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

[Buckeye]

Per NBC, Pennsyvlania's decision means that 44% of the US population now lives in states were SSM is allowed.  That number does not include states such as Utah and Oklahoma were court decisions have been stayed.  http://www.nbcnews.com/#/news/us-news/judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ban-n110061

 

Considering the tsunami of lower court decisions striking down SSM bans since Windsor, does anyone realistically think that Justice Kennedy will go against the tide and hold that states have a legitimate basis to discriminate against SS couples?  I would not want to place money on that bet.  In fact, by the time SCOTUS gets a SSM case (likely dozens of cases) next term, the high court's ruling may be seen as a mere formality.  The only thing that can change things is if lower courts start ruling differently.  But with each new district court decision that seems less and less likely. 

[Stone holm]

Per NBC, Pennsyvlania's decision means that 44% of the US population now lives in states were SSM is allowed.  That number does not include states such as Utah and Oklahoma were court decisions have been stayed.  http://www.nbcnews.com/#/news/us-news/judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ban-n110061

 

Considering the tsunami of lower court decisions striking down SSM bans since Windsor, does anyone realistically think that Justice Kennedy will go against the tide and hold that states have a legitimate basis to discriminate against SS couples?  I would not want to place money on that bet.  In fact, by the time SCOTUS gets a SSM case (likely dozens of cases) next term, the high court's ruling may be seen as a mere formality.  The only thing that can change things is if lower courts start ruling differently.  But with each new district court decision that seems less and less likely.

Not sure about that, it still could go either way.

[thesometimesaint]

The courts usually go by stare decisis. But the Roberts courts has shown no hesitation in ignoring it. I give it about a 50/50 chance.

[Daniel2]

The courts usually go by stare decisis. But the Roberts courts has shown no hesitation in ignoring it. I give it about a 50/50 chance.

In my opinion, giving same-sex marriage bans a 50% chance of surviving is extremely generous, since no court in recent years has found any rational basis that's proven to be legally sound, and there's an avalanche of rulings in support of it.

I agree with the conclusions and tone of Pennsylvania’s Governor, who just announced he will not even attempt to appeal yesterday's Marriage Equality Ruling in his state:

“I have thoroughly reviewed Judge Jones’ opinion in the Whitewoodcase. Given the high legal threshold set forth by Judge Jones in this case, the case is extremely unlikely to succeed on appeal. Therefore, after review of the opinion and on the advice of my Commonwealth legal team, I have decided not to appeal Judge Jones’ decision.

As a Roman Catholic, the traditional teaching of my faith has not w​​avered. I continue to maintain the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. My duties as Governor require that I follow the laws as interpreted by the Courts and make a judgment as to the likelihood of a successful appeal.

"Throughout the debate on this important and meaningful issue, I have maintained that Commonwealth officials and agencies would follow the provisions of Pennsylvania’s marriage law unless or until a court says otherwise. The court has spoken, and I will ensure that my administration follows the provisions of Judge Jones’ order with respect for all parties. It is my hope that as the important issue of same-sex relationships continues to be addressed in our society, that all involved be treated with respect." - Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, in a statement posted to his website.

Personally, I think the big question is not whether SCOTUS will uphold marriage equality, but by how wide a margin it will do so.

Of course, only time will tell.

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Justified, perhaps not.  But it will still happen.  It will still happen that some will be mistreated because of race.  It will still happen that some will be mistreated because of ethnicity.  It will still happen that some will be mistreated because of religious faith.  We're all still human, after all, and some of us are more human than others.

 

As for me, I will not mistreat anyone because of SSM, and I will speak up if anyone in my presence tries to mistreat another because of SSM.  But that still does not make me a fan of SSM, nor will it make me believe that two persons of the same sex are married to each other, regardless of any supposed law.  And if I speak up against SSM as a principle, I will expect to be castigated and mistreated.

