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

[Daniel2]

More attention and national scrutiny regarding Utah's next move:

Utah pondering next same-sex marriage move

http://news.yahoo.com/utah-pondering-next-same-sex-marriage-move-141220339--politics.html

National Constitution Center By NCC Staff

41 minutes ago

The state of Utah, preparing to take its case against legalized same-sex marriages to the U.S. Supreme Court in a few weeks, finds itself facing a need to go to the Justices earlier to keep its options open on another front in that controversy.

Such moves are expected in the next week as part of a closely watched case that could bring the same-sex marriage issue back to the nine Justices for the Court’s next term, which starts in October.

On Sunday night, the state attorney general’s office said, in a statement, that it would appeal lower federal court rulings that recognized about 1,300 same-sex marriages that took place for a two-week period in Utah. The marriages stopped after a Supreme Court order put a stop to more same-sex marriages in Utah in January. The marriages started in December 2013 after a federal judge struck down the Utah same-sex marriage ban in a case called Kitchen v Herbert.

“The State recognizes that pending cases regarding same-sex marriage in Utah impact the lives of many individuals and families and is diligently seeking uniform certainty through proper and orderly legal processes until Kitchen v Herbertis resolved,” said Missy Larson, a spokeswoman.

Larson also said the state was prepared to file an Application for Stay to the United States Supreme Court “in the coming days to avoid uncertainty.”

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit indicated it would force the state to recognize the 1,300 marriages, pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Utah officials have until next Monday to file an appeal to the Court to stay the 10th Circuit’s ruling until other issues can be settled.

Utah officials must then decide how they will take their case against same-sex marriages in general to the Supreme Court in the next few months. The petition to the Supreme Court in this matter would most likely happen by late September.

Utah’s moves will be closely watched since nine states have seen their same-sex marriage bans overturned by judges after the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in the United States v. Windsor case.

On Sunday, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder said in an interview that the Justice Department will file a brief with the Supreme Court, that supports same-sex marriages, if Utah proceeds with its appeal, as expected.

Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia have laws or court rulings that permit same-sex marriages. In all, the same-sex marriage states represent 44 percent of the U.S. population.

States such as Utah, Kentucky, Kansas, Colorado, Texas, Virginia and Michigan are appealing court rulings that struck down their same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional.

In all, 31 states have laws or constitutional amendments on the books that ban same-sex marriages, and nine of these states are contesting recent court rulings that cited the Windsor decision as precedent to strike down the laws.

In its Windsor decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority decision that the Court wasn’t ruling on same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

But Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent inUnited States v. Windsor that the same-sex marriage bans would face legal issues based on the language used in the majority’s decision.

“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘ “bare . . . desire to harm” ’couples in same-sex marriages. … How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status,” Scalia said last June.

[Daniel2]

Utah makes its next move:

Utah Asks Supreme Court To Put Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Order On Hold

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/utah-asks-supreme-court-to-put-same-sex-marriage-recognition?s=mobile

Emergency request filed on Wednesday goes to Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Posted on July 16, 2014, at 6:20 p.m.

Chris Geidner

BuzzFeed Staff

WASHINGTON — Utah officials are asking the Supreme Court to put an order that the state recognize the marriages it granted to same-sex couples on hold while it appeals the case.

The "emergency application" goes to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but state officials have asked her to refer the request to the entire court if she is "disinclined to grant the requested relief."

Both the trial court judge who had ordered the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples granted following the December 20, 2013 ruling that the state's ban on such marriages is unconstitutional and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue a stay of the ruling during the appeal. Both courts, however, gave state officials a window to seek a stay from a higher court before the order goes into effect.

The 10th Circuit's temporary stay "window" ends at 10 a.m. July 21. As such, it is likely that either Sotomayor or the full court will act before then on the request or, more likely, to extend the stay temporarily while considering Utah's request.

I wonder how much thought has been given about the ramifications for the church if Utah actually prevails in this matter....? What if this case actually reverses the pro same-sex marriage trend, and Utah becomes the state that assumes responsibility for preventing marriage equality in the short term?

Remember the backlash and PR disaster when the LGBT community perceived that Mormons were the driving force behind Prop 8? Here's one rumination from the gay bloggosphere:

A loss in Utah would once again turn Mormons into the true pariahs they are. There would be no clearer signal to the rest of Americans that the Mormons are still a zealously pernicious cult with a long history of pedophilia, polygamy, perversion, massacres, preposterous beliefs in polytheistic afterworlds, a belief that (men) are actual Gods if they sufficiently tithe ... the whole Mormon construct is so far outside the mainstream of Abrahamic tradition (and actual sanity) that its is quite shocking Catholics would give them the time of day, let alone cooperate with them in persecuting gays. If we lose Utah, the TRUE "Mormon Moment" will arrive, and they will not enjoy it in the least.

I know... Christ said the world would despise his followers for doing what's right, so in one sense, this ostracism could validate believers. But I still wonder... does the church truly want this win? Or are they mostly just going through the motions as a matter of principle....?

[rockpond]

Utah makes its next move:

I wonder how much thought has been given about the ramifications for the church if Utah actually prevails in this matter....? What if this case actually reverses the pro same-sex marriage trend, and Utah becomes the state that assumes responsibility for preventing marriage equality in the short term?

Remember the backlash and PR disaster when the LGBT community perceived that Mormons were the driving force behind Prop 8? Here's one rumination from the gay bloggosphere:

 

A loss in Utah would once again turn Mormons into the true pariahs they are. There would be no clearer signal to the rest of Americans that the Mormons are still a zealously pernicious cult with a long history of pedophilia, polygamy, perversion, massacres, preposterous beliefs in polytheistic afterworlds, a belief that (men) are actual Gods if they sufficiently tithe ... the whole Mormon construct is so far outside the mainstream of Abrahamic tradition (and actual sanity) that its is quite shocking Catholics would give them the time of day, let alone cooperate with them in persecuting gays. If we lose Utah, the TRUE "Mormon Moment" will arrive, and they will not enjoy it in the least.

I know... Christ said the world would despise his followers for doing what's right, so in one sense, this ostracism could validate believers. But I still wonder... does the church truly want this win? Or are they mostly just going through the motions as a matter of principle....?

 

 

I think there is a decent chance that the Utah case could be the one picked up by SCOTUS and ultimately used to secure marriage equality across the country.  A bit of irony there.  But maybe, decades from now when the Church accepts gay marriage & disavows earlier teachings, there will be some way to spin this into making it look like we led the charge.

