19, 2014, 2:42 AM

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge on Monday struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, saying it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane said the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and ordered the state not to enforce it. State officials earlier refused to defend the constitutional ban in court.

McShane joined judges in seven other states who have struck down gay marriage bans, though appeals are underway.

Oregon state officials have said they'd be prepared to carry out same-sex marriages almost immediately, and couples lined up outside the county clerk's office in Portland in anticipation of the McShane's decision.

Laurie Brown and Julie Engbloom arrived early Monday at the Multnomah County Building to form the line for marriage licenses. The two have been a couple for 10 years. Engbloom proposed in April, when they celebrated their anniversary by climbing Smith Rock in Central Oregon.

"We always knew we wanted to spend our whole life together," Brown said. "This opportunity has come, it feels right, everything has fallen into place."

Four gay and lesbian couples brought the Oregon cases, arguing the state's marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminate against them and exclude them from a fundamental right to marriage.

Democratic Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum refused to defend the ban, saying there are no legal arguments that could support it in light of decisions last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. She sided with the couples, asking the judge to overturn the ban, and says she won't appeal.

The judge denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage to defend the law on behalf of its Oregon members. A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday refused the group's request for an emergency stay of that decision, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed.

[california boy]

It really doesn't matter if they win points.  And I don't generally hold with slippery slope arguments, either, except that in retrospect one can see that a given slippery slope argument held water.  This one definitely does.

 

We have gone from vice squads entrapping homosexuals in the breaking of the law to now homosexual marriage.  At each stage in this process I have heard people making slippery slope arguments, and others pooh-poohing those arguments.  That would never happen, they said.  Except it did.  Now we have homosexual marriage in a couple of states and it's trending elsewhere.  There is talk about using homosexual marriage to justify polyamorous marriages of one type or another.  And naturally there are those pooh-poohing the "slippery slope" argument.  Just like you!     And it will happen.  That is my prediction, at least, and will we have reached the bottom of the slippery slope at that time?  I have no idea.  I don't know how far down it can go.

In this case, I think you are confusing slippery slope arguments with the arch of justice.  It was inevitable that gays would be granted equal rights protected under the constitution.  Those rights were not won by slippery slope arguments, which hold little legal weight in a courtroom.  Those rights were confirmed by sound legal arguments based on law.  Big difference.

[Daniel2]

Another development in Utah's case today:

UTAH: Judge Order Recognition Of Gay Marriages, Stays Order For 21 Days

Via press release from the ACLU:

A federal judge ordered the state today to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were legally married in Utah after a federal court struck down a state ban, but before the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted additional marriages from taking place. Over 1,000 same-sex couples married in Utah during that time period. The couples are represented by American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Utah, and Strindberg & Scholnick, LLC, who sought the preliminary injunction for the marriages to be recognized while their lawsuit continues.

“Our clients, like over 1,000 other same-sex couples, were legally married and those marriages cannot now be taken away from them,” said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah. “While we await a permanent decision, we are relieved that our clients will receive the full recognition they deserve as lawfully married couples.” Today’s preliminary injunction is not a permanent order, but it reflects the court’s determination that the plaintiffs’ are likely to prevail on their legal claims and would suffer irreparable harm if their marriages were stripped of recognition. Today’s order was given a 21-day stay to allow the state to respond.

One of the more interesting comments being discussed in the Gay bloggosphere:

"I wonder what the [conservatives] will say about this judge? Per Wikipedia, Judge Dale Kimball has served as a bishop, high councilor, stake president and regional representative of the Twelve in the LDS Church."

[thesometimesaint]

Another development in Utah's case today:

One of the more interesting comments being discussed in the Gay bloggosphere:

"I wonder what the [conservatives] will say about this judge? Per Wikipedia, Judge Dale Kimball has served as a bishop, high councilor, stake president and regional representative of the Twelve in the LDS Church."

 

I'm not exactly conservative, but he may well be of the opinion that whatever his personal beliefs about SSM are. He can find no legally consistent way to keep it illegal.

[rockpond]

I'm not exactly conservative, but he may well be of the opinion that whatever his personal beliefs about SSM are. He can find no legally consistent way to keep it illegal.

 

I think that Daniel's point is that Judge Kimball's personal background seems to defy the commonly heard claim that rulings in favor of gay marriage are being pushed through via judicial activism without any valid constitutional rational.

[Daniel2]

I agree, SS.

And your comment is also correct, Rockpond.

The Trib published an interesting article on the ruling--I think the differences in how this issue will be viewed as different than Roe v. Wade are likely self-evident:

Judge: Utah must honor same-sex marriages performed during 17-day window

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57963402-219/state-sex-utah-judge.html.csp

Decision takes effect in 21 days, allowing Utah attorney general’s office time to appeal.

