Federal judge overturns Utah same-sex marriage ban

[Mojo]

This happened a few days ago, surprised it hasn't been posted yet. It could set a precedent for other states depending on how the appeal goes. I'm hoping for the best, it's particularly awesome this is happening in a state that's historically been dominated by a conservative religion.

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge Friday struck down Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment — which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman — finding that it violates rights to due process and equal protection as set forth in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Within hours, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill confirmed that, in light of the ruling, he saw no reason to prohibit Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and as many as 120 gay couples descended on the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office to obtain licenses, with many staying to marry on the spot.

The Utah Attorney General's Office issued a statement late Friday night, saying it discussed with U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby "a stay of his decision prohibiting Utah's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

"Judge Shelby declined to stay his decision on the court's own accord and would not entertain an oral motion to stay. As a result, the attorney general's office is filing a written motion to stay, which the judge has said he will resolve on an expedited basis," the statement read.

Also Friday, the attorney general's office filed a notice of appeal in U.S. District Court.

"The federal district court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right has never been established in any previous case in the 10th Circuit," office spokesman Ryan Bruckman said in a statement. "The attorney general’s office will continue reviewing the ruling in detail until an appeal is filed to support the constitutional amendment passed by the citizens of Utah."

Meanwhile, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert expressed disappointment in Shelby's ruling.

“I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah,” Herbert said in a statement.

Utah is one of 33 states that enacted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In 2004, 66 percent of Utahns approved Amendment 3 and its traditional definition of marriage.

Shelby acknowledged in his ruling that "few questions are as politically charged in the current climate," but he said the plaintiffs in the case were asking a question that depended on the U.S. Constitution.

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," the judge wrote. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."

Bill Duncan, director of the Center for Family and Society at the Sutherland Institute, said he wasn't necessarily surprised by the ruling, based on questions he said Shelby asked at an oral argument hearing on the issue. Still, that doesn't make the ruling "any less disappointing," he said.

"Because the baseline holding is that two-thirds of voters who approved the amendment in 2004 were acting irrationally, and that's hard to swallow," Duncan said. "There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution requiring states to change the legal definition of marriage. The judge elevated his own thinking on a divisive social issue and turned it into a constitutional issue."

He, too, said he was confused as to how an amendment requiring states to treat slaves as full citizens could be interpreted as it was by Shelby.

"That amendment somehow makes Utah's marriage law beyond the pale? That's really a stretch. That's really an overreach," Duncan said. "I think it's an abuse of his authority. It's very clear that this isn't the final say on this issue. It was clear from the beginning that this was going to be decided by a higher court."

Duncan also questioned the judge's timing, calling it a "little disingenuous" given that the judge had said he was hoping to get a ruling written by Jan. 7. And then, "a couple of weeks later, he has a 53-page opinion already prepared."

"Then to have local officials say that's the final answer, we can't wait for one more day to have an appeal to go forward — that doesn't seem the typical behavior," Duncan said. "The judge clearly should have stated in his opinion that the ruling would have been stayed pending appeal to 10th Circuit, and his failure to do so is a little surprising."

Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, argues that the equal protection and due process amendment was a Civil War-era provision that has little to do with same-sex marriage. It was passed to offer recently freed slaves and their descendents protection regardless of race or ethnicity, he said.

"Pro-same-sex marriage groups around the country have been claiming that this 19th-century provision really means that states cannot define marriage the way that they have and every other society in human history have," George said. "The court … presumes to claim that the judge's own view of the true nature of marriage was the Constitution's view, but the judge is clearly wrong about that because the Constitution has no view (on same-sex marriage)."

During arguments before the court earlier this month, state attorneys defending Utah's definition of marriage said the case doesn't turn on who is right and who is wrong about what marriage should be, but on who should decide.

"The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today. But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States," the judge wrote.

George patently disagreed with Shelby's view.

"The reality is that the (U.S.) Constitution does not embrace one or the other of the competing views of marriage that Americans are divided about right now, and that means that the division should not be imposed on the people by unelected judges," he said. "It should be resolved by the people at the ballot box either directly in referendums or acting through their representatives in the state legislatures."