[Daniel2]

And from Florida, the first judge of three separate marriage equality lawsuits throughout the state rules in favor (the other two rulings are still pending):

USA TODAY

Ruling allows same-sex marriages for Florida Keys

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/17/gay-same-sex-marriage-florida-keys/12786169/

54 minutes ago

MIAMI (AP) — A judge in the Florida Keys overturned the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday after a legal challenge by gay couples said it effectively made them second-class citizens.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Luis M. Garcia applies only to Monroe County, which primarily consists of the Keys, and will certainly be appealed. The lawsuit contended that the same-sex marriage ban approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2008 violated the federal 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The judge said licenses could not be issued until Tuesday at the earliest.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and ban supporters argued that the referendum vote should be respected and that Florida has sole authority to define marriage in the state. The Florida amendment defined marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman.

Gay marriage proponents have won more than 20 legal decisions around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, although those rulings remain in various stages of appeal. Many legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately have to decide the question for all states.

Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.

During a recent hearing on a related Florida case in Miami-Dade County, attorneys for gay couples noted that, after a long legal fight, the state finally allowed them to adopt children but refused to recognize them as married.

"That inequality stigmatizes the couples and their children as second-class citizens," attorney Sylvia Walbolt said. "Same-sex marriages are completely beneficial. They are entitled to the full protection of the Constitution."

Supporters of the gay marriage ban focused mainly on the 2008 referendum vote rather than whether same-sex marriages were harmful or beneficial. Anthony Verdugo, executive director of the Christian Family Coalition, said it was wrong for a single judge to overrule the will of a majority vote.

"The people of the state have the right to decide," Verdugo said.

Along with the similar lawsuit pending in Miami-Dade, a separate lawsuit is pending in a federal court in Tallahassee seeking to force Florida to allow gay marriage and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Florida has long been a battleground over gay rights. In the 1970s, singer and orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant led a successful campaign to overturn a Dade County ordinance that banned discrimination against gays. The county commission reinstated the ban two decades later.

Florida in 1977 became the only state that prohibited all gay people from adopting children. A state court judge threw out the law in 2008 when she found "no rational basis" for the ban when she approved the adoption of two young brothers by Martin Gill and his male partner. The state decided two years later not to appeal that ruling, making gay adoption legal.

The amendment Garcia overturned Thursday was passed by a 62-38 margin in 2008 and banned both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships.

[Daniel2]

And here it is--the second in a series of pending precedent-setting Court of Appeals rulings (first one was for Utah, this second one is for Oklahoma... I think there's about five(?) other pending appeals cases in other circuits):

10th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules for Gay Marriage in Oklahoma Case

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-rules-gay-marriage-oklahoma-case-24618411

By NICHOLAS RICCARDI Associated PressJul 18, 2014, 11:09 AM

DENVER — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled Oklahoma must allow gay couples to wed, marking the second time it has found the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex marriage.

The decision from a three-judge panel in Denver upholds rulings that struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban.

The 2-1 ruling comes after the same panel ruled June 25 that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. It was the first time an appellate court determined last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act means states cannot deny gays the ability to wed.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel put its Oklahoma and Utah rulings on hold pending an appeal. Utah's attorney general has said he plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Gay marriage in the two states will remain on hold.

Still, the decisions give increased momentum to a legal cause that has compiled an impressive string of lower court victories. More than 20 courts have issued rulings siding with gay marriage advocates since the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling in June 2013. The rulings have come in 17 states, with Florida being the latest.

Two of the most striking of those decisions were in conservative Utah and Oklahoma, which saw their voter-approved gay marriage bans struck down in December and January, respectively. In Utah, more than 1,000 same-sex couples married before the Supreme Court issued a stay.

It's unclear whether the two cases will be the first to reach the Supreme Court. The high court could choose from cases moving through five other federal appellate courts, and it won't consider a case until next year at the earliest.

Attorneys representing Utah and Oklahoma argued voters have the right to define marriage in their states, and unions between a man and woman are best for children.

Gay rights lawyers countered that voters cannot define marriage in a way that deprives gay people of their fundamental rights, and say there is no proof that gay couples make inferior parents.

Ten years ago, nearly a dozen states outlawed gay marriage. Now same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and recent polls show a majority of Americans support it.

[Daniel2]

The Supreme Court puts recognition of same-sex marriages on hold, till they rule:

Supreme Court Halts Recognition Of Utah Same-Sex Marriages During Appeal

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-halts-recognition-of-utah-same-sex-marriages-d?s=mobile

While the state appeals the trial court decision, Utah will not need to recognize the marriages it granted to same-sex couples.

Posted on July 18, 2014, at 2:55 p.m.

Chris GeidnerBuzzFeed Staff

Supreme Court of the United States in Washington

peterspiro/peterspiro

WASHINGTON — Utah will not need to recognize same-sex couples' marriages beginning on Monday, following an unsigned order from Supreme Court on Friday afternoon.

More than 1,000 same-sex couples married in Utah before the Supreme Court issued a stay in January halting same-sex couples from marrying under a trial court order striking down the state's ban on such marriages in December 2013.

Some of the couples who married during that time sued the state, arguing that the state must recognize those marriages — even while the main case, Herbert v. Kitchen, is appealed. A federal trial court judge agreed, and the state was denied a stay pending the appeal of that second case from the trial court judge and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A temporary stay from the 10th Circuit was due to expire at 10 a.m. Monday, so Utah officialssought the stay from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, to which the same-sex couples responded on Thursday evening.

Sotomayor referred the matter to the full court, and, a little before 5 p.m. Friday, the court issued the order granting the state a stay of the trial court order during the appeal to the 10th Circuit.

UPDATE

Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert said in a statement, “I believe the Court made the correct decision to issue a stay in the Evans v. Herbert case. This is an important step in the process toward resolution of this issue. Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, all Utahns deserve clarity and finality when it comes to the law. I believe states have the right to determine their laws regarding marriage and, as I have said all along, that decision will ultimately come from the United States Supreme Court.”

Joshua Block, the lead attorney for the ACLU on the case, said in a statement: “We are deeply disappointed by the decision to grant a stay pending appeal, but despite this setback, we are confident that when the appellate process is completed we will prevail and these lawfully married same-sex couples will once again be given the same legal protections as ever other legally married Utah couple.”JULY 18, 2014, 5:56 p.m.

[Stone holm]

Utah makes its next move:

I wonder how much thought has been given about the ramifications for the church if Utah actually prevails in this matter....? What if this case actually reverses the pro same-sex marriage trend, and Utah becomes the state that assumes responsibility for preventing marriage equality in the short term?