[thesometimesaint]

Justified, perhaps not.  But it will still happen.  It will still happen that some will be mistreated because of race.  It will still happen that some will be mistreated because of ethnicity.  It will still happen that some will be mistreated because of religious faith.  We're all still human, after all, and some of us are more human than others.

 

As for me, I will not mistreat anyone because of SSM, and I will speak up if anyone in my presence tries to mistreat another because of SSM.  But that still does not make me a fan of SSM, nor will it make me believe that two persons of the same sex are married to each other, regardless of any supposed law.  And if I speak up against SSM as a principle, I will expect to be castigated and mistreated.

 

I agree it probably will continue to occur. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. But I do try to encourage our better angels when dealing with each other.

 

For myself I'm not a fan of SSM either. If it was mine to determine what people did. and it isn't, there would be no SSM or homosexuality. Along with peace and love would rule the planets, Age of Aquarius and all that. But back to the real world with fallible mortal people let's be forgiving of their faults and shortcomings, encouraging better behaviors always. No one has to agree with me, though it would be nice if some did. I do expect and demand respect for my person and my ideas. 

[Stone holm]

In my opinion, giving same-sex marriage bans a 50% chance of surviving is extremely generous, since no court in recent years has found any rational basis that's proven to be legally sound, and there's an avalanche of rulings in support of it.

I agree with the conclusions and tone of Pennsylvania’s Governor, who just announced he will not even attempt to appeal yesterday's Marriage Equality Ruling in his state:

Personally, I think the big question is not whether SCOTUS will uphold marriage equality, but by how wide a margin it will do so.

Of course, only time will tell.

If it upholds SSM it will be a 5/4 vote, if it declines it will be a 5/4 vote no big mystery there. The only mystery is what the reasoning of the 5th Justice will be.

[Stargazer]

I agree it probably will continue to occur. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. But I do try to encourage our better angels when dealing with each other.

 

For myself I'm not a fan of SSM either. If it was mine to determine what people did. and it isn't, there would be no SSM or homosexuality. Along with peace and love would rule the planets, Age of Aquarius and all that. But back to the real world with fallible mortal people let's be forgiving of their faults and shortcomings, encouraging better behaviors always. No one has to agree with me, though it would be nice if some did. I do expect and demand respect for my person and my ideas.

+1 for all that.

[Daniel2]

Interesting Reuters report on a new Israeli study comparing the brain patterns of heterosexual dad's and moms and gay dads:

Gay dads' brains show activity akin to both parents': study

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-dads-brains-show-activity-akin-both-parents-194429293.html

Reuters

By Sharon Begley

May 26, 2014 3:44 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Having a baby alters new mothers' brain activity, researchers have found, and a new study adds the first evidence of such changes in the brains of gay men raising children they adopted through surrogacy.

The men's pattern of brain activity resembles that of both new mothers and new fathers in the study.

The research, reported on Monday, could feed into the debate over whether gay men should be allowed to adopt children. Many U.S. adoption agencies will not work with same-sex couples, and some states prohibit them from adopting.

The current study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted in Israel, and builds on work by neuropsychologist Ruth Feldman of Bar-Ilan University and others, who showed that the brains of new mothers become hyper-reactive to their child's cries and other emotional cues.

It was not clear if that pattern is a result of the hormonal and other changes that accompany pregnancy or a response to the experience of motherhood.

To find out, Feldman and her colleagues videotaped 89 new mothers and fathers interacting with their infants at home. They then measured the parents' brain activity while watching the videos in an MRI tube, and again (to establish a baseline) while watching videos that their kids did not star in.

In the 20 mothers in the study, all primary caregivers, watching their babies triggered heightened activity in the brain's emotion-processing regions, particularly in a structure called the amygdala, which was five times more active than at baseline.

"These are regions that respond unconsciously to signs of an infants' needs, and that derive deep emotional reward from seeing the baby," Feldman said.

