10th Circuit Court won’t stop order that Utah must recognize same-sex marriages

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal appeals court has refused to halt an order that Utah must recognize more than 1,200 same-sex marriages performed in the state after Amendment 3 was overturned.

In an order issued late Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from the Utah Attorney General’s Office to halt recognition of the marriages. However, the court said it would institute a temporary stay until July 21,  giving the state time to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the 10th Circuit Court ruling here:

 

Utah Attorney General’s spokeswoman Missy Larsen told FOX 13 they would file a request for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court next week. That request is expected to be filed with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees the 10th Circuit.

Read the statement from the Utah Attorney General’s Office:

In response to the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit denial of stay in Evans v. Utah, the State is prepared to file an Application for Stay before the United States Supreme Court in the coming days to avoid uncertainty, as noted by the dissenting Judge on the Tenth Circuit. 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 Herbert is resolved.”

Governor Gary Herbert’s office said Friday the U.S. Supreme Court must decide the issue.

Read the statement from the governor’s office:

“The governor agrees with Judge Kelly who wrote in his dissent that the state and its citizens are better served by obtaining complete, final judicial resolution of these issues. The governor believes that such resolution can only come from the Supreme Court.”

 

The news of the 10th Circuit ruling thrilled two of the plaintiffs, Marina Gomberg and Elenor Heyborne.

“We won?!?!” they screamed when told by FOX 13 the court’s decision.

Matthew Barraza is also a plaintiff in the case, and he said they seek equality.

“We’re just wanting our family to be treated like any other family and want our son to have all the protection that he can,” he said. “During that window our marriages were legal. We did everything we were supposed to do: we had a ceremony, we said I do, exchanged vows and everything like that, and so I really don’t know what the harm is in recognizing those marriages.”

His husband, Tony Milner, said they are cautiously optimistic.

“Let’s just say we have a bottle of champagne waiting in the fridge, and it’s been waiting there for the past six months,” Milner said. “So hopefully on the 21st we’ll be able to open up that bottle of champagne.”

More than 1,200 same-sex marriages were performed in Utah after a federal judge struck down Utah’s Amendment 3, which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman (and does not recognize anything else). Governor Gary Herbert ordered the state not to recognize the marriages, or provide benefits to them — including adoptions or name changes.

A detailed account of same-sex marriages performed in Utah's 29 counties during the 17-days it was allowed.

A detailed account of same-sex marriages performed in Utah’s 29 counties during the 17-days it was allowed.

Four couples and the ACLU of Utah sued over the governor’s directive. U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the state to recognize the marriages.

The decision from the 10th Circuit Court was 2-1. It was the same panel of judges who also ruled Utah’s Amendment 3 was unconstitutional.

57 comments

    • Eric Anderson

      Thanks Utah :) your ignorance and intolerance ( prop 8 ) will help make equal marriage legal in all 50 states. Once again I thank you.

  • Trish Ramirez

    Of course this is the outcome. Anyone with a brain and conscience and shred of human compassion and decency knew that this was going to be the outcome. Anyone following the news and the actions of the Supreme Court knows that the State of Utah’s continued expensive appeals to the Supreme Court are futile with regards to the LGBT marriage issue. Within a couple of months, when the US Supreme Court declines to hear the most recent appeal because they ruled on this very issue only a year ago – when they said that the LGBT marriage issue was going to be decided on a state by state basis, and the highest court in the State of Utah determined that denying the right to LGBT individuals to marry is unconstitutional – the State of Utah will finally have to concede.

    And the hateful bigots that attempted to use the legislative process to impose their narrow-minded religious beliefs on their neighbors in a manner which violated their civil rights will just have to learn to live with their loss.

    • unknowen

      This is a STATE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS VOTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE POPULATION
      not by your so called “bigots that attempted to use the legislative process to impose their narrow-minded religious beliefs” you are nothing but a Hippocratic clown!!!!!!!