The state's attorneys contended that the Constitution does not prevent Utahns from defining marriage as between a man and a woman with children's interests at the forefront, and they asked Shelby to throw out the lawsuit. The judge denied their motion for summary judgment Friday.

"The state of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the state’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the state’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens," Shelby said in his ruling. "Moreover, the Constitution protects the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government."

Gay couple Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity and lesbian couple Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge filed a lawsuit challenging the amendment in March after Salt Lake County denied them marriage licenses. Karen Archer and Kate Call, who were legally married in Iowa, joined the suit because Utah does not recognize their marriage as valid.

Sbeity said Friday that the news was "very exciting" for him and Kitchen. He said he believes the public's opinion of same-sex marriage has changed and progressed in recent years.

"We’re just thrilled Utah’s taking a positive step forward," Sbeity said. "I hope that everyone is happy for us as much as we are."

In her argument, their attorney Peggy Tomsic called Utah's Amendment 3 the "most draconian deprivation of rights in the United States." Tomsic cited landmark U.S. Supreme Court civil rights cases Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools in the South, and Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws banning interracial marriage.

Sbeity said he believes leaving the decision on gay marriage to individual states is not fair because it denies rights "to people who love each other based on gender and sex."

"And that’s all there is to it, in my opinion," he said.

Tomsic issued a statement Friday saying that while she and her clients anticipated that the state of Utah would appeal the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, they are confident it will stand as law.

“We cannot capture in words the gratitude and joy plaintiffs feel that Judge Shelby had the courage to declare, as the United States Constitution requires, that same-sex couples, like all other U.S. citizens and Utah residents, are constitutionally entitled to marriage equality in Utah,” Tomsic said.

Cody Craynor, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said the church "has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect."

"This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process," Craynor said. "We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court."

At a hearing earlier this month, Shelby said he had his "hands full" with the case as his ruling is believed to not only have ramifications in Utah, but would be used in marriage law cases across the country.

Brett Tolman, a former U.S. attorney for Utah who along with attorney Paul Burke submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the federal Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Utah Pride Center, said Shelby’s ruling is “the correct result. It is a proper analysis of the Constitution.”

Tolman and Burke do not represent the three Utah couples who challenged Amendment 3.

“(The ruling) is very strongly worded. It’s definitive. It will make for an interesting decision for those who want to review it in terms of whether or not they appeal or not,” Tolman said, referring to the strong language on disparate treatment.

Numerous state bans on same-sex marriage have been tossed since the Supreme Court overturned DOMA, but the Utah decision may be particularly significant,” Tolman said.

“There are still legal battles to be made, but for Utah to be at the forefront in determining a ban to be unconstitutional is a very big statement when it comes to the rest of the country,” he said.

House Majority Leader Brad Dee, R-Ogden, said he's "grieved" by the judge's decision because it goes against the voter-approved definition of marriage. Dee said he has served in positions as a mayor and LDS Church bishop where he had the authority to marry people and wondered if refusing to marry someone based on his deeply held religious beliefs would be considered discrimination.

Shelby's ruling came the day after the New Mexico Supreme Court determined that the state was constitutionally required to allow same-sex couples to marry and receive the same privileges afforded by civil marriage under law. That ruling made New Mexico the 17th state, including the District of Columbia, to allow gay marriage.

Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Campaign, praised Shelby's ruling.

“We’re glad that the court has ruled against this discriminatory law,” said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah. “This law only serves to deny loving and committed couples the protection and dignity that only comes with marriage. We congratulate the brave couples who brought this challenge and their legal team.”

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said Shelby "recognized the fundamental equality of gay and lesbian couples guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

"Today, same-sex couples in Utah have renewed hope that they will soon be free to marry, and there is no legal or moral reason for the state to stand in their way,” he said.

To Lynn Wardle, a professor at BYU’s J. Reuben Clark Law School who specializes in family law, Shelby’s ruling was “simply a travesty and a tragedy.”

Wardle predicts there will be “pushback” by backers of traditional marriage and people who voted for Amendment 3.

“People are going to feel that their noses have been rubbed in the dirt," he said. "A process that is supposed to mean something in a democracy has been trivialized and thrown under the bus. The public attention given people who celebrate same-sex marriage is not going to calm the waters.”