For the 21 heterosexual fathers - who were very involved in raising their baby but whose wives took the parenting lead - watching their infant increased activation of cognitive circuits, particularly a structure that interprets a baby's cries and non-verbal cues. It is the region that knows which squirm means "I'm about to scream" and which means "change me."

The 48 gay fathers raising children with their husbands seemed to be both mom and dad, brain-wise. Their emotional circuits were as active as those of mothers and the interpretive circuits showed the same extra activity as that of heterosexual fathers'.

Ideally, scientists would perform neuroimaging on men and women before and then after they became parents, to show definitely that any heightened activity followed junior's arrival and was not present before. Until they can do that, Feldman said, she is confident that the telltale brain activity results from parenting.

One clue: in gay fathers, but not heterosexual ones, the brain also had extra communication lines between emotional and cognitive structures. The more time a man spent as primary caregiver, the greater the connectivity. It was as if playing both parental roles caused the brain to integrate the structures required for each.

"Fathers' brains are very plastic," Feldman said. "When there are two fathers, their brains must recruit both networks, the emotional and cognitive, for optimal parenting."

(Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

[Daniel2]

Also, an interesting analysis from Washington Post on the rent string of rulings in favor of marriage equality:

The Washington Post

From a diverse group of judges, a unanimous opinion on same-sex marriage

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/from-a-diverse-group-of-judges-a-unanimous-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/05/26/9790b1b8-e1f1-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html

BY ROBERT BARNES

May 26, 2014

The headlines are so consistent, they could be written by a computer: “Judge strikes down state ban on gay marriage.”

But the federal judges who have supplied an unbroken wave of victories across the country to supporters of same-sex marriage are more diverse than their rulings would suggest: white and black, gay and straight, nominated by Democrats (most of them) and chosen by Republicans (a few of them).

In Michigan, the message was delivered by a judge who took the bench while Ronald Reagan was president. In Utah, it came from someone who had barely celebrated his first anniversary as a judge.

What they share is a judicial view that would have been unthinkable a generation ago: The Constitution requires that the fundamental right to marry be extended to gay couples.

In Pennsylvania, where the state’s ban was struck down last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said he kept all 12 of the previous opinions by other federal courts on his desk when deciding his case.

District courts are the trial level of the federal judiciary, and, unlike rulings from appeals courts and the Supreme Court, the decisions of district judges do not create precedents for others to follow.

“But there has to be some kind of momentum effect” to the string of nearly identical rulings, said William Baude, a former clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. who teaches law at the University of Chicago and has closely followed the decisions.

Cases are randomly assigned, but nine of the district judges who have struck down the bans were appointed by either President Obama or former president Bill Clinton. Baude theorizes that the unanimity of the decisions may be a result of quick action by judges who strongly believe that the constitutional right to marriage must extend to gay couples.

Judges who disagree may be moving more slowly, he said. After all the previous decisions have gone a certain way, Baude said, “if you’re someone on the other side, you’ve got to think there’s a decent chance you’re going to be overturned or end up being on the wrong side of history.”

A rush to challenge bans

Since the Supreme Court ruled last summer that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, there has been a race to have state bans declared illegal.

Nineteen states and the District allow same-sex marriages, and there are lawsuits in every state — except one, North Dakota — that bars the unions. Challengers have been successful in each case that has been decided, including in conservative states such asTexas, Oklahoma and Utah.

As a result of legislative and judicial decisions — some written with sweeping, history-making language — gay marriages are allowed in every state on the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland to Maine. On the other coast, gay Americans are free to marry from the Mexican border to the Canadian line.

“This is how the country is understanding this issue now,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project. “When judge after judge after judge says the Constitution requires it, that makes a difference to Americans who know this country is governed by the Constitution and the law.”

But supporters of the marriage bans say it’s important to remember that these judges have the first word, not the last.

“They can have all the district judges they want,” said John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage.

“I quite frankly think they’re building up a big head of steam for the Supreme Court to slap them down.”