Remember the backlash and PR disaster when the LGBT community perceived that Mormons were the driving force behind Prop 8? Here's one rumination from the gay bloggosphere:

A loss in Utah would once again turn Mormons into the true pariahs they are. There would be no clearer signal to the rest of Americans that the Mormons are still a zealously pernicious cult with a long history of pedophilia, polygamy, perversion, massacres, preposterous beliefs in polytheistic afterworlds, a belief that (men) are actual Gods if they sufficiently tithe ... the whole Mormon construct is so far outside the mainstream of Abrahamic tradition (and actual sanity) that its is quite shocking Catholics would give them the time of day, let alone cooperate with them in persecuting gays. If we lose Utah, the TRUE "Mormon Moment" will arrive, and they will not enjoy it in the least.

I know... Christ said the world would despise his followers for doing what's right, so in one sense, this ostracism could validate believers. But I still wonder... does the church truly want this win? Or are they mostly just going through the motions as a matter of principle....?

You know we esteem highly men of principle, unfortunately men of principle cause the democratic process to freeze up and gridlock, and have a tendency to trigger wars and contentions. It's a paradox like the frugal man we also praise, however, an over abundance of such will destroy a modern economy.

[Daniel2]

After the Hobby Lobby case, the oldster in our office changed his opinion as to the split -- he now agrees with me. He doesn't think the SCOTUS conservative majority gives a rip about the consequences of their votes anymore.

Hey, Stoneholm ,

I really appreciated this analysis that I read on a gay blog. I think the author really shows some great insight into attempting to predict what the courts' eventual ruling may be:

There isn't a single legal theory being put forward against marriage equality that isn't transparently "people should be allowed to discriminate uniquely against gay people if they want to." Even the "gays are icky" defense has largely gone out the window in all it's various forms (usually some call to standards of "objective" morality.)

If the lower courts were waffling, or were generating splits or fine nuances around the country, then I might be more frightened of a negative ruling by SCOTUS, but they are not. At this point, the only "split" among the decisions is whether heightened scrutiny applies, and even then most of the judges who don't apply it still say they should, unless there is a binding precedent otherwise - and even then more of them are clearly willing to express that they are chafing under it.

I can see Thomas and Alito knee-jerking an anti-gay ruling and not giving a **** whether anyone thinks less of them.

I cannot see Roberts and Scalia saying, "It is clear that the overwhelming weight of both legal theory and legal precedent are solidly on the side of equality, and the arguments against is are transparent bullshit that even the people presenting it clearly don't believe, but we're going to definitively rule against it anyway.

Scalia is validly routinely cited for his dissents, but if you look closely at the actual content of his dissents, he almost never actually gives a legal argument why the majority is wrong about gay rights, but rather likes to snipe at the kids on the lawn who just don't understand how things were in the good old days, and spinning what he seems to think are doomsday scenarios about what increased equality will mean to the country. He doesn't want to write a coherent legal justification for banning same sex marriage, he wants to write a scathing rhetorical dissent that everyone will remember for generations.

If Roberts sides against marriage equality, he sides with incredibly shaky legal theory and bald prejudice and goes down in history as doing so. It would likely be the defining ruling of his Court for all history. If he sides with it, it's either a blip in the progress or a permanent place in positive legal history.

Right now, and I'm not a lawyer, what I see is the Court wetting themselves over the possibility of declaring gay people to be not only real people, but people deserving heightened scrutiny - something that by their own standards and long precedents they are inexcusably overdue on - and the only three ways out of that are either affirmatively declaring that gay people are not actually citizens of the US subject to the protection of the Constitution, that every court in the history of the US was wrong in declaring marriage to be a fundamental right, or to keep a narrow focus on the issue at hand and rule only about marriage while skipping the broader equality question.

Ironically, and in ways that would have been inconceivable a decade ago, I think this Court is going to rule FOR marriage equality on the narrow grounds that marriage itself is a fundamental right and that they are forced by history to extend it to gay people, IN ORDER to avoid the legally obvious ruling that gay people are a persecuted minority who deserve the full protection of the law.

Remember, too, that Roberts is an adoptive parent; there is no way in hell he's going to write a binding SCOTUS ruling declaring that only biological parents have any right to marry and that children raised by anyone else are doomed and deserve no legal protections. And at this point, that's the only argument left to the other side.

I think these stays are a knee-jerk way of kicking the can down the road a bit. The bigger the force of judicial consensus is behind equality before they rule, the less controversial their ruling is. And they can't be blind to the fact that popular frustration is far more behind the delay in the inevitable than the delay in protecting Straight White Christian Values.™

If Roberts writes the ruling, he can keep the focus on marriage - that marriage is so important and central to society and civilization that in order to protect it FOR the important people, you sometimes have to let in some undesirables if necessary.

If he cedes the ruling to someone else, he risks the ruling being the sweeping statement of non-straight rights that the Court has been clearly trying to sidestep for decades.

If he takes the lead and actually writes some sort of drivel that states are free to discriminate against people they really, really don't like, he wipes out centuries of the arc of legal progress, and goes down as writing the next Dred Scott decision.

No, I can see the court denying cert in the absence of a circuit split - and that the stays may well be a way to try to delay until all the circuits have weighed in, or that they will write a narrow, grudging, and grumpy support of marriage equality, and ONLY marriage equality, but I honestly can't see them affirmatively ruling that gay people aren't people.

I'd love to hear your reaction to his thoughts.

[Stone holm]

My feeling is its 50/50 how it will go at the SCOTUS. I don't think they will find that gender orientation is a protected class. The wild card is the federalism argument.

[Daniel2]

And Colorado has its decision, again adding to the momentum of marriage equality:

Judge strikes down gay marriage ban, stays ruling

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban-stays-ruling-231112270.html

Associated Press By The Associated Press29 minutes ago

DENVER (AP) — A federal judge in Denver declared Colorado's gay marriage ban unconstitutional Wednesday, but he temporarily put the ruling on hold to give the state until next month to seek an appeal.

Judge Raymond P. Moore's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed July 1 by six gay couples who asked the court for an injunction ordering that the state's ban no longer be enforced.

Colorado Republican Attorney General John Suthers and Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper had requested a stay so the issue could eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court — though both agreed the state ban should be declared unconstitutional.

The couples filed the lawsuit after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Utah's gay marriage ban but put the decision on hold pending an appeal.

Moore said in his ruling that Colorado's attorneys "have not met their burden" for a stay because they did not oppose the injunction. But he's giving them until Aug. 25 to seek a stay from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shortly after the ruling, Suthers filed a notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit.