By Marissa Lang

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published May 19 2014 03:08 pm

Updated 20 minutes ago

A federal judge ruled Monday that Utah must recognize and imbue all same-sex marriages performed in the state with the same rights and privileges afforded to married opposite-sex couples.

Chief among those rights, the judge noted, are the right to property, inheritance, legal protection and "the custody and care of children" — an issue at the center of a state challenge to three state court judge’s decisions to grant adoptions to married gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball became the first federal judge ever to order a state to acknowledge and honor all gay and lesbian marriages performed after the state’s ban on same-sex unions was overturned.

About 1,300 same-sex couples were granted marriage licenses in Utah during a 17-day window that extended from the day U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby overturned Utah’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages to the day the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay, halting all such weddings.

In that time, more than 1,000 of those marriages were solemnized in a formal ceremony, making them legal and binding under Utah law, Kimball ruled.

"Although the state has a general interest in representing the wishes of its voters, that interest does not outweigh the harms [same-sex couples] face by having their constitutional rights violated," the judge wrote. "Governor Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes shall immediately recognize the marriages by same-sex couples entered pursuant to Utah marriage licenses issued and solemnized between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014, and afford these same-sex marriages all the protections benefits and responsibilities given to all marriages under Utah law."

Kimball’s decision will not take effect for 21 days, giving the state time to file an appeal if it so chooses.

As of Monday evening, the governor and attorney general seemed undecided as to Utah’s next course of action.

"The Attorney General’s Office has not made an immediate determination about whether it will appeal Judge Kimball’s ruling," spokeswoman Missy Larsen wrote in a statement from the AG. "We are currently assessing the legal impact of today’s decision and will respond within the 21-day allotted time period."

Gov. Gary Herbert, who in the aftermath of Shelby’s ruling ordered county clerks to adhere to the federal judge’s decree and issue same-sex couples marriage licenses, questioned how Kimball’s ruling may impact other cases.

"We are currently reviewing the decision issued today by U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball," wrote gubernatorial spokesman Marty Carpenter. "We are evaluating the options and how this decision may relate to the status of other pending same-sex marriage cases."

Kimball declared denying married same-sex couples the same rights afforded to their opposite-sex counterparts from the moment their unions are solemnized is an unjustifiable harm that violates their right to due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The state’s efforts to prevent more same-sex marriages in the future — by challenging Shelby’s ruling at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to rule any day — does not impact the marriages performed when the law allowed such unions, Kimball wrote.

"The state has placed [same-sex couples] and their families in a state of legal limbo with respect to adoptions, child care and custody, medical decisions, employment and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance, and many other property and fundamental rights associated with marriage," the judge ruled. "These legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day that the marriage is not recognized."

Should Kimball’s ruling stand, all couples married during Utah’s 17-day window would have to remain legally recognized by Utah law regardless of how the 10th Circuit — or, eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court — rules on whether states have the right to ban such unions.

That’s was the outcome four plaintiff couples and the American Civil Liberties Union had hoped for when they filed the lawsuit earlier this year.

"We believe Shelby is right, that state bans on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional," said John Mejía, legal director for the ACLU of Utah. "But what’s comforting about the ruling is no matter what happens with other cases, these marriages will be recognized."

The comfort only goes so far for plaintiffs Matthew Barraza and Tony Milner, who are raising their 5-year-old son together.

Barraza and Milner are one of several couples whose adoptions remain unresolved after the Utah Supreme Court halted all movement in same-sex adoptions last week until the justices can determine whether the adoptions, granted by three state judges, were legally issued.

Under Utah law, adoption is one of a slew of rights and privileges afforded to married couples. If Kimball’s order stands, experts said, it will likely heavily impact the state court’s decision on whether same-sex couples can be allowed the right to adopt.

"They’d be sort of grasping at straws to appeal, but considering some of their actions in other cases, I think we may be seeing [an appeal]," said lawyer Erik Strindberg, whose firm, Strindberg & Scholnick, acted as co-counsel with the ACLU in the marriage recognition lawsuit.

"I hope they don’t," Strindberg said. "I hope the state sees that we have a very strong opinion here saying that these couples have vested rights under state laws and the U.S. Constitution. There are better ways to spend our tax money."

Judge Kimball, a Brigham Young University alumnus who was nominated to the federal bench in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, based a significant part of his ruling on a similar case that reached the California Supreme Court in 2008 and answered the question of whether more than 18,000 same-sex California marriages would be nullified by Proposition 8, which banned same-sex unions in the state.

In that case, the state supreme court found that rights legally granted to citizens cannot retroactively be taken away when law changes.

The judge also cited a case more than 120 years old that asserted vested rights associated with marriage stand "independent of the change in the law" as a "fundamental principle of basic fairness."

The stay imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 6 — halting any further marriages and reverting the state to its "status quo" of banning gay and lesbian unions — does not apply to the couples who were issued licenses by Utah county clerks, the judge wrote.

