Utah's Marriage Fight Continues

[opinterph]

Bottom line,all they have is they should be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples if they want to.

Who is “they?”

Once again; Who is “they?”

 

[Ninja108]

Once again; Who is “they?”

The anti-equality side.

 

[Alnitak]

Plaintiff's reply is in so we'll hear from the Supreme Court any time now. Most think a stay will not be granted.

 

[palbert]

The Opposition to the Stay Application is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/195405369/13A687-3-Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Stay

 

[scream4ever]

If the stay is indeed denied, that's the true sign of the beginning of the end is near in regards to state bans.

 

[Alnitak]

The Supreme Court just issued a stay. Bad decision for five or more straight justices to feel so insulated and secure in their cold white tower. At least the couples who did marry had a long time. This was a twitter update so we'll see if there will be a written opinion...

Edit: no written explanation was given.

 

[palbert]

From SCOTUSblog

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 33 states where they are still not permitted by state law.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/ (Lyle Denniston)

I do not think this is an end of the world development. It is a setback but is closer to a status quo than a repudiation of the lower court. It may be viewed as a slap at the appellate court.

 

[palbert]

^^ EDIT: I should have said status quo ante (the lower court ruling).

(I can't imagine the Court was amused that the appellate court kicked the stay issue "upstairs.")

 

[T-Rexx]

It is a setback but is closer to a status quo than a repudiation of the lower court. It may be viewed as a slap at the appellate court.

No, this is clearly a repudiation of gay marriage by the Supreme Court.

In order for this stay to be issued, it was necessary for Utah to prove that the lower courts had erred (four times) in failing to grant a stay. The Supreme Court is satisfied with Utah's argument that procreation in Utah has been reduced by gay marriage and that straight marriages in Utah have been damaged.

The court is signalling that it does not intend to usurp the authority of states to define marriage as they see fit.

This is very, very, very bad news.

 

[palbert]

I do not accept that the decision was on the merits; had it been the decision would have had concurrences and at least one dissent. It is a temporizing measure.

 

[T-Rexx]

I do not accept that the decision was on the merits

The Supreme Court requires that this decision be based on merit.

Utah's arguments against gay marriage have been beyond absurd. They are, in fact, comical. That the court "agrees" with these arguments is not a statement that the justices are all idiots. They are trying to say that they do not intend to usurp the authority of states to define marriage for themselves, however damaging this may be to America.

The justices had an opportunity in the Windsor case to bring gay marriage to all of America. In fact, that would have been the logical thing for them to do, based on the merits of the case. They deliberately and deftly avoiding doing this, because this court does not wish to be one remembered to history as great (or even particularly good).

 

[palbert]

To quote counsel for the couples:

"However, this is just a temporary order and it is not unusual for the court to stay a decision declaring a state law unconstitutional pending appeal. Importantly, however, this temporary stay has no bearing on who will win on appeal."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-court-puts-gay-marriage-in-utah-on-hold?lite

The Court can "require" whatever it wants but I recognize kicking the can down the road when I see it. There are "merits" and then there are "merits" and the Court has declined its reasoning - which could be as simple as we'll look at this later because it is coming here anyway or that a stay was in order.

I obviously have a more jaundiced and skeptical view of the Court than others.

 

[palbert]

Equality on Trial opines - i.e., speculates - similarly to me:

Unfortunately, in today’s order, none of the Justices explained their decision. Also, the order makes no explanation of which judges (or, indeed, how many) voted on which side. In all likelihood, the Supreme Court probably issued the stay because it wanted to return to the status quo of no marriage equality in Utah (the status quo before litigation was initiated, that is) while the courts make their determination on the merits of the state’s laws. Of course, this is pure speculation.

.... Like the Supreme Court did today, the Tenth Circuit gave no explanation for its decision not to stay the district court order allowing same-sex couples to wed, and unlike today’s decision, the circuit court’s ruling is certainly a sign that Utah has a steep road ahead in keeping couples from marrying in the long run.

http://equalityontrial.com/2014/01/...e-scenes-primer-on-todays-supreme-court-news/

 

[Kulindahr]

The Supreme Court just issued a stay. Bad decision for five or more straight justices to feel so insulated and secure in their cold white tower. At least the couples who did marry had a long time. This was a twitter update so we'll see if there will be a written opinion...

Edit: no written explanation was given.

I think they're moving it to the back burner, so they don't have to so much as talk about it over coffee until it's shoved in their faces.