The matter of the injunction was never in question, only whether there would be a stay. Moore indicated as much during a hearing Tuesday.

Moore said the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled that it may take up the constitutionality of gay-marriage bans, citing a decision last week granting a stay in the Utah case. The Supreme Court said state officials don't have to recognize the marriages there until their appeal is heard.

"There is a fuse that has been lit that is burning across federal courts, and all of the district courts that have looked at the issue seem to be pointing in a single direction," Moore said during the hearing. "But not withstanding that, it seems as if with wet fingers the Supreme Court has put its finger on that fuse and perhaps said, 'Wait.'"

Gay couples applauded the ruling, but said they were still waiting for a final resolution.

"It's been a long time coming," said one of the plaintiffs, Breanna Alexander, 30, of Arvada. "But we're still meeting opposition that feels even more unjust when it comes to frivolous appeals."

The fight to legalize gay marriage began in earnest after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Clinton-era federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. The majority ruled that it was unconstitutional for the law to deny federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

Same-sex marriage now is legal in 19 U.S. states, including several socially conservative ones. Recent polls show a majority of Americans support gay marriage.

Colorado voters banned gay marriage in 2006, though civil unions became legal in 2013.

The couples' federal lawsuit alleged the state's same-sex marriage ban violates due-process and equal-protection rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Although some of the couples in the lawsuit have civil unions in Colorado, the lawsuit called them unequal and an inadequate substitute to marriage.

Suthers' office said the question of gay marriage should be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hickenlooper also said the legal process should play itself out, but he has reiterated his support for same-sex marriage.

After the ruling, Suthers said he was gratified that Moore issued a temporary stay. The attorney general said he expects the appeals court to continue the stay and believes the nation's highest court will be the final authority in gay marriage cases.

Even though Colorado's gay marriage ban is still in effect, clerks in Boulder, Denver, and Pueblo counties have issued marriage licenses to gay couples after several favorable court rulings. Denver and Pueblo counties have stopped because of a state Supreme Court order, and Suthers is trying to get Boulder to cease issuing licenses to gay couples.

It certainly seems as if Herbert vs Kitchen may be the one...

[Daniel2]

In an unusual ruling in an apparent act of civil disobedience, a separate Colorado judge again refuses to stop a Boulder clerk from continuing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the temporary stay just issued by a different Colorado judge:

Judge again refuses to stop Boulder gay marriage

http://www.9news.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/23/boulder-gay-marriage-ruling/13054799/

Associated Press, news source

1:16 p.m. MDT July 23, 2014

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - A state judge has again refused to stop Boulder's clerk from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

In an order issued Wednesday and included in the file of a pending federal lawsuit on gay marriage, Boulder District Judge Andrew Hartman denied Attorney General John Suthers' request to put his previous ruling in favor of clerk Hillary Hall on hold.

Hartman previously found that the state's same-sex marriage ban was hanging by a thread and allowed Hall to continue issuing licenses as a kind of civil disobedience. On Monday, Suthers asked Hartman to put his ruling on hold.

Denver and Pueblo counties have also issued licenses to gay couples. Denver stopped after being ordered to by the Colorado Supreme Court. Pueblo also agreed to stop because of that ruling.

[Daniel2]

And Florida's second of three separate rulings was just released, also in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples:

Miami-Dade Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miami-Dade-Judge-Rules-in-Favor-of-Gay-Marriage-268659482.html

A Miami judge has become the second Florida judge in a week to strike down the state's gay marriage ban.

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 • Updated at 6:17 PM EDT

A Miami-Dade judge has struck down the state's gay marriage ban, ruling that the ban violates the 14th Amendment and becoming the second Florida judge in a week to find it unconstitutional.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel stayed her order, however, barring it from taking immediate effect pending an appeal.

Judge Zabel said Florida's constitutional ban "offends basic human dignity."

Notable quote from the ruling:

In 1776, our Nation's Founders went to war in pursuit of a then-novel, yet noble, goal: the creation of a government that recognizes its people are "endowed . . . with certain inalienable rights" and that all are equal in the eyes of the law. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, para. 2 (U.S. 1776).

Unfortunately, history shows that prejudice corrupted the implementation of these ideals and that the corrective wheels of justice turn at a glacial pace. Slavery, for instance, plagued this nation from the time of its birth, and it took a bloody civil war, nearly one hundred years later, to break free from this malady. Segregation, though, took slavery's place, and it was not until the 1960s that we rid ourselves of this similarly horrible disease. Women too, had to fight for equality, and it was not until 1920 that they were first able to vote. Nevertheless, like race, it was not until the social unrest of the 1960s that gender equality had any meaning. The Native Americans also faced rampant discrimination until the 1960s and 1970s as well.

Notably absent from this protracted march towards social justice was any progress for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community until quite recently. However, as evidenced by the avalanche of court decisions unanimously favoring marriage equality, the dam that was denying justice on this front has been broken. The Court, nonetheless, recognizes that its decision today is divisive and will cause some Floridians great discomfort. This decision, though, "is not made in defiance of the great people of [Florida] or the [Florida] Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution." De Leon, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 665-66. ...

[Daniel2]

HUGE news on the Appeals front... A second court of appeals weighs in, in the much publicized Virginia case, led by the Boies/Olson legal team that successfully overturned Prop 8 at SCOTUS. The question is which Appeal will SCOTUS take up first: Utah's, Virginia's, or both....?

Appeals court strikes down Virginia's gay marriage ban

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FX1N620140728?irpc=932

Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:33pm EDT

(Reuters) - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Monday.

The court agreed with a lower federal court ruling striking down the ban. The appeals court ruled that "the fundamental right to marriage includes a right to same-sex marriage and that therefore Virginia’s marriage laws must be reviewed under strict scrutiny."

USA Today gives more details about the process and the ruling:

Appeals panel strikes down Virginia gay marriage ban

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/28/virginia-gay-marriage-appeals-court-decision/12536403/

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

2 minutes ago

Steve Helber, AP

Plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit against Virginia's same-sex marriage ban following oral arguments in May at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond

A federal appeals court panel in Virginia became the second one this summer to strike down a state ban against same-sex marriage Monday, making it more likely that the Supreme Court will settle the issue as early as next year.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond ruled 2-1 that gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry that is paramount to state marriage laws.

"We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable," the majority said. "However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws."

The circuit court has jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The panel's decision can be appealed to the full court or to the Supreme Court.