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148

[Mojo]

The court of appeals rejected a request for a stay.

SALT LAKE CITY — The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a motion by Utah officials that requested a stay of a Friday ruling that declared the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

The appellate court issued a ruling Sunday saying it could not act on Utah's request to impose a stay until the ruling judge in the original case, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, acted on a similar motion submitted to him.

On Friday, Shelby ruled in favor of several plaintiffs who claimed Utah's Amendment 3, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, violated their constitutional rights.

Following the ruling, dozens of gay couples were married in Salt Lake City.

The stay requested by state leaders would have put a stop to all gay marriages in the state while the state appeals Shelby's ruling.

More information will be posted as it becomes available. Stay with KSL.com, KSL TV and KSL Newsradio for the latest updates on this developing story.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28121720&nid...cid=featured-1

[Kuya]

Ha. Bitches.

[Kaslo]

Also: Utah County Clerk says will NOT issue marriage licenses, even though knows it might be illegal for him not to.

[chiyio]

Also: Utah County Clerk says will NOT issue marriage licenses, even though knows it might be illegal for him not to.

Mormons =/

I'm loving all their sweet delicious tears about this here

[Ksandra]

Not going to lie. The best part of all this is conservatives doing the typical, "What's next? Polygamy?!" Because Utah would totally hate that...

[Jaybar]

Conservatives - applying slippery slope arguments since the beginning of time (around 4300 BC if I recall).

[Ksandra]

Conservatives - applying slippery slope arguments since the beginning of time (around 4300 BC if I recall).

Marriage with a goat is almost required by conservative law in news comments relating to homosexuality.

[Mojo]

The judge who originally ruled the ban unconstitutional has rejected a request for a stay. For those of you not too familiar with the legal system, here's a breakdown. The next step for the Amendment 3 supporters is to request a stay from the circuit court again (the court the request on Friday due to the judge not having been asked first.) If the circuit court rejects a stay, they could request a stay from the Supreme Court although I feel that's unlikely. Regardless of the outcome of a stay, an appeal will be filed with the circuit court. They can either rule on it, send it back to the trial court, or send it to the Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of gay marriage, Amendment 3 supporters can raise the issue to the Supreme Court although it's not necessary for them to hear it out.

What the circuit court does with this case is going to be very interesting. If the appeal is rejected it's going to be difficult to do anything about and it sets a precedent for every other state because it's a federal judge ruling that a state level ban is unconstitutional (as opposed to legalization of gay marriage in other states before this, which has been the state approving it.) It could be like opening a floodgate to legalize gay marriage in every other state when combined with the Supreme Court DOMA ruling earlier this year.

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge declined Monday to stay his controversial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Utah.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby said the state of Utah failed to meet its burden for a stay to be issued and said the same arguments made Monday were ones he'd already considered in his original ruling on Friday.

Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet said the state would seek an emergency motion for a stay from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver "forthwith." The state would consider going to the U.S. Supreme Court if the 10th Circuit doesn't grant a stay, he said.

Shelby's decision means gay and lesbian couples may continue to obtain marriage licenses and exchange vows in Utah unless the appeals court says otherwise.

"My obligation is to make a substantive ruling (on the merits of the lawsuit) and step aside and let the 10th Circuit weigh in," the judge said in denying the stay after a two-hour hearing in U.S. District Court.

Assistant attorney general Phil Lott said the lack of stay leaves Utah in "chaos." The state is concerned not only for people who are against same-sex marriage but couples who enter into same-sex marriages that could be void in the future, he said

Shelby struck down Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman last Friday. He said in a 53-page ruling that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Peggy Tomsic, an attorney for three gay and lesbian couples who sued the state over its voter-approved definition of marriage, said Shelby followed the law.

"It's awfully easy to get caught up in the emotion and do a knee-jerk reaction, and fortunately we have a judge who takes his oath of office seriously, which is to read, interpret and apply the United States Constitution and not be pressured by a moral and political majority," she said.

Shelby noted that the state didn't file a motion for a stay before he issued his ruling last Friday and didn't seek one until two or three hours afterward.

Lott said the judge's ruling on the Friday before Christmas "frankly surprised" the state. He said he thought that Shelby didn't intend to rule until early January, but "I personally believe it wouldn't have made much difference."

