< Previous Page
A month later, the California Supreme Court ordered the city to stop issuing licenses; by then, about 4,000 couples had received licenses.
In August 2004, the state’s high court voided every single one of those licenses — which led to a lawsuit that ultimately ended with the court deciding in May 2008 that same-sex marriage was a fundamental, protected right. That upended a ban on gay marriage in place since 2000.
State still seeking help
The Utah Attorney General’s Office has extended the deadline for applications from outside counsel interested in helping it defend a ban on same-sex marriage for another week to “increase competition” for the contract.
Proposals from individuals and firms are now due Jan. 14 at 5 p.m. The state is seeking help on its appeals before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to a press release, applicants’ proposals must outline appellate experience in both courts and include hourly rate fees and a maximum cost cap.
Some 18,000 California couples had married by Nov. 4, 2008, when voters passed Proposition 8 to again ban same-sex marriages. About two months after the general election, the California Supreme Court ruled the marriages that occurred before passage of Proposition 8 were valid.
That decision, according to Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the UC Irvine School of Law, was based on the fact the marriages conformed to the law in place at the time they occurred.
Other same-sex couples were unable to marry in California while Proposition 8 was challenged in court.
A federal judge later invalidated Proposition 8, but his order was stayed during appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court by proponents of the ban. The Supreme Court ruled in June the proponents did not have standing to bring the challenge, leaving in place the lower court finding that gay marriage is legal.
NeJaime said he believes the status of same-sex marriages that took place in Utah after Shelby’s ruling is more complex because his order had not yet gone through the appeals process.
"You didn’t have a final court decision," NeJaime said. And, unlike California, Utah has given no rights to same-sex couples.
It is a very difficult situation, agrees Stephen Wermiel, who teaches constitutional law at American University in Washington, D.C.
"It seems as though the marriages were validly licensed by public officials who were told that the Utah law was unconstitutional by a federal judge with no delay in effect," Wermiel said. "So the issuance of those licenses was a valid act of authorized government officials. I think that argues in favor of leaving the licenses in place. When government officers take valid legal actions in good faith affecting the rights of individuals, the legitimate claims of rights of those individuals is entitled to some weight."
That’s the view being taken by the ACLU of Utah, which is closely watching what happens next.
"We come down on the side of the marriages being valid for both state and federal purposes," said John Mejia, legal director. "The couples who were married after the judge’s ruling went through the same process as any other married couple. When they were married, it is our view that they were vested with all the rights and privileges of a married couple."
Mejia said he does not believe the state would succeed were it to try to get those marriages invalidated.
What may be relevant to the situation in Utah, NeJaime said, is the California Supreme Court’s finding that the couples who married before Proposition 8 became law had come to rely on the rights and privileges marriage brought them.
Michael Ferguson and Seth Anderson, the first same-sex couple legally married in Utah, said Monday they are confident their marriage will remain valid, but the process is a bit unsettling.
"There’s uncertainty [about] whether we’ll be able to file taxes jointly, will we be treated as any other married couple would in Utah? That’s iffy," said Anderson. "I’ll be angry that I won’t be able to file joint taxes with my husband like anyone else could do."
"We’re in this weird little state of middle ground," he added, and "the time frame will likely be a few years."
Salt Lake County Attorney Sim Gill is clear on what the stay means for couples like Church and Garcia, who received a license but had not yet solemnized their marriages: state code forbids anyone from solemnizing a marriage that is prohibited under state law. Same-sex couples are now back on the "prohibited list."
"If somebody performs a marriage based on [a] license, it is a potential violation of the law," Gill said.
The issue is murkier for couples who married and returned their licenses before Monday’s stay, Gill said.
"What is the legal status of those couples? They did get married when they had the lawful right to do so. They got their applications lawfully and got married lawfully. What does that affect?" Gill asked. "As the legal counsel for Salt Lake County government, I am probably going to have to address this issue."Next Page >
Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.