Like the first appeals court panel to rule on the issue this year in Utah and Oklahoma, the three-judge panel was deeply divided, but the swing judge -- in this case Henry Floyd, who was named to the bench by George W. Bush and elevated to the circuit court by President Obama in 2011 -- came down on the side of same-sex marriage.

Judge Roger Gregory, originally appointed by Bill Clinton in 2000, joined Floyd in the majority. Presiding Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush nominee, dissented.

"I do strongly disagree with the assertion that same-sex marriage is subject to the same constitutional protections as the traditional right to marry," Neimeyer said. "I would reverse the district court's judgment and defer to Virginia's political choice in defining marriage as only between one man and one woman."

The Virginia case, which involves two couples seeking to marry in the state and two couples seeking to have their marriages from other states recognized, now gives the Supreme Court a choice. It can hear the Utah or Oklahoma cases from the 10th Circuit, wait for Virginia's to be appealed, or wait even longer for other gay marriage cases scheduled for appellate hearings in August, September and beyond.

One way or another, legal experts agree the high court likely will accept a case for its 2014 term beginning in October or the 2015 term that follows. Niemeyer joked about that during oral arguments in May, calling his courtroom a "way-station" en route to Washington.

The justices paved the way last year for what has become an unbroken string of federal and state court victories for gay marriage proponents. They ruled 5-4 that the federal government cannot deny benefits to legally married same-sex couples without violating the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

Since then, district judges in 18 states have struck down bans on gay marriage or ruled that marriages performed elsewhere must be recognized in their states. Only three of those rulings -- in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia -- have been heard by appeals courts so far.

The 10th Circuit appeals court includes Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming, as well as New Mexico, where same-sex couples already can marry. The precedent set by the Utah ruling in June applies to all those states, but the panel blocked its ruling from taking effect pending appeal. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes has said he will seek seek Supreme Court review.

Other appellate court cases involving marriage bans in Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee will be argued in August and September. Appeals also are pending from Arkansas, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana and Colorado.

The high court ruled last June that the federal government must recognize legal same-sex marriages, and it cleared the way for California to become the 13th state where gays and lesbians could marry. Since then, six other states have legalized gay marriages by legislative action or court order — New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, Hawaii and, most recently, Pennsylvania and Oregon.

More than 70 lawsuits are pending in all 31 states that still have prohibitions. Some raise specific issues such as divorce or death benefits.

The Virginia case stands out for at least three reasons. It comes from the South, a region that has yet to embrace gay marriage. Its Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring, has refused to defend the ban, leaving that to two circuit clerks. And the lawyers for the original gay and lesbian plaintiffs, Theodore Olson and David Boies, are the same ones who won gay marriage rights in California last year.

The original plaintiffs are Timothy Bostic and Tony London, who were denied a marriage license in Norfolk, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley of Richmond, whose marriage in California isn't recognized by Virginia. They have been joined by the plaintiffs in another Virginia case, Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton and Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester, who seek to represent all gay and lesbian couples in the state.

"The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life," the court majority said. "Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance."

My questuon: will Latter - day Saints begin to agree with this tsunami of rulings and acknowledge that the constitution protects gays and lesbians right to civil marriage, even if LDS continue to support the notion that same-sex relationships violate God's law?

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't looked in on this thread for a long time, but I just noticed it has pretty much become an echo chamber of gay marriage advocates.

 

Not sure what to make of that.

[Daniel2]

I haven't looked in on this thread for a long time, but I just noticed it has pretty much become an echo chamber of gay marriage advocates.

 

Not sure what to make of that.

Great observation, Scott. I've noticed the same thing, and have wondered why...?

This topic used to generate a HUGE amount of discussion. And clearly, this thread continues to receive a high number of "views." So, I wonder if people continue to watch the topic, but aren't commenting anymore--which is why I asked the question at the conclusion of my last post.

Given the recent trend towards total silence on this board on the subject, it's hard to tell what active Latter-day Saints are thinking on the subject of the judicial rulings mandating civil equality of marriage foe same-sex couples.

Have the rulings started to change people's opinion regarding the actual civil rights of same-sex couples, even if same-sex marriage continues to be immoral? (Sort of like laws permitting alcohol, even though Mormons consider it a violation of God's law?)

Or does the sudden lack of participation from LDS same-sex marriage opponents mean something else...?

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

 

Probably just a large amount of burnout. My position really hasn't changed. I'm against it for religious/moral reasons, but can find no consistent legal reasoning to continue to outlaw it.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Daniel2:

 

Probably just a large amount of burnout. My position really hasn't changed. I'm against it for religious/moral reasons, but can find no consistent legal reasoning to continue to outlaw it.

 

I have the same opinion.  I don't believe the church should change their position, but I see no reason not to allow SSM legally.  I'm staying mostly silent on this issue though, because the last time I commented, I was banned from the thread, with no warning and no explanation. 

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Probably just a large amount of burnout. My position really hasn't changed. I'm against it for religious/moral reasons, but can find no consistent legal reasoning to continue to outlaw it.

Yours is one of the few positions I think is entirely reasonable, Sometimesaint.... I think that until last summer, you've been in a very small minority in that approach, on this board.

My query is that I wonder if more Latter-day Saints are rethinking their views that gay marriage prohibitions are constitutional and shifting their views to yours...?

As for burn-out.... I can understand that may be true to a degree, with a few notable excpetions: the topic of the morality of homosexual behaviors and relationships is still hotly debated in other threads--often related to gay parenting and the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The interesting thing is that people seem to be avoiding commenting on the actual rulings (in this thread) that are striking down their cyclical arguments, and continue voicing their anti-gay-marriage philosophies in less concrete threads.

My question: why avoid discussing or confronting the ramifications of the actual rulings, unless it's simply just avoidance or denial?

At some point, Latter-day Saint culture is going to have to face and answer whether or not they ultimately adopt your reasonable (in my view) approach, as you succinctly stated.

Either gays and lesbians should have equal civil marriage rights, or ALL these judges and rulings are wrong.

Rather than simple "burn out," I would suggest that the following recent Slate article perhaps uncomfortably (for some--not you, specifically, SS) answers what I believe accounts for the silence of the arguments of others in this thread:

JULY 29 2014 3:15 PM

When Did the Arguments Against Gay Marriage Become So Silly?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/29/arguments_against_gay_marriage_are_very_silly_now_why.html

By Mark Joseph Stern

In the 13 months since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage advocates have been handed an unbroken string of judicial triumphs—continuing this week with another circuit court and another state attorney general landing on the side of equality. This winning streak might seem to represent the inevitable victory of the gay marriage movement’s passion and logic, and to some extent, it does. But it’s also the result of the anti-gay-marriage movement completely collapsing around its own terrible arguments.