Lott argued that Shelby's order overrides the democratic voice of Utahns who voted in 2004 to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He asked Shelby to maintain the status quo.

But Shelby questioned what the status quo is at this point.

Tomsic argued that the status quo changed with Shelby's order and county clerks are obligated to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

"It is the law in Utah," she said.

Some counties in Utah declined to issue licenses based on a section of state code that makes it a class A misdemeanor for county clerks to give one to anybody but a man and a woman, Salt Lake County deputy district attorney Darcy Goddard told Shelby during the hearing.

Shelby said his ruling didn't anticipate every state law, but its intent was to not prohibit couples from exercising their Constitutional right to marry.

Tarbet said after the hearing that county clerks should listen to what their county attorneys tell them.

"That's what the governor asked them to do in his letter of Saturday, is consult with your legal advisers. Those are their elected county attorneys," he said.

Gov. Gary Herbert, who called Shelby an "activist" judge last week, said he was not surprised at the court's refusal to grant a stay, but was disappointed because of what he says are the ensuing results.

"The uncertainty is creating a lot of chaos. A stay would have been appropriate until we have a resolution," he said.

Herbert spoke just after he appointed Sean Reyes as Utah's new attorney general, replacing John Swallow who resigned this month. Tarbet had served as acting attorney general the past few weeks.

Reyes rejected the notion that the state's filing was not timely enough. He noted that Shelby's ruling came down at 4:27 p.m., and a motion was filed by the attorney general's office at 4:28 p.m.

"I am not sure how much more prompt this office could have been," he said.

Within hours of Shelby's ruling on Friday, between 120 and 150 applications for marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples were granted at the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office alone, with many couples staying to marry on the spot.

University of Utah law professor Wayne McCormack said any same-sex marriages performed before a stay were issued couldn't be voided.

"If it's valid at the time performed, it's end of story," he said.

Some couples began lining up at the Salt Lake County Clerk's office Sunday night. When the doors opened at 8 a.m., hundreds of same-sex couples were lined up hoping to get married before the decision about an emergency stay was issued, which would have halted the frenzy of weddings that began Friday.

Slowly they filed through the building, up the stairs and into the office where a team of frenzied clerks worked against the clocks to issue as many marriage licenses as possible.

A team of volunteer clergy and officiators filled the lobby and wandered the halls performing marriages for cheering and weeping strangers.

But Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill was waiting to halt it all if a stay was issued. But it wasn't.

"We will continue issuing marriage licenses," Gill said, drowned out by the cheers that swept through the building as word spread when Shelby's ruling was announced.

As of midday, a representative for the clerk's office estimated nearly 200 licenses had been issued.

Other counties in Utah, including Davis County, were also issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Monday morning while clerks in other counties such as Utah and Cache counties indicated they were waiting for additional instructions from the state.

Shelby's Friday decision is the first in the country to address whether a state may ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution since the U.S. Supreme Court voided the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law.

Gay couple Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity and lesbian couple Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge filed a lawsuit challenging the law in March after Salt Lake County denied them marriage licenses. Karen Archer and Kate Call, who were legally married in Iowa, joined the suit because Utah does not recognize their marriage as valid.

Shelby declined to stay his decision on the court's own accord and would not entertain an oral motion by the Utah Attorney General's Office for a stay in the hours after his ruling last Friday. As a result, the state filed a written motion, which the judge agreed to address on an expedited basis Monday morning.

Also Friday, the state filed a notice of appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

On Sunday, that same appeals court rejected the state's emergency request to stay the ruling, saying it couldn't rule on a stay since Shelby hasn't acted on the motion before him. The court quickly rejected a second request from Utah Monday morning before Shelby's decision was reached.

The federal district court's ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right has never been established in any previous case in the 10th Circuit, according to the attorney general's office.

Utah is one of 33 states that enacted a constitutional ban on gay marriage. In 2004, 66 percent of Utahns approved Amendment 3 and its traditional definition of marriage.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099780&nid...cid=featured-1

[Kohan]

I'm in Utah right now for the holidays, and I personally think this is hilarious. I love it. What a great Christmas present.