      • Mel

        Have you never heard of “Tyranny of the Majority”? Everyone who voted to outlaw gay marriage *was* a hateful bigot who used the legislative process to impose their bigoted views.

        Would you be okay with it if a state majority voted to make it illegal for Mormons to marry?

    • Trish Ramirez

      Let me spell it out to you again. The Constitution of the United States of America does NOT allow for one group of citizens to vote away the basic human civil rights of another group of citizens, no matter how overwhelming the majority.

      This amendment to the Utah constitution was deemed Unconstitutional by the highest court in the State because it was in violation of the US Constitution. No state has the right to enact laws that violate the Constitution. The people of this state were out of line, and the highest court in the State of Utah correctly recognized that fact.

      You can’t vote away the right of African Americans to marry, you can’t enact laws that demand that people of certain religious affiliations be denied the right to marry, you can’t do it. You can’t impose your personal moral beliefs on your neighbors by way of Unconstitutional legislation.

      I am not the bigot – the bigots are those who would seek to manipulate the legislative process in a secular nation to represent their personal religious beliefs in an attempt to impose those beliefs on random strangers.

      You and your ilk are the ones who believe that you are so special and superior that your way of life is the only one that should be LEGAL.

      I may disagree with your bible-thumping ways and believe that you are all insane, but I don’t want there to be laws against you practicing your religion and marrying the people of your choice.

      I’m not the bigot – YOU are.

      • Arlee

        Trish, it is so easy to tell that you are loosing because you are playing the race card again in your rant. Trish, I told you before and you are intellectually dishonest, because you know the African Americans in California supported Prop 8 by a huge majority. The black churches in California were instrumental in Passing Prop 8. African Americans in Utah do not want to loose their children to disease and realize that in one generation their race would be gone. And in fact , in one generation the family line for all homosexuals will have died out and cleansed the gene pool. There is hope given time.

      • Trish Ramirez

        LOL, what difference does it make if the majority of the African American community is against the legalization of LGBT marriage? You don’t get it. I’m sure that the majority of the Caucasian community was against doing away with segregation. That doesn’t mean that it was wrong to abolish laws that discriminated on a certain sector of society, which is the point I was trying to make.

        As for me ‘pulling the race card’ I certainly wasn’t. I was pointing out the similarity between the African American civil rights movement of the 60’s to the LGBT civil rights movement of today.

        Because they are indeed similar.

      • kartmann

        Your assumption that “a majority of Caucasians were against ending segregation” shows what a hateful, racist b i t c h you are.

        First of all, your use of the word “Caucasian” is as ignorant and racist as Hitler’s use of “Aryan.” “Caucasian” and “white” are not synonymous. “Caucasian” refers to the people who are native to the region in and around the Caucasus Mountains. Georgians, Chechens, Armenians, etc. There are very few Caucasians in Utah. I know, because two of them happen to be my daughters. I know what a “Caucasian” is. Most white people with roots in Utah are of English and Scandinavian extraction. Particularly Danish. There are no “Caucasians” in those countries.

        Secondly, your grasp of geography is weak. The population of the Southern States during the period of segregation was FAR less than that of the Northern ones, where segregation was not a legal requirement. So even if we ignorantly assume that all light-skinned people are “Caucasians” (as most government forms still say, just as they used to say “Negro”), you’re STILL wrong.

      • Trish Ramirez

        Sigh. When referring to the Caucasians or white people who were opposed to desegregation I was referring to those who were in the South, where segregation was an issue, not across the entire country. I was talking about those directly effected by the legislation.

        Also, you are correct about the word Caucasian if you are speaking technically. However, in the modern American English vernacular, the words Caucasian and white have become interchangeable synonyms.

        Just like we use the term African American to refer to black people in our PC world so as not to offend, even though not all black people in America have African ancestry.

        We can’t possibly trace every single human being’s ancestry, so we use common terms in reference to their skin color that have been deemed unoffensive by the general populous.

