Skip to comments.Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah
Posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg
The Supreme Court has put gay marriage on hold in Utah. The high court on Monday granted the state a stay in their same-sex marriage challenge. The decision comes after a federal judge last month ruled in favor of gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Rats, I was hoping HBO would do a sequel of ‘Big Love’ with ‘brother wives’.
I am very surprised.
This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Remember, last year’s cases on marriage did not result in a ruling that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. In fact, while last year’s case overturned the federal defense of marriage act, a key part of the ruling was that the states, not the federal government, are the governmental entities which will define marriage.
I know that the liberals, in their headlong rush to embrace homosexual marriage, don’t always understand these legal distinctions. But, legally speaking, as of today, states have the right to define marriage.
Of course, we know the liberals want to see 50 state homosexual marriage, and they may get it by Supreme Court ruling at some point. I’m just thinking about the legal reasoning which would be needed for the courts to come to that conclusion. As of today, there is nothing in federal law which deals with this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation. Thus, the LGBT peoples, in spite of liberal thought, are not a protected class under federal civil rights laws.
So, the courts have to be creative and make up the law as they go along, if they are going to conclude that the state of Utah has no right to define marriage, when last year’s case indicated that the states, not the federal government, have the power to define marriage.
Very surprising, was it Sotomayor alone or the whole court?
Kennedy’s last year revealed him to be an ideologue and not a Supreme Court Justice who is faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
They’ve got to “gay” the state up to make they have a right o commit sodomy and molest your children withoutthreatof jail time first.
“The terse order, from the full court, issued a stay pending final disposition of an appeal to the federal appeals court in Denver. It offered no reasoning.”
from the NY times
It was Sotomayor! Very surprising!
I guess she turned it over to the whole court, from what I am seeing.
My worry is that a group of people who once came up with legal reasoning to make the Roe v Wade decision, and is now populated by a Chief Justice who can find legal reasoning to make Obamacare "Constitutional", may get this case.
Would be nice if they did the same in regard to NY’s SAFE act.
Yes! Victory. Now the AG needs to rescind all those phony licenses that were handed out.
She also granted that stay to the Little Sisters of the Poor.
I am surprised!
What about all the counterfeit “marriage licenses” issued? (They are counterfeit, because the form, which just lists “bride” and “groom” as the applicants, had to be altered.)
I think Kennedy got something up his arse and decided he liked it.
AG should rescind those licenses, but, that would be a separate legal process from the legal process of allowing homosexual marriage in the first place. My guess is that they won’t do that, because it would be seen at politically incorrect to do so.
Sad to say, we make laws and social policies based on political correctness nowadays.
“The states stay application was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred it to the whole court, according to the order issued Monday. Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th Circuit Court, which rejected Utahs request for a stay three times (Salt Lake Tribune).” So far the “wise Latina” is using her head, and I wonder if Zero thinks he got himself a Souter. This is going to go to the SCOTUS sure as sunup. I’m hoping the same regard for federalism that killed DOMA upholds a state’s right to forbid same-sex “marriage”; I just worry that Kennedy might go the PC route and use a full faith and credit argument, and invoke Loving v. Virginia. Lord, I hope not.
“I just worry that Kennedy might go the PC route and use a full faith and credit argument, and invoke Loving v. Virginia. Lord, I hope not.”
If that happens then it’s the end of the marriage amendments. But it might not go that far for some states, the ones that only passed their amendments in the low-mid 50% ranges 6+ years ago might not choose to appeal like CA with prop. 8. More would though, like Utah.
If that happened, and if I were with GOA, I'd file suit immediately to use a full faith and credit argument to allow concealed carry in all 50 states. In a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, the liberal judges make things up as they go along.
In spite of there being no areas of federal civil rights laws which deal with the LGBT peoples as a protected class, the liberal judges have been assuming for years that there is such provision in these laws. They have made it up as they went along.
What gets me about this is that there is no real equal protection argument as such. Everyone is treated equally under traditional marriage laws. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. All of us are restricted to one partner at a time. All of us are banned from marrying certain close relatives. We’re all treated equally as it is.
I understand that a homosexual doesn’t want to marry an opposite sex partner, but the point is, he/she has the right to do so.
So, this whole area of homosexual marriage court cases is one in which liberal judges make up the legal reasoning needed to arrive at their pre-ordained conclusion that we should allow homosexual marriage.
This is a good sign for protectors of marriage; if the Court believed that the DOMA case had rendered laws against sodomite marriage unconstitutional, it would not have halted the “marriages.”
As I understand it, the DOMA case found DOMA, and only DOMA, unconstitutional on the basis that it was enacted because of animus towards homosexuals. But that doesn’t mean that there are not Constitutional reasons to prohibit marriage; it just means that those reasons weren’t used in the enactment of DOMA (as far as the legislative history indicated).