The state has argued that couples who rushed clerk offices in the wake of Shelby’s landmark ruling acted "unreasonably;" the judge noted the state also adhered to Shelby’s order by telling its clerks to comply.

"The state notified its county clerks that they were required to issue marriage licenses," he wrote. "The state now seems to be claiming that while it reasonably required its county clerks to act in response to the [same-sex marriage] decision, plaintiffs unreasonably acted on the same decision."

State Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, called on the attorney general to "stop spending millions of Utah tax dollars on wasteful, message lawsuits designed to degrade and hurt LGBT families all across Utah."

Dabakis, who is openly gay, was married to his partner in the 17-day window after Shelby’s historic ruling.

"As the only member of the Utah Senate whose spouse is refused state health care benefits, resulting from Governor Herbert’s order putting all legal, same-sex Utah marriages ‘on hold,’ I applaud Judge Kimball’s decision," Dabakis wrote. "And I urge the governor to respect the rule of law and withdraw his ‘hold’ on the dozens of Utah state employees affected as well as the hundreds of other married Utah couples."

The Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank, released the following statement calling Kimball’s decision "disappointing" and "judicial overreaching."

"There’s nothing in the United States Constitution that allows courts to mandate same-sex marriage on the states, but one judge was able to do just that by issuing a novel ruling and then forcing the state to put it into effect before the court of appeals could correct any legal errors in that decision," wrote Bill Duncan, the institute’s director of its Center for Family and Society. "Our system is weaker when judicial gamesmanship is not kept in check."

mlang@sltrib.com

Twitter: @Marissa_Jae

In case the difference isn't obvious:

Abortion physically destroys developing fetuses.

Same-sex marriage protects the interests and needs of children being raised by same-sex couples by strengthening their families, increasing their financial stability, improving their access to heathcare, etc.

In short: abortion causes physical harm to developing children; allowing same-sex marriage protects and improves the health of children.

[Daniel2]

The dizzying pace continues, adding Pennsylvania to the list... no stay issued, so marriages can begin immediately:

Federal Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania Same-Sex Marriage Ban

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ba?s=mobile

“We now join the twelve federal district courts across the country [that] … have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage.”

posted on May 20, 2014, at 12:28 p.m.

Chris Geidner

BuzzFeed Staff

WASHINGTON — For the second day in a row, a federal judge — this time in Pennsylvania — has struck down a state ban on same-sex couples' marriages.

Less than 24 hours after U.S. District Court Michael McShane — an Obama appointee — struck down Oregon's state constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III — appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002 — reached the same ultimate conclusion in Pennsylvania.

"We now join the twelve federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage," Jones wrote.

Like McShane in Oregon, Jones provided for no stay of his ruling, meaning it goes into effect immediately — and same-sex couples should be able to apply for marriage licenses immediately, although there is a three-day waiting period to get the license.

Although Pennsylvania has no constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying, Jones on Tuesday struck down the state's 1996 statute banning same-sex couples from marrying and barring recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.

As to his legal conclusion, Jones wrote, "[W]e hold that Pennsylvania's Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement. By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth."

In conclusion, he wrote:

In the order, filed moments later, Jones wrote the state defendants are "permanently enjoined" from enforcing the ban. He provided for no stay of his order, meaning it is effective immediately.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett is defending the state's ban, although Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is not representing Corbett in the case because she believes the ban to be unconstitutional.

In a statement, Kane said, "This is an historic day. More importantly, today brings justice to Pennsylvanians who have suffered from unequal protection under the law because of their sexual orientation. When state-sponsored inequality exists, citizens are deprived of the full protections that the Constitution guarantees. Our Commonwealth progressed today and so have the hopes and dreams of many who suffer from inequality. Today, in Pennsylvania, the Constitution prevailed."

Prior to Tuesday's decision, Jones had previously attracted attention for his 2005decision striking down a school district's requirement that intelligent design be taught.

In a 2008 speech in accepting the American Humanist Association's Humanist Religious Liberty Award, Jones spoke of the lessons he learned from the experience of hearing and deciding that case.

"The judicial branch protects against the tyranny of the majority. We are a bulwark against public opinion. And that was very much done with a purpose, and I think that it really has withstood the test of time," he said. "The judiciary is a check against the unconstitutional abuse and extension of power by the other branches of government."

Hot on the heels of yesterday's Utah ruling by LDS Judge Dale Kimball, word is that this judge in Pennsylvania was appointed by George W. Bush and recommended by Rick Santorum...

It will be interesting to see if more Latter-day Saints (and conservatives, in general) will begin to agree with these rulings as a matter of appropriate judicial governance, even if they continue to disagree with same-sex behavior as a matter of religious principle---or if they will continue to view this as "judicial tyranny" by "activist judges."