[Andalusian girls]

the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment has always been the most trenchant basis for a constitutional right to marry and i've yet to see an argument that can overcome it

Judge Shelbs obliterates the opposition on p much every level over the course of the decision, good read if you are bored and want to surf through fifty pages of legalese

The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason... an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The State does not dispute the Plaintiffs’ testimony that they have never been able to develop feelings of deep intimacy for a person of the opposite sex, and the State presents no argument or evidence to suggest that the Plaintiffs could change their identity if they desired to do so. Given these undisputed facts, it is clear that if the Plaintiffs are not allowed to marry a partner of the same sex, the Plaintiffs will be forced to remain unmarried. The State’s prohibition of the Plaintiffs’ right to choose a same-sex marriage partner renders their fundamental right to marry as meaningless as if the State recognized the Plaintiffs’ right to bear arms but not their right to buy bullets.

(procreation) is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view... Under the State’s reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate. This proposition is irreconcilable with the right to liberty that the Constitution guarantees to all citizens.

Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’s Amendment 3 achieves the same result.

great stuff, but only step 1. we're heading to the 10th Circuit, and SCOTUS after that

[Mojo]

I'm in Utah right now for the holidays, and I personally think this is hilarious. I love it. What a great Christmas present.

It's hard not to feel some schadenfreude mixed with delight, especially considering how Prop 8 went. Two of my friends got married today (ironically they're the most churchy LDS people I know.)

[Kaslo]

the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment has always been the most trenchant basis for a constitutional right to marry and i've yet to see an argument that can overcome it

Judge Shelbs obliterates the opposition on p much every level over the course of the decision, good read if you are bored and want to surf through fifty pages of legalese



great stuff, but only step 1. we're heading to the 10th Circuit, and SCOTUS after that

Sucks that the 10th Circuit is pretty conservative... Then again I did just win an appeal there on behalf of a large group of Native Americans

[Boyiee]

The term "voter-approved" really grinds my gears. "It should be resolved by people at the ballot box." Wonder what the other 50% of people want.

[GoggleHead]

One would think people would understand the necessity of having fail-safes that prevent minorities from being abused by the will of the majority. But fuck that, MURICA!

[Draginhikari]

It's either that people forget the history on why we don't bring people's rights to a vote, or are ignoring it entirely.

[Mojo]

The 10th circuit court has rejected a stay and have also stated that a successful appeal is unlikely although they will expedite the case regardless. Amendment 3 supporters have stated they will request a stay from the Supreme Court on Thursday although success there is a longshot considering Sotomayor will process the request and that she was one of the five who ruled against DOMA (although ruling on the grounds for a stay is a different issue.) It's truly great news.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Utah for less than a week, and already, the state is running out of options to stop it.

Late Tuesday, the 10th Circuit Court in Denver denied Utah’s request to put a halt to the marriages, hundreds of which have been happening throughout the state since Friday.

According to the order, the state failed to demonstrate it was suffering "irreparable harm" as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage and also failed to show it had a "significant likelihood" of prevailing in its appeal to the circuit court.

The appeal asks the high court to overturn U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling that overturned Utah’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.

But given Tuesday’s decision, which declares the state isn’t "significantly likely" to win its appeal to the 10th Circuit, experts said, a reversal of Shelby’s ruling seems dubious.

Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet told The Salt Lake Tribune moments after the decision that the state would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in hopes of obtaining an order to stay, which would immediately put a stop to gay and lesbian couples being granted marriage licenses.

He said a motion was being prepared and would be ready to go by Thursday.

"I wouldn’t say [the 10th Circuit’s decision] comes as a surprise," Tarbet said.

Because each circuit court is assigned to a Supreme Court justice, Utah will be appealing to Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor will have the option of considering the state’s request herself or referring it to the full court. If she considers, and subsequently denies, the state’s request for a stay, Utah’s last option is appealing to the Supreme Court itself.

Tarbet said the state is prepared to do just that.

University of Utah law professor Cliff Rosky, who also serves on Equality Utah’s board of directors, said the standard for receiving a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court is much higher — and more difficult — than receiving a similar order from the district court or appeals court, both of which have already refused to stop same-sex marriages in Utah.