As Yale Law Professor William N. Eskridge brilliantly argued two years ago, there’s really only one internally logical argument against gay rights: the idea that gay people deserve the state’s moral opprobrium. Yet this reasoning was functionally voided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Romer v. Evans way back in 1996, when Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that no law motivated primarily by animus against gays could pass constitutional muster. The animus test has its flaws, but it has largely succeeded in keeping baldly moralistic arguments—gay people are gross, or sinful, or sick—out of the courtroom.

Marriage-equality opponents, however, never quite got over the shock of seeing their most treasured argument foreclosed upon. If the state couldn’t justify anti-gay policies by insisting that it’s rational to dislike gays, what other argument could possibly suffice? The question became even more pressing after 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-gay sodomy laws on the theory that the 14th Amendment’s promise of “liberty” guaranteed gays a significant degree of personal autonomy. Once again, gay rights opponents were vexed: The court had just nullified their most populist argument—the notion that same-sex sex is a transgression against the laws of nature. What coherent justifications for anti-gay policies could possibly exist in a post-Lawrence landscape?

The answer, it turns out, is that there are none—none, at least, that aren’t driven by animus. A review of the failed attempts here is instructive. At various points, conservatives argued that every child deserves a mom and a dad; that gay people simply make inferior parents; that marriage isn’t marriage without penile-vaginal penetration; that legalizing gay marriage would lower birth rates; and, best of all, that somehow, allowing gay people to get married would cause more straight people to have children out of wedlock.

Are you snickering? So were the judges who had the pleasure of hearing these arguments spelled out in court. Doctors and scientists have known for years that children do just as well with two dads or two moms, if not a little better; in fact, the only disadvantage the children of gay couples face is the stigma foisted upon them by anti-gay conservatives. (Even conservative Utah has stopped arguing that gays make bad parents.) The notion that vaginal intercourse a true marriage makes, while fun to talk about, surely has no bearing on equal protection jurisprudence. (It’s also rooted in Catholic dogma and is patently ridiculous.) The birthrate claim is made up wholesale.

And the puzzling hypothesis that legalizing gay marriage will lead straight people to have more kids out of wedlock? Judge Vaughn Walker raised this point with a lawyer defending California’s Proposition 8, demanding to know “how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects” straight people’s marriages. The lawyer had this response: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”

The problem here, of course, is that an honest answer—“your honor, we believe gay people will destroy the marital institution altogether”—would undermine the supposedly secular, animus-free nature of these arguments. In developing them, anti-gay activists began with a conclusion—gay people don’t deserve the rights that we straight people have—then worked backward, camouflaging each prejudiced premise with a supposedly neutral talking point. Under any kind of scrutiny, these theories instantly fall apart, revealing their bigoted, constitutionally impermissible core.

That’s what happened on Monday, when the 4th Circuit held that “apprehension and inertia” lie behind resistance to marriage equality. It’s what happened when Pennsylvania and Nevada’s Republican governors gave up on their states’ gay marriage bans, and when North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, Illinois, California, and Virginia’s attorneys general did the same. A good lawyer knows when she’s on the losing side of an argument. And stripped of their conservative Christian underpinnings, these arguments are blindingly, blatantly hollow.

And yet the inanity continues full-throttle, because gay marriage opponents have backed themselves into the corner they’ve always dreaded. They can’t give up their quest now—but they’re barred from citing the explanations that they truly believe, deep down, to be correct. The result is the current tailspin of idiocy, a shifting argument with rootless standards roaming from rationale to rationale in a desperate attempt to find shelter from the storm of progress swirling around it. It’s a pathetic display, but not an unpleasant one to witness. Stripped of all logic and reason, the argument against gay marriage has been reduced to gibberish. Enjoy the babbling while it lasts.

[thesometimesaint]

Yours is one of the few positions I think is entirely reasonable, Sometimesaint.... I think that until last summer, you've been in a very small minority in that approach, on this board.

My query is that I wonder if more Latter-day Saints are rethinking their views that gay marriage prohibitions are constitutional and shifting their views to yours...?

As for burn-out.... I can understand that may be true to a degree, with a few notable excpetions: the topic of the morality of homosexual behaviors and relationships is still hotly debated in other threads, and remains a "hot topic" in many threads--often related to gay parenting and the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The interesting thing is that people seem to be avoiding commenting on the actual rulings (in this thread) that are striking down their cyclical arguments, and continue voicing their anti-gay-marriage philosophies in less concrete threads.

My question: why avoid discussing or confronting the ramifications of the actual rulings, unless it's simply just avoidance or denial?

At some point, Latter-day Saint culture is going to have to face and answer whether or not they ultimately adopt your reasonable (in my view) approach, as you succinctly stated.

Either guys and lesbians should have equal civil marriage rights, or ALL these judges and rulings are wrong.

Rather than simple "burn out," I would suggest that the following recent Slate article answers what I believe accounts for the silence of the arguments of others in this thread:

 

 

Thank you. I'm the most reasonable person there is. Just ask me.

 

I think our little group here is fairly representative of LDS members. We hold to the basic truth's of the Church we love and care for. I'm about as TBM as they come in my personal life.

 

I can't speak to anyone's motivations other than my own. There is very little I don't express my personal opinion on. I'm just too old and too cranky to put up with much nonsense anymore, and I've got a big mouth.

 

It may or may not. I don't have that Liahona to tell me one way or the other. In the mean time I think it is best to be forgiving of what I perceive as motes in the eye of other's so that they can forgive the beam in mine.

 

Judges have been monumentally wrong before. I just haven't seen any legally justifiable way to continue to outlaw it. Who knows someday someone may come up with it, but I'm not hopeful.

 

Animus whether sectarian or secular is never justification for discrimination in law, IMNTBHO.

[Stone holm]

I have the same opinion.  I don't believe the church should change their position, but I see no reason not to allow SSM legally.  I'm staying mostly silent on this issue though, because the last time I commented, I was banned from the thread, with no warning and no explanation.

I think there are quite a few Mormons on the East Coast who are of the same opinion. Many question our right to legislate our beliefs.

[Daniel2]

Nice to see others chime in, here.

The AP released an interesting article yesterday interviewing SCOTUS Judge Ginsburg:

Ginsburg: High court won't 'duck' gay marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/ginsburg-high-court-wont-duck-gay-marriage-212634744--politics.html

Associated Press

By MARK SHERMAN

16 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't duck the issue of same-sex marriage the next time a case comes to the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says.

