< Previous Page
The Attorney General’s Office also said it is unnecessary to ask the Utah Supreme Court to weigh in on state law since the "answer is clearly apparent from state law." State attorneys said the second question is "illogically framed" and, even if rewritten, would not help the court decide the constitutional issues presented in the case.
"The couples in this case are seeking benefits flowing from recognition of marriages they have not yet received and, based on a district court’s injunction, which has been stayed," the state said.
The state also said it inaccurate to say Utah has "withdrawn" any recognition, since any benefits secured before the stay are being honored and provision of other benefits are merely on hold.
Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.