        The fact that you have to resort to calling me a r a c i s t b i t c h for merely stating facts is a pretty good indicator that you know that I’m correct in my assessment of this whole LGBT marriage/Supreme Court thing and it hurts your soul a little bit.

    • Arlee

      Not to worry, the God of the Mormons is doing fine. He is your God also and if you don’t believe it now, then you will! The Mormons and other Christian (and non-Christian) came to Utah to live in peace. But some of you have shown that it is time to stand and fight for what is right. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. So be it! :-)

      • kartmann

        The Supreme Court has already ruled anti-s o d o m y laws unconstitutional, so the only remaining question is whether “marriage” itself is a “civil right.” If it is, then it’s available to all citizens, under the “equal protection” Amendment.

        The world will keep spinning either way. Let’s just get the “M-word” out of government documents altogether. It doesn’t belong there in the first place. Government has no power to force anyone to believe that gays are “married.” They can recognize the legal aspects of a civil union, which they SHOULD. But “Marriage” is and will remain beyond their grasp.

      • Arlee

        Kartmann, you seem to be well read on the topic. Help me to understand why I read, seems like a few times a week, that police in Utah have charged someone with the offense of s o d o m y if the laws can not be upheld in court. Or is it just the small homosexual community is immune from the laws? Or is it because the homosexual community hides in SLC where they know the SLCPD Chief has no stomach to prosecute deviancy?

      • Trish Ramirez

        Arlee, when people are charged with and convicted of FORCIBLE s o d o m y, the reason they are charged and convicted has to do with the act of FORCE, not the act itself. Also, under the law, s o d o m y refers to both oral and a n a l inter course/penetration.

        When these cases brought forth by the DA, they have to do with someone being FORCED to do something against their will. The DA is not in the business of policing what goes on between consenting adults.

        (Also, Forcible S o d o m y includes cases in which the victim is under the legal age of consent.)

        Deviant behavior is in the eye of the beholder, and what goes on behind the closed doors of hetero couples varies greatly from relationship to relationship. What you may consider deviant is just another Saturday night of messing around to someone else.

        Why don’t you try minding your own business?

      • kartmann

        Arlee, for the umpteenth time, s o d o m y is NOT illegal between consenting adults. The Supreme Court said so. Sorry. Get over it. What adults do in their bedrooms is none of your business.

      • kartmann

        Arlee, I defy you to point to a recent case of Utah charging consenting adults with s o d o m y.

        Are YOU charged with r a p e every time you sleep with your husband? There is a difference between “forcible” and “consetual.” S o d o m y is NOT illegal in and of itself, and hasn’t been since the USSC rules on Lawrence v Texas in 2003. It’s legal in all 50 states.

        I’m not asking you to like it. I’m telling you that’s the way it is. Has been for 11 years and counting.

        Here’s a thought: Stop thinking like a liberal who insists that the government force her world view on everyone else, and start thinking like a citizens of a free country who minds her own business even when people do things she doesn’t necessarily approve of. Your rights end where mine begin. THAT is freedom. Welcome to the Tea Party.

      • kartmann

        By the way, Arlee: Police chiefs do not prosecute ANYONE. Prosecutors prosecute.

        Did you go to school at all?

  • davidmpark

    So, a few Federal Judges have so much authority and power they can alter a STATE CONSTITUTION at will? We have no law.

    • kartmann

      The U.S. Supreme Court can, but only when its decisions are “in pursuit” of the aims of the Federal Constitution. So yes, if they decide that “marriage” is a civil right inherent in all citizens, regardless of their orientation, then the Utah Amendment is overruled.

      Why don’t more people understand the basics of how our system of government works? Read up on the “Supremacy Clause.” And bear in mind that the liberals interpret it as meaning the Fed is ALWAYS right, but that’s only because they ignore the “…..in pursuit thereof” part. It never occurs to them that their interpretation directly contradicts the Tenth Amendment, but if you read the whole Clause you can easily see that there is no contradiction.