As most of us know here, marriage was not created with the intention to prohibit homosexuals from participating. Indeed, there can be no such thing as homosexual “marriage” by definition, and so there can be no prohibition on something that doesn’t exist.
Men and women are capable of doing things for society and the species that two dudes or two lesbos cannot. That’s common sense for the vast majority of the world, but when it comes to leftists, there is no such thing as common sense.
Here’s hoping for a SCOTUS ruling that marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is Constitutional. And maybe that will be the first step toward reversion the Lawrence v Texas case that made butt-effing acceptable recreational activity.
Fascinating take. I had never used that argument before and it makes perfect sense. Thank you.
The LGBT movement strategy since the Supreme Court decisions earlier this year is to have rogue officials open doors to same sex marriage in the various states so that people “get married” and when courts shut doors, use the couples as plantiffs for court cases and “victims” for the media to exploit.
In Utah the federal judge did the dirty work right before Christmas delaying the ability of Utah to fight back and some 900 “marriages” occurred before today.
In my home state of PA a county official in Montgomery County issued licenses until a state court ruled against him.
The LGBT movement was able to “marry” people here in PA creating plantiffs for court cases they hope will legalize gay marriage.
“Unfortunately, the liberal judges make things up as they go along.”
A state having legal gay marriage isn’t what worries me. It’s their funeral. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is what worries me.
Other than pulling power away from Supreme Court (was never intended to work as we now allow it)only hope is that one or more of the liberal judges becomes a Christian.
Al things are possible with God....I believe Lord, help my unbelief
Sodomayer for instance, if she was to ask Jesus into her life, that would change things
Don't you just love it when liberals read the Constitution only when it suits them to do so?
That one’ll suit them, as soon as the time is ripe.
As I mentioned upthread, if that happens, we should be suing immediately to exercise Full Faith and Credit with regard to concealed carry.
This is just a speed bump on the highway to hell.
Indeed we should.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Dred Scott v. Sandford is the worst ever. It helped precipitate the Civil War. Wickard v. Filburn is definitely in the top 5.
If she had denied the stay request, Utah would have had the right to submit it to a second justice of their choice per standard SCOTUS procedure.
Utah would have chosen Scalia or Thomas. Either could, and likely would, have granted the stay or referred it to the whole court as Sotomayor did.
Sotomayor just circumvented that second stay request because she knew it was inevitable and simply referred it to the whole court herself rather than make Utah go through the legal motions.
IMHO, this is not indicative of her position in any way and is not a surprise. LL may or may not have more to offer by way of legal procedure, etc.
SCOTUS granting a TRO or the like notwithstanding, it’s time to start nullifying federal action that is clearly out of their constitutional bounds.
Not really. She simply delayed the inevitable. See my post #38.
It is inherently unjust that one man substitute his judgment for that of 2/3 of the people of the state.
Not the first time we’ve seen it, unfortunately. And these judges seem invariably to be liberal.
I may be naive, but that doesn't worry me. There are plenty of other definitions that some states recognize that other states don't. Take the 2nd Amendment as an example. Some states allow open carry, many states don't. Some states recognize concealed-carry permits from other states and some don't.
If they push national recognition under FF&C, it's a huge gamble and could be turned against them. They make wake up with every conservative openly carrying because some states allow it. We'll see I guess. I think they'll continue their pursuit under the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.
Don’t forget Sandford v Son...
“This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.”
Roberts and Scalia and the older liberals probably thought this would be politically unacceptable for too many people after giving the homos everything they wanted on the DOMA case. They also knew that they did not have the votes to rule Prop 8 was valid so they punted with the standing argument.
Kennedy wrote the dissent on the standing issue. But the leftists knew that they could take this up later and get their ruling.
That's the Big One, you big dummy. ;)
Can a society allow sodomy in private between two consenting adults and still affirm that it is a deviant behavior to be eschewed and certainly not given any special political or legal status? A society that puts freedom first will have these kinds of challenges. But a healthy society, especially one that is spiritually healthy, can meet those challenges.
A healthy society that puts individual freedom first will not have intrusive laws about licensing marriage or business. Government will stay small and keep its nose to the grindstone of protecting our freedoms without these endless entanglements we have now when government goes outside its constitutional bounds.
(3) That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. [T]here has been, the Court says, no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding . Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the societal reliance on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majoritys belief that certain sexual behavior is immoral and unacceptable constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabamas prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that [t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that [l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indianas public indecency statute furthered a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality, ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by todays decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional morals offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. The law, it said, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed. 478 U.S., at 196.2~ Justice Scalia in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. Truer words were never written. (Emphasis mine.)
Think of the property damage when people will have to rip their "marriage equality" bumper stickers off their cars.
But it would shut up Chris Kluwe. There's that.
In seriousness, your conclusion is beautifully stated. Thank you.