Jones, the judge in Pennsylvania, has made controversial decisions before. A 2005 ruling that teaching the theory of “intelligent design” in public schools violated the separation of church and state brought death threats to him and his family.

He is a protege of former governor Tom Ridge ® and a onetime Republican congressional candidate whose judicial nomination was supported by then-Sen. Rick Santorum ®. Jones braced for “incoming fire” for last week’s decision, he said in a telephone interview, “but the response has been muted.”

The judges’ rulings have come since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor last year struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On the one hand, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said in the majority opinion that states traditionally have defined the requirements for marriage. But on the other hand, he dismissed arguments about procreation and tradition that have been used to justify bans on same-sex marriage.

More than the federalism argument, district court judges have found the lesson of Windsor to be Kennedy’s view that non-recognition of same-sex marriages by the government imposes “a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon” the couples and their children.

The judges have also widely cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s fiery dissent in the Windsor case. Scalia said the reasoning in Kennedy’s opinion “arms well every challenger to a state law.”

“I thought Justice Scalia called it the way he saw it,” Jones said in the interview. “I think he was right and very prescient” about how the Supreme Court will act when it receives a case that directly asks the constitutional question.

Rulings lofty and personal

Like some of the other district court rulings, Jones’s decision employs sweeping language. He concludes his 39-page ruling: “We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.”

Jones said that while he did not think the case was difficult to decide, he “agonized” over how to write his opinion.

“To say I thought it was historical would make me look like an egomaniac,” he said. But unlike other opinions that might be read only by lawyers, “I knew this would be read by a broader audience, and I wanted to take a little more time” to make sure it was more accessible.

Other decisions have had a personal tone. In Virginia, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, the commonwealth’s first female African American federal jurist, began her opinion with a 180-word statement from another African American woman from Virginia — Mildred Loving. Loving was married to a white man, and it was their suit challenging Virginia law that led the Supreme Court in 1967 to declare state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Wright Allen’s opinion, which closed by quoting Abraham Lincoln, was an unapologetic defense of a federal judge’s duty to strike democratically approved laws that violate constitutional standards. “When core civil rights are at stake, the judiciary must act,” wrote the judge, who was nominated by Obama in 2011.

The opinion in the Oregon case was also quite personal. Judge Michael McShane, who has yet to celebrate his first anniversary on the federal bench, is one of nine openly gay federal judges. He has raised a 20-year-old son with a former partner and is helping to raise the nephew of his current partner.

Judges recuse themselves when they have a financial interest in a case or when it especially affects them. But a group that considered asking McShane to drop the case declined to do so after he made clear that he and his partner do not intend to marry.

McShane’s ruling touched on the hardships of growing up gay.

“Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin,” he wrote. “I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called ‘smear the queer’ and it was played with great zeal and without a moment’s thought to today’s political correctness.”

He also said that he is aware of the “legacy that we have bequeathed today’s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says ‘dad . . . that is so gay.’ ”

Moving up the ladder

Conservative critics of the rulings say some of the decisions read more as policy statements than legal opinions, with flowery language that could be seen as being written for history books.

“Some of them think they are writing short stories,” Eastman said.

Esseks and other supporters of same-sex marriage think the rulings are eloquent. “What is being created is an environment in which the Supreme Court is going to be comfortable ruling for the freedom to marry,” he said.

The rulings by McShane and Jones are not being appealed, and marriages have begun in Oregon and Pennsylvania. But most of the other decisions are being contested, and the action will move to the next rung of the federal judiciary, the appeals courts.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver already has heard arguments about the Utah and Oklahoma decisions. And three judges of the 4th Circuit in Richmond have heard the challenge to Wright Allen’s ruling.

It was unclear at those hearings whether the streak of victories for same-sex marriage proponents will continue. But the sharp sparring among the appellate judges makes it seem likely that the judicial unanimity will end.