    • grizzlypete

      kart Clown, The 14th Amendment covers this issue, thus, the Tenth Amendment does not apply. You sound confused, but then again, you are just an ignorant, mindless troll.

      • kartmann

        I SAID that if marriage is ruled to be a protected civil right then the Supremacy Clause would overrule Utah’s constitutional amendment.

        But I didn’t factor in your lack of reading skills. Next time I’ll try to keep it on a Dr. Seuss level for you. Perhaps if I include more rhymes? And some drawings? Maybe a pop-up or two?

        Water head. Stay out of grownup conversations if you can’t keep up.

    • grizzlypete

      Yes, they can alter unconstitutional laws from any state constitution. Many Southern states had Ji9m Crows laws embedded in their state constitutions. They were ruled unconstitutional. Sorry that you are so confused about this.

  • kartmann

    Do you people ever read beyond the headline? The court automatically STAYED the decision pending word from the Supreme Court.

    Sheesh.

    • Arlee

      You are correct because the touchdown was called back due to a improper ruling on the field. The down will be replayed from the point of the improper ruling. The time on the clock is years. The homosexual cheerleaders are cheering because they are not listening and mistakenly think they won the game. All of their cheering is for our team, the citizens of Utah, who really won again. See the homosexuals from the two left coasts, their money, and their attorneys (if they can find any who will support their unrighteous cause) at SCOTUS in 2021. PS: the borders are open to the Left Coast and no passports are needed. Why wait to be recognized. Move now!

      • kartmann

        Arlee, do you ever think through what you write logically, or is it just kind of a stream-of-consciousness thing? Because I find the idea that the 10 Circuit issued a ruling, and then immediately issued a stay because the ruling was “improper”, to be a bit idiotic.

        They stayed their own ruling because they know the USSC is going to rule soon and render their ruling moot. Which begs the question of why we waste money having a 10th Circuit Court in the first place, but government waste is a question for another day.

    • Trish Ramirez

      I read it.

      I am just aware enough of how the Supreme Court works to know that Utah’s appeal has roughly 0% chance of being heard.

      The Supreme Court is a busy place, it doesn’t repeatedly hear the same kinds of cases. It makes decisions and moves on to the next issue. The Supreme Court ruled only a year ago that the issue of same s e x marriage was to be decided on a state-by-state basis. The highest court in Utah made its position clear on this matter. The Supreme Court is NOT going to hear this case or overturn the state court’s decision in direct opposition of a ruling that they already made only like 12 months ago. It’s not going to happen.

      • Arlee

        Oh Trish, what happened to your guarantee that you always issue? The odds makers in Vegas have already set the odds up so you can bet on it. Check it out, but they say the odds are not in your favor. The people with the money are willing to take your bet. Trish, in the end, evil always looses! Bye the time SCOTUS decides this, years down the road, most of your group will be pushing up daisies. Do you know that homosexuality is something the life insurance companies check on because your life expectancy is reduced so much by your life style? Yes they do check!

      • Trish Ramirez

        Arlee, do you have any idea how ignorant you are making yourself appear to be? This isn’t going to take YEARS to be settled by the Supreme Court. That’s not how it works, you fool. They either decide to hear the case and deal with the issue during their next judiciary session, or they decline it and the Utah Appeals Court verdict on the case stands.

        And

      • Trish Ramirez

        …what do you mean by “my group”?

        I’m not LGBT. I’m as straight as they come. However, unlike YOU, I don’t believe that the civil rights that are guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution only apply to me and people like me.

        You should do a little bit of Googling yourself, because I heard a rumor that insurance companies have found that sanctimonious old ladies whose IQ is less than their shoe size and who don’t know the difference between “loose” and “lose” and “bye” and “by” have some of the shortest lifespans. Indeed, I’m almost positive I read it in the bible, right after the part where gawd decrees that g a y marriage should be illegal. Or maybe it was in the Constitution, right after the part where it says that dingbats with crazy religious beliefs get to dictate legislation. I don’t remember.

