Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Matthew Piper | The Salt Lake Tribune) Kevin Chrisman, left, and James Gerena drove down from Boise, Idaho, to be married at the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office on Monday morning, only to be denied after a stay from the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court halts Utah gay marriages pending appeal

Utah attorney general says the Monday ruling puts married same-sex couples in “legal limbo.”

First Published Jan 06 2014 08:39 am • Last Updated Jan 07 2014 07:21 am

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages in Utah on hold, granting the state’s request for a stay while it appeals a ruling that laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional.

The court said the stay would be in place until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver makes a decision on Utah’s appeal.

At a glance

Utah reactions

The following is a sampling of reactions to Monday’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court granting Utah’s request for a stay of the Dec. 20 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby that found the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional:

“Utah’s Office of the Attorney General is carefully evaluating the legal status of the marriages that were performed since the District Court’s decision and will not rush to a decision that impacts Utah citizens so profoundly.” — Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes

“While it is disappointing that the dreams of many more will be put on hold, we know that in the end justice will be served and no couple will be excluded from this cherished institution.” — Chad Griffin, president, Human Rights Campaign

“It was surprising that the 10th Circuit did not grant a stay and disappointing that the district court did not either. When courts are making such dramatic decisions, judicial propriety requires that they take it a step at a time rather than galloping ahead like in a horse race. So the Supreme Court decision is quite unremarkable. The Supreme Court merely said no, we’re going to do this in the ordinary way and not rush to judgment.” — Lynn D. Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University who helped craft Utah’s Amendment 3

“These are couples who love each other, and many of them are raising children together. Now that the stay has been granted, they have to worry about whether the marriage that they lawfully entered will be recognized by the courts.” — Cliff Rosky, University of Utah law professor and Equality Utah chairman

“Every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally.” — James E. Magleby, attorney for three same-sex couples who challenged Amendment 3

“Everyone in America should be concerned to see how easily activist judges can cavalierly toss out the will of overwhelming majorities of legislators and voters alike. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the people of America need to reclaim their sovereignty and amend the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” — Brian Brown, president of The National Organization for Marriage

“Despite today’s decision, we are hopeful that the lower court’s well-reasoned decision will be upheld in the end, and that courts across the country will continue to recognize that all couples should have the freedom to marry.” — Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU of Utah’s LGBT project

“We are grateful that the Supreme Court [justices] did understand that this was an inappropriate and a jump-the-gun [decision] by an activist judge, in this instance. For the state of Utah this is a broader issue. State sovereignty is the issue overall. — Cherilyn Eagar, a former congressional candidate and conservative blogger

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The state’s 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 Utah’s request for a stay three times.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby also denied the state’s request that he stay his Dec. 20 order overturning Amendment 3 while Utah appealed.

The order from the U.S. Supreme Court means clerks in Utah no longer will be allowed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It is not immediately clear what the order means for couples who have already married.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, who met briefly with reporters Monday, said that this was the "uncertainty" the state hoped to avoid with a stay.

"We don’t know the answer yet as to marriages already performed," Reyes said, adding that the state wants to carefully evaluate the implications. "There is not clear legal precedent for this particular situation."

Reyes said it was unfortunate that many Utah citizens are now in "legal limbo."

The state, currently being assisted by Boise attorney Monte N. Stewart, has three weeks to file its initial briefs with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It expects to hire outside counsel to assist with that effort, which could cost as much as $2 million, as quickly as possible; firms interested must submit applications by Tuesday.

Reyes said he believes the decision from the Supreme Court indicates it has an interest in the case.


story continues below
story continues below

"Pursuing the legal process to get a final answer from the highest court benefits all citizens of Utah," he said.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert praised the Supreme Court’s order as the "correct decision."

"Clearly, the stay should have been granted with the original District Court decision in order to have avoided the uncertainty created by this unprecedented change," Herbert said in a statement. "As I have said all along, all Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue, and I will work to defend the position of the people of Utah and our State Constitution.

In his decision, Shelby said Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage violated equal protection and due process rights of gay couples and demeaned their dignity for no rational reason. His order was the first federal decision on a state law banning same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In its stay application filed with the Supreme Court on Dec. 31, Utah said the refusal of lower courts to grant its request for a stay was "an affront" to the state’s and public’s interest "in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels."

In a reply filed by the state Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, Utah said Shelby’s ruling is the "starting point for resolution" of what it has described as the "historical and essential" right of Utah and other states to define marriage.

Until the "recurring" question of whether the U.S. Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages is resolved, Utah should not be forced to license, perform and recognize such marriages, it said.

The state said attorneys for three same-sex couples who challenged Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage "quibble around the edges" and fail to offer any persuasive rebuttal to its argument that Shelby’s Dec. 20 order should be stayed while it appeals the ruling.

The plaintiffs filed their response before the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, arguing that a stay would perpetuate the "undisputed" harm to same-sex couples identified by Shelby and the high court itself in the Windsor decision. They argued that constitutional rights of individuals supersede those of the state when the two are conflict. The plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed disappointment at the stay on Monday.

"This stay is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over," said James E. Magleby, who with attorney Peggy A. Tomsic represents the plaintiffs. "Every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally."

He said the stay is temporary and is not unusual while an appeal is pending, and it has no bearing on the eventual outcome.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Login to the Electronic Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.