Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

uh, prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court

okay, dumb question on my part. so does this mean that wherever a law is raised banning gay marriage, the feds will move in and revoke it? how quick is this moving now?

more detail

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148&title=federal-judge-rules-utah-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-1

forks i think it means the broader issue of state bans based on gender will be at the supreme court pretty soon and likely overturned i.e. a more active ruling? california ruling was limited somehow, i can't remember in what way though, i'm slow on this stuff.

Yeah this is moving pretty quickly. Due process is starting to work out damn fast.

Also, at least one gay couple has already married (no waiting period in Utah). So an attempt to revoke that (which will happen) would only prompt a further lawsuit that will rule similarly at some point.

http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/12/20/breaking-utahs-first-gay-married-couple/

*dies*

hahahahahaha fuck washington county

utah is by far the reddest state this has happened in fwiw.

xp to matt: yeah, if the state of utah takes this to the supreme court that should force a more active ruling. the state of california didn't appeal the original district court ruling against prop 8, so the supreme court was able to avoid ruling directly on its constitutionality by simply determining that the defendants (supporters of prop 8) had no standing to appeal, leaving the district court's decision intact.

ty

https://twitter.com/jsethanderson/status/414169183707234304

Seth Anderson ‏@jsethanderson

Line out the door now in Salt Lake. A celebration of love and joy.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bb9srY-IYAcPQPw.jpg

Utah state senator Jim Dabakis just got married to his longtime partner.

damn it xp

this is especially sweet given that Utah-based orgs funded Prop 8 in California

Ryan Bruckman, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office, said its attorneys plan to appeal the decision and were currently drafting a motion to seek a stay of the ruling "as quickly as we can get it taken care of."

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert issued this statement late Friday afternoon: "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."

the u.s. judge ruled in 16 days on this (he was scheduled to issue a decision jan. 7).

is it possible this could be at the supreme court in a year?

The only long-term couples that I know who aren't married couldn't be because they live in Utah and New Mexico. This week is pretty alright.

10th Circuit Court denied Utah's request for an emergency stay tonight so get ready for a slew more marriages tomorrow...

And 10th Circuit reaffirms Shelby's rejection of the stay, gay marriage to remain legal through the resolution of the formal appeal at least, Gov. Herbert already saying in internal emails that there's minimal impact on state services. State's move now, but I suspect this is pretty much done on a practical level. Question is do they take this to the Supreme Court so Kennedy can put the final kibosh.

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57306142-219/state-sex-marriages-utah.html.csp

Officially four Utah counties still going "La la la I can't hear you!" Including Utah County/Provo/BYU.

And to answer Matt P's question -- I don't think a year? It kinda depends on when the 10th Circuit decides, which sounds like it might not be until summer. If Utah loses, they'd have to appeal, then it depends on when the Supreme Court schedules it, if they agree to hear it (which is pretty damn likely).

Hmm, though one final twist via the Washington Blade re the immediate stay:

But same-sex marriage seeking to marry in Utah aren’t out of the woods yet. State officials — Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes — can file a request for a stay before the U.S. Supreme Court. The request would go to U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who could refer the issue to the entire court.

provo spain?

Gotta love Orem.

utah county is the weirdest place in the u.s.

towns named after book of mormon characters. one of the articles had the weirdest fuckin quote from batshit insane byu law professor lynn wardle. hope they get the shit sued out of them.

Op-ed: Massacre of marriage endangers the republic

"sexual civil rights"

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/slidegallery.csp?cid=57302470

so pretty

Stop now in place in Utah per Supremes. SCOTUSBlog thoughts as to why:

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents. The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law. The order, however, cannot be interpreted as a dependable indication of how the Court will rule on the issue when it finally decides to do so directly.

...

As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision. The appeals court has ordered briefing to begin on January 27 and to be completed by February 25. It has indicated it is not likely to grant any extensions of time to file those documents. It has not yet set a hearing date.

With the Justices’ order in the case, it now appears almost certain that the question of state power to bar same-sex marriages will not be before the Justices during the current Term. A case on that issue would have to be granted this month to be reviewed before the Court is expected to finish this Term in late June.

Doesn't matter – I ain't marrying anybody in You-tah.

I rule that the state of Utah can fuck itself.

until a few hours ago it could

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/federal-judge-rejects-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

...Oklahoma! Not to take effect immediately - judge has preemptively put the ruling on hold in anticipation of appeal - but maybe noteworthy in that the decision, as I understand it, is based on simple rational-basis review, maybe with a little of the 'animus' vibe from Romer. Much lower order of scrutiny.

Makes sense that it was put on hold since the appeal goes to the Tenth Circuit anyway, where the Utah case is going. Still, another sign of cracks in the remaining dam.

Reading through state entries at freedomtomarry.org can lead to some kind of surprising moments. Like:

Georgia:

A majority of Georgia residents (57%) say that same-sex couples should be able to either marry or join in civil union. (Public Policy Polling, December 2012)

Montana:

A growing number of voters in Montana support marriage, with 43% saying it should be allowed. Additionally, 64% of respondents said they support either marriage or civil union for same-sex couples. (Public Policy Polling, February 2013)

South Dakota:

Support for the freedom to marry has increased dramatically in the past 8 years, with 45% of the state's residents now supporting marriage. In 2004, just 24% were supportive. (Williams Institute, 2012)

Mississippi:

Support for the freedom to marry has nearly doubled in the past 8 years, with 34% of the state's residents now supporting marriage. In 2004, just 18% were supportive. (Williams Institute, 2012)

Now, obviously there's a lot buried in the "either marriage or civil union" line. I suspect at least some of the growth is people saying, well, they'll get this marriage thing if we don't cough up civil unions! (Wonder if this line is being pushed at all in conservative circles.) But still - - - One in three people in Mississippi is kind of crazy.

related: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/01/21/gay-jurist-decision-bodes-well-marriage-equality-cases-experts/

Writing for the majority, U.S. District Judge Roy Reinhardt ruled that Abbott “unconstitutionally used a peremptory strike” to exclude Juror B from the case because of his sexual orientation, but goes further by saying the court must apply heightened scrutiny in its ruling in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.
[...]
But the decision in the Ninth Circuit is significant because it creates precedent within that jurisdiction to apply heightened scrutiny in the numerous cases before it involving gay people and may encourage courts outside the circuit to do the same.

Florida!

I claim you first.

Need to know if Eric hasn't applied already.

Applied my signature to the divorce papers? We've been through this ...

OK, rev, let's do it. I'll be in Seattle in April.

well done Scotland. better late than never.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25960225

FYI Scotland have legalised gay marriage to alfred.

Interesting Nevada news:

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, in a motion filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Nevada's legal arguments defending the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable after the court's recent ruling that potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.

"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.

Nevada's move comes as the federal government and courts around the country in recent months have chipped away at laws the prohibit marriage and benefits for same-sex couples. In a one-month span from December to January, two federal judges struck down state bans on gay marriage for the same reason, concluding that they violate the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said he agreed with the Democratic attorney general's action.

"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court," Sandoval said in an email to The Associated Press.

Man, my "but we're really running out of likely states" post from last November is just looking more and more quaint every day. Keep 'em coming!

Kansas House passes bill that would allow service refusal to same-sex couples on religious grounds

“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”