Maybe we'll all get fortunate, and Scalia will die and be replaced by a Goldwater type.

 

[T-Rexx]

Unfortunately, in today’s order, none of the Justices explained their decision. Also, the order makes no explanation of which judges (or, indeed, how many) voted on which side. In all likelihood, the Supreme Court probably issued the stay because it wanted to return to the status quo of no marriage equality in Utah (the status quo before litigation was initiated, that is) while the courts make their determination on the merits of the state’s laws. Of course, this is pure speculation.

The requirement for a stay from the Supreme Court is more rigorous than the requirement from the lower courts.

The Supreme Court requires that the petitioner (in this case, Utah) show demonstrably that the lower courts erred in failing to stay gay marriage in Utah. Moreover, the long history of the Supreme Court is to honor the decisions of the lower courts, unless there is clear evidence that an abrogation of justice has occurred. The Supreme Court will only overrule the lower courts when the evidence is clearly and unequivocally in favor of the petitioner (Utah). SCOTUS would not (indeed, it cannot) overrule the lower courts unless it is convinced that Utah is being harmed by the phenomenon of gay marriage.

.... Like the Supreme Court did today, the Tenth Circuit gave no explanation for its decision not to stay the district court order allowing same-sex couples to wed, and unlike today’s decision, the circuit court’s ruling is certainly a sign that Utah has a steep road ahead in keeping couples from marrying in the long run.

The court has already found that gay marriage is hurting Utah. It could not have issued a stay, otherwise. Utah's path to victory here is clear. The Supreme Court is persuaded that gay marriage is harmful to America. That is the basis for issuing the stay.

 

[Alnitak]

Great opinions guys. I'm leaning towards palbert's view; SCOTUS does not want the district of Utah to domino the rest of the states similarly situated and open up national marriage equality on their own. I think SCOTUS wants to decide that itself.

This is not an endorsement of the state's position by any means. I don't think the Windsor majority buys the state's arguments. The Supreme Court does not have to follow the rules of a stay. It can do so for any reason it desires. We had Walker's decision stayed, but won at the 9th circuit. Despite the high standard the appellants are supposed to meet, all to often it is done for the status quo or sq ante.

 

[Kulindahr]

The requirement for a stay from the Supreme Court is more rigorous than the requirement from the lower courts.

The Supreme Court requires that the petitioner (in this case, Utah) show demonstrably that the lower courts erred in failing to stay gay marriage in Utah. Moreover, the long history of the Supreme Court is to honor the decisions of the lower courts, unless there is clear evidence that an abrogation of justice has occurred. The Supreme Court will only overrule the lower courts when the evidence is clearly and unequivocally in favor of the petitioner (Utah). SCOTUS would not (indeed, it cannot) overrule the lower courts unless it is convinced that Utah is being harmed by the phenomenon of gay marriage.




The court has already found that gay marriage is hurting Utah. It could not have issued a stay, otherwise. Utah's path to victory here is clear. The Supreme Court is persuaded that gay marriage is harmful to America. That is the basis for issuing the stay.

I don't think this is true, but the web is so swamped with articles about Utah I'm having trouble researching anything on it, and have no more time to play with refining my search.

 

[Kulindahr]

Great opinions guys. I'm leaning towards palbert's view; SCOTUS does not want the district of Utah to domino the rest of the states similarly situated and open up national marriage equality on their own. I think SCOTUS wants to decide that itself.

This is not an endorsement of the state's position by any means. I don't think the Windsor majority buys the state's arguments. The Supreme Court does not have to follow the rules of a stay. It can do so for any reason it desires. We had Walkers decision stayed, but won at the 9th circuit. Despite the high standard the appellants are supposed to meet, all to often it is done for the status quo or sq ante.

That's what makes them supreme.

 

[Alnitak]

I don't think this is true, but the web is so swamped with articles about Utah I'm having trouble researching anything on it, and have no more time to play with refining my search.

Yeah it's like a repeat of perry all over again. This summer will be even worse because there are 23 other cases going on the news will be impossible to follow for all but the most groundbreaking events.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yeah it's like a repeat of perry all over again. This summer will be even worse because there are 23 other cases going on the news will be impossible to follow for all but the most groundbreaking events.

But that's what we keep you here for, you are our Brita gay marriage news filter.

I freely admit I get really lost trying to keep tabs on what's going on in multiple states and see how it's tying together with what the Supreme Court is hearing. So I appreciate someone else having the motivation to distill it for us.