[Stone holm]

At this point, I wish SCOTUS would just settle the matter in favor of SSM so that we can politically move on to more important issues. The whole SSM battle has been such a major weapon of mass distraction from critical economic issues and issues that involve the vast majority of people. This is a religious issue that has been blown completely out of proportion to its importance to any but a relatively small proportion of Americans by the constant political pot stirring.

[Tacenda]

http://fox13now.com/2014/05/28/sen-hatch-says-legal-recognition-of-same-sex-marriage-will-become-the-norm-in-this-country/

 

 

SALT LAKE CITY — “People are gonna have to live with it.”

That’s what Utah’s longest-serving Senator said about same-sex marriage.

[Daniel2]

From the Salt Lake Trib:

Stop gay marriage fight, Utah leaders

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57967826-219/marriage-state-utah-windsor.html.csp

First Published May 20 2014 04:46 pm 

Last Updated May 21 2014 08:11 am

It is only getting harder to deny the conclusion of last summer’s Windsor decision defining marriage as a due-process right of any couple. In the last two days, federal judges in Oregon and Pennsylvania came to the same inevitable conclusion as Judge Robert Shelby did in Utah last December. In recent months 14 federal judges have ruled against state same-sex marriage bans, and in some cases the states didn’t even bother to defend their laws in the wake of Windsor.

And now yet another Utah judge has gotten into the act. U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball, a former BYU law professor, ruled Monday that the state cannot deny marital rights to the same-sex couples who married in Utah during that two-week period at the end of 2013. Kimball’s decision has no bearing on the Amendment 3 case Judge Shelby decided, but his ruling rests squarely on the precedent of the Windsor case: "As in Windsor, the State’s decision to put same-sex marriages on hold ‘deprive(s) some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities’," Kimball wrote.

Attorneys arguing for Utah continue to cling to other language in Windsor that reserves the right of states to define marriage. States still can define marriage, as long as it is applied equally to all people. The state can say marriage requires classes on managing relationships. The state can say no one gets a marriage license on the weekend. But it can’t say marriage is for some couples and not for others. This is the reality of Windsor no reasonable federal jurist will deny.

It’s worth remembering that this applies only to the legal act of marriage and rights therein. It has nothing to do with how churches define marriage, and there has been enough history inside and outside this country to know that religion and same-sex marriage can co-exist.

It’s also worth recalling that this has been an evolution, and it didn’t begin last summer. It was more than 40 years ago that psychiatrists stopped considering homosexuality a mental disorder, and it was more than 10 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court took the police out of the nation’s bedrooms by striking down sodomy laws.

Even Utah’s reliance on the 2004 vote on Amendment 3 is questionable when polling has shown how people have pivoted. In the meantime, the state is hurting its own citizens by denying their rights to adoption, health insurance and other benefits they deserve.

The coming days will see the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rule on the Utah’s appeal of Judge Shelby’s ruling, and it’s difficult to see how that court could reconcile the state’s position with the Windsor precedent. Then will come the Supreme Court, which would have to twist like a pretzel to resolve its Windsor due-process right with a state’s right to deny that right.

No, this is over, and persisting just reinforces the perception that Utah is behind the times and out of sync with the nation.

Come up with a graceful exit, Gov. Herbert and Attorney General Reyes.

The comments after the editorial are with the read, as well. This one struck me, in particular, "The photos of joyous same-sex couples getting married will make it into the history books, not photos of folks like Dallin Oaks scowling and speechifying."

[Stone holm]

From the Salt Lake Trib:

The comments after the editorial are with the read, as well. This one struck me, in particular, "The photos of joyous same-sex couples getting married will make it into the history books, not photos of folks like Dallin Oaks scowling and speechifying."

Ouch!

[Daniel2]

Today the Supreme Court denied the National Organization for Marriage's attempt to stop Oregon marriages:

Supreme Court Denies Attempt To Stop Oregon Same-Sex Marriages

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-denies-attempt-to-stop-oregon-same-sex-marriag?s=mobile

The National Organization for Marriage tried to get the Supreme Court to stop same-sex couples from marrying while it appeals a decision not allowing it to intervene in the case. The Supreme Court denied the request without comment Tuesday.

posted on June 4, 2014, at 2:35 p.m.