The 81-year-old Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday that she expects a same-sex marriage case to be heard and decided by June 2016, and possibly a year earlier.

Attitudes have changed swiftly in favor of same-sex marriage, which is now legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, Ginsburg said in her wood-paneled office on the court's main floor.

She predicted that the justices would not delay ruling as they did on interracial marriage bans, which were not formally struck down until 1967.

"I think the court will not do what they did in the old days when they continually ducked the issue of miscegenation," Ginsburg said. "If a case is properly before the court, they will take it."

The comment marked something of a change for Ginsburg, who previously had been seen as wary about the court getting too far ahead of the country in ruling on major social issues.

The justices decided two same-sex marriage cases in June 2013. Ginsburg was in the majority to strike down part of the anti-gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act. She also was part of a court majority that declined to rule on the merits of California's Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The effect of the decision was to allow same-sex unions to resume in California, but the high court said nothing about the right to marry.

Appeals courts in Denver and Richmond, Virginia, have upheld lower court rulings striking down state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Any of those cases could make their way to the Supreme Court in the coming months.

Since its also been raised previously in the thread as a side note that influences speculation of how the judges will rule on marriage equality, the article also includes some insight into Ginsberg's optimistic take on the Hobby Lobby ruling (in which she was in the dissent):

Ginsburg and her liberal colleagues dissented from a decision that allows for-profit corporations, such as the Hobby Lobby chain of crafts stores, to assert religious objections to paying for contraceptives for women, as required under President Barack Obama's health care law.

Joining Ginsburg in dissent were the other two women on the court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and Justice Stephen Breyer.

"I have no doubt that if the court had been composed of nine women the result would have been different in Hobby Lobby," Ginsburg said.

She said, though, that she hasn't lost hope for the five men on the court who formed the majority in favor of Hobby Lobby. "As long as one lives, one can learn," she said.

[Daniel2]

Think Progress is reporting that this Wednesday's Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals trial may very well result in the first ruling that departs from the trend that's been in favor of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples and results in a ruling against it:

Marriage Equality Faces A Rough Ride In Court Next Week

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/01/3466683/marriage-equality-faces-a-rough-ride-in-court-next-week/

BY IAN MILLHISER 

POSTED ON AUGUST 1, 2014 AT 11:48 AM UPDATED: AUGUST 1, 2014 AT 12:14 PM

Marriage equality has had a very good run in the federal courts ever since the Supreme Court declared the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013. Every single federal court to consider the question has sided with marriage equality, although two federal appellate judges have dissented from this consensus view in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and the Tenth Circuits.

Nevertheless, equality is likely to face more skeptical judges as more of these cases advance to the court of appeals level. As ThinkProgress warned last June, “appointments to federal circuit courts have historically been much more politically charged than appointments to the lower-ranking district courts, so litigants are far more likely to encounter a judge who was selected for their loyalty to a particular ideology.” We also predicted that the Sixth Circuit, with a strong Republican majority and a history of partisan acrimony, was especially likely to treat a marriage equality case with skepticism.

Next Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit will convene in Cincinnati to hear several marriage equality cases arising out of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee — and the GOP-dominated panel that will hear these cases is unlikely to bring joy into the hearts of equality’s supporters.

Judge Deborah Cook is a George W. Bush-appointee and a fairly doctrinaire conservative who is unlikely to break with her party on this high-profile issue. She will be joined on the panel by Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, a Clinton-appointee who is likely to side with marriage equality.

To the extent that there is a wild card on the panel, it is Judge Jeffrey Sutton. Prior to becoming a judge, Sutton was a brilliant — and very conservative — litigator who devoted much of his career to cases seeking to expand the role of the states at the federal government’s expense. He also helped lead the conservative Federalist Society’s Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group. Sutton was widely expected to be a reliable conservative vote when he joined the bench, and for most of his time as a judge, he has been.

Except that there was this one case . . . .

In Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, Sutton surprised many court watchers byrejecting a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Though Sutton appeared sympathetic to some of the policy arguments that Obamacare reached too far, he rejected the argument that it is the judiciary’s job to reward conservative unease with health reform by striking down the law. “Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law,” Judge Sutton wrote. “And even the most powerful intuition about the meaning of the Constitution must be matched with a textual and enforceable theory of constitutional limits, and the [anti-Obamacare plaintiffs' legal theory] does not work with respect to health insurance in many settings, if any of them.”

So, when the Sixth Circuit panel convenes on Wednesday, it’s possible that lightning will strike once again and Sutton will break with his party and his fellow conservatives to support marriage equality. The smart money, however, would bet against such a second strike.

The most likely explanation for Sutton’s vote in Thomas More is that he believes in a kind of conservatism which teaches that judges should be restrained and that lawmaking should be left to people’s elected representatives. Indeed, this view of the proper role of the judiciary was the dominant view among conservatives until President Obama took office, and it waswoven tightly into the rhetoric of presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Though this vision is now very much in decline, as conservative lawyers are increasingly keen to use the courts as a vehicle to thwart liberalism, Sutton did receive his lifetime appointment to the bench at a time when conservative cries for judicial restraint were ascendant.

Indeed, Sutton’s own opinion in Thomas More suggests that he was motivated much more by a fear of judicial overreach than by a sudden conversion to liberalism. The final line of his opinion was: “Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples’ political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility.”

The same instinct that led Sutton to pen this line, however, also would make him unlikely to use his own judicial power to upset a state’s policy of marriage discrimination. Lightning could strike a second time in Judge Sutton’s chambers, but he remains a very likely vote in favor of discrimination. And that means that the Sixth Circuit is likely to be the very first court in the country to side against equality since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA.

[Daniel2]

And the last of the three pending rulings from Florida was just issued, marking three pro-marriage equality rulings by three different Florida judges in three weeks:

Broward judge overturns Florida's gay marriage ban

http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80992932/

By Rene Stutzman, Staff Writer

12:56 pm, August 4, 2014

A state circuit judge in Broward County today made history, ordering the state of Florida to recognize gay marriages performed in another state.

Circuit Judge Dale Cohen's ruling is the third in as many weeks by a Florida judge who has ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

This one is unique, however, because it's the first requiring the state to recognize a gay marriage conducted elsewhere.

The other two – one July 17 by a judge in Monroe County and another July 25 by a Miami-Dade judge – only required local clerks of court to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Those decisions have not yet been enforced because of pending appeals, meaning no same-sex couple has gotten married in Florida.

In today's case, Cohen ruled that same-sex couples married in other states are entitled to the same privileges as other married couples in Florida. He also ruled that the Broward County clerk of courts must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

He then issued a stay to give Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi a chance to appeal, something that's expected, so for now, things will stay the same.

