Utah same-sex marriage case could be thrown out on a technicality [more issues of 'standing']

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | 04/19/2014 | Marissa Lang

[GIdget2004]

There’s a small concern lurking beneath the surface in Utah’s same-sex marriage case, a quiet question that some experts say could derail the state’s push to permanently ban gay and lesbian unions.

Although few believe it poses a serious threat to the case’s trajectory — likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court by summer — the question persists:

Could Kitchen v. Herbert be thrown out on a technicality?

On Tuesday, Utah’s lead counsel Gene C. Schaerr drew attention to a question posed to both sides by a three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals last week regarding whether the lawsuit targeted the appropriate state and county officials.

The technical term is Article III standing. What it means is according to constitutional standards the court must consider, "at an irreducible minimum" the party seeking to sue must have suffered injury that can be traced to the action of the defendant in the case.

In the Utah lawsuit, the three couple plaintiffs represented by Peggy A. Tomsic and James E. Magleby named the governor, the attorney general and the Salt Lake County clerk in the case.

They allege these three officials are responsible for same-sex couples being denied marriage licenses and for out-of-state marriages remaining unrecognized in Utah.

Schaerr’s letter insists this belief is accurate.

Why would Utah’s lead attorney be volunteering to the court that the governor and attorney general are, in fact, the proper people to sue?

If the court finds that they’re not, the appellate judges may decline to rule in the case, leaving Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling to stand as law in Utah.

[sickoflibs]

Gays are given standing in these lawsuits against marriage because the lib judges rule that they are damaged by marriage laws that exclude same sex couples.

[Pikachu_Dad]

The extinctionists are on a roll.