Chris GeidnerBuzzFeed Staff

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court denied the National Organization for Marriage's attempt to stop same-sex couples from marrying in Oregon.

NOM has appealed the trial judge's decision not to let the group, which is opposed to same-sex couples' marriage rights, to intervene in the lawsuit challenging Oregon's ban on such marriages.

The appeal of the intervention denial now continues at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but same-sex couples will continue to be able to marry during the time that is happening.

The 9th Circuit, which is hearing that appeal, denied NOM's request to stop the trial court decision striking down the ban from going into effect during the appeal. NOM then went to Justice Anthony Kennedy to ask him to stop the marriages while that appeal is pending before the 9th Circuit.

Kennedy, who hears procedural matters brought to the court from the 9th Circuit, referred the request to the full court, which denied the request without comment on Tuesday.

NOM's appeal of the denial to intervene is the only matter left pending in the case because Oregon state officials had not fought the lawsuit, having agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban is unconstitutional. They had said that they would not appeal the decision if U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane struck down the ban.

In another case, that challenging Utah's ban on same-sex couples' marriages, the Supreme Court issued a stay in January, which has led most judges hearing marriage cases since to issue a stay during any appeal. Here, however, the argument was not about whether there should be a stay of marriages during an active appeal from state officials, but instead whether NOM was likely to succeed in its attempt to intervene in the lawsuit in the first place.

[rockpond]

Today the Supreme Court denied the National Organization for Marriage's attempt to stop Oregon marriages:

 

 

I think the message being sent to NOM is an important one, that being:  NOM does not have any standing to argue this case.  In other words, legalized SSM has no impact on you.  If you don't want to enter into an SSM, then don't.  But your neighbor being able to enter into a gay marriage is irrelevant to you.

 

It's a lesson that the church (as well) seems determined to learn the hard way.

[Stone holm]

I think the message being sent to NOM is an important one, that being:  NOM does not have any standing to argue this case.  In other words, legalized SSM has no impact on you.  If you don't want to enter into an SSM, then don't.  But your neighbor being able to enter into a gay marriage is irrelevant to you.

 

It's a lesson that the church (as well) seems determined to learn the hard way.

Well, it seems to me it is simply a standing case period. It's the same issue that was decided in the Prop 8 case, namely only the State has standing to appeal a decision striking down a SSM ban. It is nothing mor and nothing less.

[Kenngo1969]

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. 

Yeah, you're right: no receptions or showers ... they'll just film it, put it on the Interwebz, and crow about what a positive experience it was!  http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/why-i-filmed-my-abortion

[thesometimesaint]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

[Daniel2]

Yeah, you're right: no receptions or showers ... they'll just film it, put it on the Interwebz, and crow about what a positive experience it was!  http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/why-i-filmed-my-abortion

The main reason abortion briefly surfaced in this thread was in reference to whether history would eventually equate a pro-marriage-equality ruling as similar to Roe v. Wade, or to Loving v. Virginia. If you'd like to discuss abortion further, please start a new thread.

Thanks!

[Daniel2]

I think the message being sent to NOM is an important one, that being: NOM does not have any standing to argue this case. In other words, legalized SSM has no impact on you. If you don't want to enter into an SSM, then don't. But your neighbor being able to enter into a gay marriage is irrelevant to you.

It's a lesson that the church (as well) seems determined to learn the hard way.

Unsurprisingly, it appears the Utah governor and attorney general are determined to learn it the hard way, as well, rather than finding a graceful exit. History will not look kindly on them, IMO--but I imagine their rationale isn't based on the arc of history, but on religious conviction and playing to their perception of the religious convictions of their state:

Utah to appeal decision requiring recognition of same-sex marriages

http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/30181432?mobile_direct=y

by Dennis Romboy

Jun 04 - 11:07pm

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah intends to appeal a federal judge's ruling that requires the state to recognize the same-sex marriages performed during the brief time it was legal in late December and early January.

Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes filed a notice of appeal Wednesday in U.S. District Court. The case would go to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Judge Dale Kimball issued a decision May 19 requiring the state to recognize and grant all benefits to marriages which were performed before the U.S. Supreme Court stayed another federal judge's ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in Utah.

Kimball also put his order on hold for 21 days to allow the state time decide whether to appeal.

In his decision, Kimball wrote that it is clear under Utah law that legal marriages can't be retroactively invalidated and that the state failed to show it would be harmed if the unions were recognized. Conversely, he said, not recognizing same-sex married couples disrupts their lives on a daily basis.

"The state has placed plaintiffs 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," Kimball wrote in his 34-page ruling.

"These legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day that the marriage is not recognized."

The preliminary injunction Kimball issued in the case is not a permanent order, but reflects the court’s determination that the plaintiffs are likely to win on their legal claims and would suffer irreparable harm if their marriages were stripped of recognition.

After Judge Robert J. Shelby overturned Utah's same-sex marriage ban on Dec. 20, the state appealed to the 10th Circuit Court and obtained a stay of the ruling from the Supreme Court. About 1,300 couples married before the high court stepped in Jan. 6.

Reyes asserted that the Supreme Court stay means the law reverts back to the way it was before Shelby's ruling. Based on Reyes' advice, the governor's office directed state agencies on Jan. 8 to put recognition of same-sex marriages on hold pending the appeal.

About two weeks later, Donald Johnson and Carl Fritz Shultz, Matthew Barraza and Tony Milner, JoNell Evans and Stacia Ireland, and Elenor Heyborne and Marina Gomberg sued the state to have their marriages recognized. All were married in Utah between Dec. 20 and Jan. 6.

In the lawsuit, the couples asked Kimball to order the state to immediately recognize the marriages.

"In this case, plaintiffs solemnized legally valid marriages under Utah law as it existed at the time of such solemnization. At that time, the state granted plaintiffs all the substantive due process and liberty protections of any other marriage," the judge wrote in the decision.

[Daniel2]

Stay of ruling requiring recognition of already-performed same-sex marriages in Utah extended for at least another week, until the appeal is considered:

10th Circuit Court extends stay in Utah ruling validating gay marriages

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/58032642-219/state-utah-sex-court.html.csp

Ruling » Appeals court halts recognition of gay marriages.

By Marissa Lang

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Jun 05 2014 02:00 pm 

Last Updated Jun 05 2014 10:59 pm

Same-sex couples who were married in Utah in the brief window when such unions were legal will have to wait at least another week before they can begin to apply for in-state spousal benefits.

Less than 24 hours after Utah announced its intent to fight a federal judge’s ruling that ordered the state to honor and recognize all same-sex marriages performed in Utah, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals halted any movement toward marriage recognition beyond the three weeks initially imposed last month by U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball.

The court will decide whether a more permanent stay — that would be in effect until the Evans v. Utah appeal is resolved — is merited in this case.

If a stay is imposed, the more than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples whose marriages were issued and solemnized in Utah will continue living in the "legal limbo" of not knowing whether their marriages are, or will be, recognized under Utah law.

If the appeals court denies the state’s request, married same-sex couples may begin applying for spousal benefits once the temporary stay expires on June 12.

To receive a permanent stay, the state will have to convince the appellate court they need the stay to maintain order and have a high chance of likelihood on appeal.

It’s a high bar to clear, said American Civil Liberties Union attorney John Mejía, who represents the four plaintiff couples in this case.

"We’re very confident we’ll prevail," Mejía said. "The judge didn’t make any serious errors in his reasoning. As far as the state is concerned, the only error he made was disagreeing with them."