      • kartmann

        Funny, I read that liberal water heads whose minds are clogged with hate have the shortest lifespans.

  • grizzlypete

    The village idiots hang around on this site since they are unable to debate in an intelligent manner anywhere else. This site was made for trolls and village idiots Thrive on Kart Clown.

      • Arlee

        You have the audacity to criticize another persons grammar and spelling. I hope you are able to get your GED before you blow up your trailer cooking “ice.”. You give new meaning to the term “trailer trash.”

      • Arlee

        Bye! Sorry I will not see any incoherent reply you might make as you are obviously brain dead from being stoned.

      • Arlee

        Kartmann, is you a boy baby or is you a girl baby? Is you a Mr or a Mrs? You assume I am a Mrs. I gather you are not an it. Lol

      • kartmann

        One of these days someone at Fox13 is going to get the bright idea to use some decent software embedded in their site and only let people post using a verified email address and password. Instead, they waste their time with blocking IP addresses in a world with almost infinite numbers of anonymous proxy servers.

        I suspect they just get a laugh out of this nonsense. I enjoy a grownup discussion, but I also like Lagoon. I’m happy either way. This is, apparently, an amusement park.

  • aaroncloward

    Every once in a great while, I read comments section of controversial topics related to Utah news. I always hope that maybe, just maybe, the conversation will contain some educated, articulate debate and discussion no matter what side of the argument you are on. But as always, this thread proves once again that it’s just a pure waste of time because so many irrational, uneducated, juvenile behavior tends to be the norm. It really is no wonder so many news organizations have stopped allowing comments. It truly astounds me how little people know about the system of law in which we lives works and functions. If anything, I guess the “discussions” provide some comic relief.

    • kartmann

      Boy did YOU come to the wrong place! This is a clearinghouse for who hates whom, whose invisible spaceman is going to smite whom and why, who can troll with the most obvious lure and still get bites, who is a bitter Ex-Mo, who hates white people, etc, etc, etc.

      What I find most disappointing is how few people show ever the slightest spark of understanding of the way their own system of government works. Everyone thinks it exists solely to further their own personal agenda.

      But it IS funny. Sad, but funny. Like a drowning clown.

    • Arlee

      I totally agree, Aaron. I wish Fox would stop allowing comments. Until then, I guess I feel a need to stand up to stupidity. Homosexuals have hurt and destroyed many peoples lives that I personally am aware of. Take down this forum Fox.

      • kartmann

        “Agree with me or shut up!” Is that it?

        You’re a nasty, hateful piece of work. You and Trish should get together and go bowling.

        YOU standing up to stupidity? I thought you were standing up FOR it.

        I see no difference between you and the liberals. You all want to force your own beliefs and choices down everyone else’s throats. What country do you think this is?

      • The Patriot

        My Report: Two rants by one robot, one using code name Kartmann alias Jeff and same robot usin code name Trish alias Mutt. Robot claims to not be part of fight using Mutt and Jeff schema. Both fight against any earthling who stands up to the robot. Indications are that the robot is located in the San Francisco area. “Beam me up Scotty. No sign of intelligence here!”

      • KARTMANN

        I apologize for that last off color raunchy post that I sent using The Patriot’s name. I realize I am a uneducated slim ball! I hope all my homosexual friends will forgive my uncouth statement.

  • TRISHA RAMIREZ

    Actually KARTMANN, I could have written the same post because I have said a lot of stupid things on this news story. I tend to get very raunchy at times. I also hope all of my homosexual friends will forgive my stupidity. And I realize most of my comments make absolutely no sense. But since I am a bleach blonde, it comes naturally.

  • The Patriot

    I will be posting no further statements as the homosexual crowd is now in the sewer pipe. Any further posting under the name of The Patriot is not mine and is sour grapes by poor loosers.

Comments are closed.


Related Stories


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,316 other followers