In today's case, a West Palm Beach woman asked Cohen to give her a divorce. Heather Brassner and Megan Lade were joined in a civil union July 6, 2002, in Vermont, according to Brassner's attorney, Nancy Brodzki, of Coral Springs.

The couple broke up, and Lade disappeared, Brodzki said. Now Brassner wants to get on with her life.

She filed for divorce last year, but in similar cases, other Florida judges have refused to grant them, citing Florida's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and saying they cannot dissolve a marriage that the state does not recognize.

The ban was enacted after a 2008 statewide referendum in which 62 percent of the electorate voted to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

In her petition asking Cohen to declare the statewide ban unconstitutional, Brodzki cited Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that outlawed Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.

She said Florida's ban on same-sex marriage is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process for all citizens.

rstutzman@tribune.com or 407-650-6394

[Daniel2]

Deseret News reports that today, Utah filed their official appeal to SCOTUS:

Utah appeals to U.S. Supreme Court in gay marriage case

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865608130/Utah-appeals-to-US-Supreme-Court-in-gay-marriage-case.html?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fjoemygod.blogspot.com%2F%3Fm%3D1

By Dennis Romboy, Deseret News

Published: Tue, Aug. 5 11:30 a.m. MDT

Utah on Tuesday became the first state to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on its law banning same-sex marriage that two lower courts have struck down.

(Alex Brandon, Associated Press)

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah on Tuesday became the first state to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a law banning same-sex marriage that two lower courts have struck down.

The Utah Attorney General's Office filed the petition with the high court, saying Kitchen v. Herbert is the ideal vehicle to decide whether the Constitution compels states to adopt a single marriage policy that allows people to "marry the person of their choice," as the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in June.

The state argues that ruling deprives Utah voters of their fundamental right to define marriage as between a man and a woman as they did in passing Amendment 3 a decade ago.

The petition says the issue has percolated long enough, with dozens of cases challenging state marriage laws and erratic use of stays creating legal chaos.

"It comes down to this: Thousands of couples are unconstitutionally being denied the right to marry, or millions of voters are being disenfranchised of their vote to define marriage," the state wrote.

In a statement, Attorney General Sean Reyes said he has a responsibility to defend the state Constitution and its amendments as Utahns have enacted them.

“We recognize this litigation has caused uncertainty and disruption and have accordingly tried to expedite its resolution as quickly as possible by filing our petition a full month and a half before its Sept. 23 due date," Reyes said.

"Utah welcomes a speedy grant of the petition and a Supreme Court merits decision, as all Utah citizens will benefit when the Supreme Court provides clear finality on the important issue of state authority to define marriage,” he said.

The petition doesn't necessarily mean the high court will hear Utah's case. The justices could have at least six appellate decisions to consider if they take up gay marriage again in court's next term, beginning Oct. 6.

The 10th Circuit in Denver overturned same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma in June and July, respectively. The 6th Circuit in Cincinnati will hear arguments Wednesday for Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The 7th Circuit in Chicago is set for arguments on Aug. 26, and the 9th Circuit in San Francisco for Sept. 8.

Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, said Utah's filing paves the way for the Supreme Court to bring a national resolution on marriage.

"Every day, hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their children are suffering the tangible harms of not being free to marry. The sting of discrimination and the crazy quilt of marriage laws are not just wrong but unconstitutional. The momentum is clear, the hardships of denial are real, and the country is ready for the high court to act," Solomon said in a statement.

The state's petition says the difference in the competing views of marriage is not that one side promotes equality, justice and tolerance, while the other endorses inequality, injustice and intolerance.

"Rather, it is a difference in understanding about what the marriage institution is — or ought to be. People can disagree. But the question for this court is not which view is better; it is whether the Constitution compels states to adopt either definition," according to the state.

The 10th Circuit found in a split decision in the Utah case that marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment, and the court ruled that access to marriage cannot be denied to gay and lesbian couples. It was the first federal appeals court to rule on the issue.

"A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," Judge Carlos F. Lucero wrote for the two-judge majority. Judge Jerome A. Holmes joined him.

The court stayed its ruling in anticipation of the state's appeal to the Supreme Court.

In his dissent, Judge Paul Kelly wrote that the Constitution is silent on the regulation of marriage and that power is reserved to the states, albeit consistent with federal constitutional guarantees.

In March 2013, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge, and Karen Archer and Kate Call challenged Utah's law against same-sex marriage in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby struck down Amendment 3 last December, ruling that it violates the due process and equal protection guarantees in the 14th Amendment.

Utah appealed Shelby's decision to the 10th Circuit and obtained a stay from the Supreme Court, but not before about 1,300 same-sex couples were married in the state.

The state argues in the Supreme Court petition that marriage is designed to honor children's right to know and be raised by a mother and father.

"But rewriting the Constitution to impose the 10th Circuit’s marriage definition on every single state has consequences. It communicates that the marriage institution is more about adults than children. It teaches that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and therefore expendable. And it instills an incentive that citizens seeking social change should use the courts, rather than the democratic process, to achieve it," according to the state.

Nineteen states currently allow same-sex marriage, while judges in 14 other states have issued rulings in favor gay and lesbian couples having the right to marry. Many of those rulings were stayed as the cases move through appellate courts.

First thoughts: it appears Utah has changed its approach and abandoned several of its previous arguments.

Second thoughts: none of the new arguments seem any more compelling than the others were.

Another good recap on the current activity at the appellate level:

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-arguments-flooding-federal-courts-150850890.html

[Daniel2]

The Plaintiff's legal team, including Salt Lake based Law Firm Magleby & Greenwood, P.C and the National Center for Lesbian Rights respond:

Today, the Utah state officials defending the state’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Court to review a June 2014 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit striking down the Utah ban. The plaintiff same-sex couples in the case—Kitchen v. Herbert—are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

Said Tomsic: "We respect the State’s right to seek review of its own law in the highest Court in the land, but we also respectfully, and vehemently, disagree with the notion that States can deny one of the most foundational rights to the millions of same-sex couples living across this great land. We look forward to reviewing the Petition filed by Utah’s excellent lawyers, and to responding to it in due course."

Added NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter: “We respectfully disagree with the State of Utah’s lawyers. Utah’s same-sex couples and their children are continually harmed by the enforcement of measures that deny them equal dignity, security and protection. We will carefully review the State’s petition to determine the response that will best advance our goal of winning for all Utahns the freedom to marry the person they love, and to have their marriages treated the same as other couples’ marriages.”