Utah's Marriage Fight Continues

[T-Rexx]

States have rejected heterosexual marriages from other states that conflict with their laws as well.

Do you know of any examples of this?

I thought that a marriage license from any state was valid in any other state.

One of the arguments frequently advanced in favor of recognition of out-of-state gay marriages in Ohio is the fact that Ohio does not permit marriage between first cousins, as do some states. But, Ohio recognizes first cousin marriages when they have been legally granted by a state which allows such unions.

This was the basis, in fact, for the recent ruling in federal court that Ohio must recognize out-of-state gay marriages on its death certificates (only).

 

[hotatlboi]

Do you know of any examples of this?

Not specifically, but construct was a lot more knowledgeable on legal matters than me.

I thought that a marriage license from any state was valid in any other state.

That was generally the case in the absence of a "strong public policy" disagreement, something that gay marriage would fall under.

Here's one of his posts on the subject:
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...aces-hurdles?p=7249404&viewfull=1#post7249404

 

[Alnitak]

NCLR with Shannon Minter will join the legal team for this case, which up until now was independent, seeing as this case has been thrust into the spotlight and will benefit from the expertise.

 

[scream4ever]

Gov. Gary Herbert has announced that the state will not recognize the 1,300 same-sex marriages already performed while the case is being litigated. Presumably the federal government will recognize them though:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17452&MediaType=1&Category=26

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course they could, I was just saying I don't believe they will be ready to do so for a while longer.


Construct pointed out (when he was still around) that the full faith and credit clause has never applied to marriage. States have rejected heterosexual marriages from other states that conflict with their laws as well.

I just reviewed several legal sites which state that it has always applied to marriage, so much so that it was never challenged until the issue of "inter-racial" marriage came up. Here's a good statement of the situation, from "The Free Dictionary":

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

If states had traditionally reserved the right to ignore marriages made in other states, there would have been no need for DOMA to expressly bestow that authority.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, if SCOTUS doesn't do it, it will take decades.

Neither Utah nor Wyoming nor Mississippi nor any number of other states are going to be voting in marriage equality at the ballot box anytime within the next 10 years. These are parts of the country where ignorance begets ignorance. These people can only be brought into the 21st century kicking and screaming.

Then, once they have lived with marriage equality for a couple years, they will not remember what it was they objected to.

It won't come down to votes, it will come down to the federal circuit courts.

 

[Kulindahr]

How Utah is handling it:

T

he Utah governor's office has directed state agencies not to take any further action to honor the roughly 1,000 same-sex marriage licenses granted in the past two weeks.

. . .

What that means, the memo says, is that state agencies should take no action that would give any legal recognition to the marriages of gay couples recently permitted.

"For example, if a same-sex married couple previously changed their names on new drivers licenses, those licenses should not be revoked. If a same-sex couple seeks to change their names on drivers licenses now, the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage therefore the new drivers licenses cannot be issued," the memo says.

Call it limbo....

 

[Alnitak]

Gov. Gary Herbert has announced that the state will not recognize the 1,300 same-sex marriages already performed while the case is being litigated. Presumably the federal government will recognize them though:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17452&MediaType=1&Category=26

Of course. That's what happens when you get a state govt totally hostile to us. That's why electing democrats is so critical. There is a chance though that this mean spirited move is actionable.

 

[T-Rexx]

Gov. Gary Herbert has announced that the state will not recognize the 1,300 same-sex marriages already performed while the case is being litigated. Presumably the federal government will recognize them though:

I don't think the federal government will recognize the Utah gay marriages. The federal government recognizes gay marriages from those states where it is legal. And it is not legal in Utah.

It won't come down to votes, it will come down to the federal circuit courts.

No, it will come down to the Supreme Court. All decisions made in the circuit courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 100%. The Supreme Court keeps signaling that it is not comfortable granting a federal right to gay marriage. It may well overrule anything the circuit courts say, and decide marriage is a right for states (and states alone) to define and grant.

How Utah is handling it:

Call it limbo....

I would call it "death." The Supreme Court's "stay" (It is effectively far more than a stay) validates Utah's revocation of gay rights there. None of those gay "married" couples in Utah are going to be filing joint income taxes this year. None of them have hospital visitation privileges or the ability to make medical decisions for their spouses. None of them can inherit their spouse's property in the event of death.

They have nothing. They are not married. The only thing that can save those marriages is the Supreme Court. But, at this point, SCOTUS does not seem inclined to do that.

This is not the Earl Warren court.

 

[Ninja108]

Of course. That's what happens when you get a state govt totally hostile to us. That's why electing democrats is so critical. There is a chance though that this mean spirited move is actionable.

It's more then that,it's critical to make sure that the Democrats being elected are pro equality. Here in NY in 09 we got burned badly by thinking a gay marriage bill couldn't fail with Democrats in control.