In a brief filed with the 10th Circuit, the state argued the need for a stay is "self evident." The attorney general’s office also noted that the question of whether marriages performed in Utah after U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s historic ruling made such unions legal for a brief period of 17 days is already pending before the Utah Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide wether same-sex adoptions — and by extension the marriages of same-sex couples — are legal under Utah law.

Earlier in the day Thursday, the Utah attorney general said that the state had little choice in appealing Kimball’s ruling. The state filed a notice of appeal on Wednesday.

If they didn’t, Attorney General Sean Reyes said in a statement Thursday, same-sex couples and their families could become ensnared in further uncertainty should the state’s ban on same-sex unions be reinstated.

The state’s decision to appeal was predicated on the same desire Utah has pointed to in its move tohalt all adoptions to married same-sex couples and its refusal to allow same-sex couples several in-state spousal benefits: Clarity.

"Any decision by the highest courts that results in undoing what the District Court has granted could be more disruptive than awaiting certainty and finality," Reyes said in a written statement. "The State looks forward to the day when these issues are resolved and Utah, along with its citizens, have certainty and a clear understanding of the law."

One day after the state filed an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court, challenging U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball’s decision, Reyes attempted to explain the state’s reasoning.

He said that given the uncertain future of Utah’s embattled ban on same-sex marriage — the state’s voter-approved Amendment 3 was declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby, then appealed to the 10th Circuit Court, which could rule any day — it would be premature to start doling out rights to married same-sex couples.

"We have carefully weighed and researched all options, including the viability of recognizing only those marriages performed during the 17-day window," Reyes said, "but cannot ignore the fact that Evans v. Utah [the marriage recognition case] and Kitchen v. Herbert [the lawsuit challenging the state’s same-sex marriage ban] are inseparably intertwined."

It is the state’s belief, Reyes said, that if Utah’s same-sex marriage ban were to be reinstated by the appeals court or, eventually, the Supreme Court, the couples who were married in the 17-day window could, again, be forced to live in a limbo of uncertainty.

"If it were somehow possible, an immediate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on all issues in question, would be welcomed by the State," Reyes said. "In the absence of that, the State will continue to consider every avenue to further the legal process as expeditiously as possible while asking the Courts to stay further action until the ultimate questions regarding recognition of marriage and constitutionality of Utah law can be answered with finality."

Judge Kimball’s decision was initially stayed for three weeks to give the state time to comply or appeal before couples could begin applying for spousal benefits.

That stay was to expire on Monday.

Read more about Judge Kimball’s decision and its impact on families.

mlang@sltrib.com

Twitter: @Marissa_Jae

[Daniel2]

And Wisconsin joins the list....

Judge overturns Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban

CREATED 3:29 PM - UPDATED: 5:12 PM

MADISON - A federal judge has ruled that Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Wisconsin's voters passed a constitutional ban against same-sex marriages in 2006, but the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Wisconsin, and the law firm of Mayer Brown filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight Wisconsin couples challenging the ban.

Part of Friday's ruling reads: 

"It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constiution."

MORE: Click here to read the complete Wolf v. Walker ruling

The state motioned to stay the case in March and to dismiss it in April, but both motions were denied. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced that current law remains in force, and vowed to appeal the ruling.

“As Attorney General, I have an obligation to uphold Wisconsin law and our Constitution," Van Hollen said. "While today’s decision is a setback, we will continue to defend the constitutionality of our traditional marriage laws and the constitutional amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters.  I will appeal."

Despite Van Hollen's statement, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele has ordered the Courthouse stay open until 9:00 p.m. Friday to allow for marriages to be performed.

[frank_jessop]

And Wisconsin joins the list....

And doesn't this mean that in every state with a ban, the ban has been determined to violate the Constitution?

[thesometimesaint]

And doesn't this mean that in every state with a ban, the ban has been determined to violate the Constitution?

 

Every Federal judge that has had a case brought him(her) has determined such laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has yet to determine the constitutionality of bans on SSM.