The state would have to prove the 10th Circuit Court "clearly and demonstrably" erred in refusing to halt same-sex marriage in this case.

"It’s basically asking, Was the 10th Circuit’s decision reasonable? Could a reasonable argument be made for making the decision the 10th Circuit made?" Rosky said. "It doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court agrees with the ruling, what matters if it was reasonable. If it was, it stands."

Thursday’s motion will be Utah’s fifth attempt at getting a stay imposed to stop gay and lesbian weddings.

Peggy Tomsic, who represents the six plaintiffs in the Kitchen v. Herbert lawsuit, said the high court’s decision Tuesday left her speechless, and serves as an early Christmas present to her clients.

"I was just like, ‘wow.’ It gives me such confidence to see our judicial system following the letter of the law ... in the face of such a high-pressure, volatile issue," Tomsic told The Tribune. "It indicates to me that [the courts] realize the magnitude of this issue."

Included in the denial, issued by Judge Robert E. Bacharach and Judge Jerome A. Holmes, was an order to expedite the court’s "consideration of this appeal."

That means the court will waste no time in moving along Utah’s appeal and could hear the case in a matter of months.

"They’re moving ahead quickly and have already stated — in this most recent denial — that the state is not likely to prevail on an appeal," Rosky said. "If the 10th deny’s the state’s appeal, that would mean not just one court, but two federal courts believe state laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional."

Utah filed its emergency stay request with the 10th Circuit on Monday — barely an hour after Shelby denied a similar move to halt same-sex marriages due to Utah’s concern over the "status quo" and the "irreparable harm" these marriages stand to cause to the state and its citizens.

The longer same-sex marriage is allowed to continue in Utah, the more licenses will likely be issued and the more couples will likely wed. All but four counties in Utah were issuing same-sex marriage licenses Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear how the appellate court’s decision would influence the four holdouts.

"Time is of the essence to stop these marriages by staying the district court’s injunction," according to the state’s motion. "[Same-sex marriages must be stopped] in order to maintain the historic status quo of man-woman marriage that the state and its citizens validly enshrined in the Utah Constitution."

According to an email from Gov. Gary Herbert’s office to his cabinet Tuesday afternoon, most state agencies are seeing "minimal or no impact" as a result of same-sex marriages taking place.

The appeals court is not expected to decide whether to overturn Shelby’s decision for at least a few months. Utah was seeking a stay to prevent more same-sex marriages from happening until that case is decided.

Marriages granted since Friday will be unaffected by any ruling granting a stay, according to legal experts.

"Right now," Tomsic said, "the status quo in Utah is hundreds and hundreds of same-sex couples have been granted licenses and are now married."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...tml.csp?page=1

[Serra]

Not going to lie. The best part of all this is conservatives doing the typical, "What's next? Polygamy?!" Because Utah would totally hate that...

So, not to be an example for the slippery slope people to point to.. but what's the problem with polygamy again? I can understand not letting people marry someone under a certain age (since minors can't give consent), and not marrying animals/buildings/etc (because they can't give consent (although, part of me wants to say, what someone else does, as long as it doesn't affect me, why do I care?)), but if it is consenting adults, is there really a problem? I'm sure there'd be tax issues and things like that which would need to be worked out, but beyond that, is there really a problem with it, apart from the "marriage is between A man and A woman" argument?

[Dotsudoku]

I imagine it ultimately has everything to of with taxes, assets, etc.

And in all fairness, I'd be much more concerned about some backwater white guy with six wives scamming the government than 'all the blacks on welfare buying iPhones' and whatnot

[Meresgi]

So, not to be an example for the slippery slope people to point to.. but what's the problem with polygamy again? I can understand not letting people marry someone under a certain age (since minors can't give consent), and not marrying animals/buildings/etc (because they can't give consent (although, part of me wants to say, what someone else does, as long as it doesn't affect me, why do I care?)), but if it is consenting adults, is there really a problem? I'm sure there'd be tax issues and things like that which would need to be worked out, but beyond that, is there really a problem with it, apart from the "marriage is between A man and A woman" argument?

Monogamy is as America as apple pie and assault rifles. DONT TRED ON ME FUCKER!!!

^ Total sarcasm btw, monogamy is a great ideal but something people shouldn't be held to at all.