 

[scream4ever]

I don't think the federal government will recognize the Utah gay marriages. The federal government recognizes gay marriages from those states where it is legal. And it is not legal in Utah.

Not true. With the exception of social security (which is being remedied as we speak) federal laws are recognized regardless of what state a couple resides in.

No, it will come down to the Supreme Court. All decisions made in the circuit courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 100%. The Supreme Court keeps signaling that it is not comfortable granting a federal right to gay marriage. It may well overrule anything the circuit courts say, and decide marriage is a right for states (and states alone) to define and grant.

Unlikely given the (at least) 5/4 pro-gay majority on the court. The Supreme Court can, and in my opinion likely will, stall on the issue for a little while longer by refusing cert in cases which rule in our favor.

I would call it "death." The Supreme Court's "stay" (It is effectively far more than a stay) validates Utah's revocation of gay rights there. None of those gay "married" couples in Utah are going to be filing joint income taxes this year. None of them have hospital visitation privileges or the ability to make medical decisions for their spouses. None of them can inherit their spouse's property in the event of death.

I believe you said similar words in regards to the Perry case. Regardless, "death" and "limbo" are two completely different things.

They have nothing. They are not married. The only thing that can save those marriages is the Supreme Court. But, at this point, SCOTUS does not seem inclined to do that.

This is not the Earl Warren court.

They are legally married (though temporarily unrecognized by Utah), and any mistreatment now is just going to prove our case further. Personally, I believe the Supreme Court granted a stay simply to let justice work it's way up and stave off what they may perceive as a possibly chaotic situation. A VERY telling sign is that in the stay order they said that the stay will be lifted upon the ruling from the 10th Circuit, and NOT upon disposition by the Supreme Court. This leads me to believe they anticipate the 10th Circuit will rule in our favor and they will not hear the appeal.

 

[Alnitak]

It's more then that,it's critical to make sure that the Democrats being elected are pro equality. Here in NY in 09 we got burned badly by thinking a gay marriage bill couldn't fail with Democrats in control.

Yeah, in 2009. That was like the Stone Age.

 

[kayman23]

Good, let the Mormons use all their money on Utah politics now so they can stop interfering in California elections.

If you think that will stop the LDS Church from interfering with LGBT issues then I have a bridge to sell you for a dollar. They are here to impede social progress.

 

[Alnitak]

If you think that will stop the LDS Church from interfering with LGBT issues then I have a bridge to sell you for a dollar. They are here to impede social progress.

Well they did already shoot their load as it were and to no effect... It doesn't look they are wasting any money on legal counsel for this case.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you think that will stop the LDS Church from interfering with LGBT issues then I have a bridge to sell you for a dollar. They are here to impede social progress.

How did you even get that out of my post? Their whole motivation for interfering with the California election was to try to stop exactly this from happening-- the issue springboarding into other states (including theirs) or reaching the critical mass of a national-level decision. Now that the fight is in their own backyard and in the Supreme Court they're not going to have free millions to spend trying to illegally swing our in-state elections anymore. We would have had gay marriage these past x years uninterrupted if not for that interference.

 

[Kulindahr]

....the Supreme Court granted a stay simply to let justice work it's way up and stave off what they may perceive as a possibly chaotic situation. A VERY telling sign is that in the stay order they said that the stay will be lifted upon the ruling from the 10th Circuit, and NOT upon disposition by the Supreme Court. This leads me to believe they anticipate the 10th Circuit will rule in our favor and they will not hear the appeal.

I had that same thought in mind when I said this will be decided by circuit courts -- that SCOTUS will keep ignoring it until most of the circuits have weighed in.

 

[scream4ever]

I had that same thought in mind when I said this will be decided by circuit courts -- that SCOTUS will keep ignoring it until most of the circuits have weighed in.

Or at least until a circuit court rules against us and we have an official split, which I predict will happen with the 6th and/or 5th Circuits (the cases in Michigan and Texas respectfully). Regardless, I don't this stretching past 2016 to be quite honest.

 

[scream4ever]

Yah I think they know how the courts are going to rule:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/01/utah-ag-instructs-county-clerks-to-finish-gay-marriage-paperwork/

 

[T-Rexx]

Not true. With the exception of social security (which is being remedied as we speak) federal laws are recognized regardless of what state a couple resides in.

Not true.

United States vs. Windsor did not address the section of DOMA which specifically allows states NOT to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Right now, federal agencies look to the state in which the same sex couple resides, in order to decide whether or not a couple is married.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/recognition-same-sex-gay-marriage-32294.html

HRC is asking the federal government to recognize the Utah gay marriages, despite the fact that these would not normally be considered valid under current federal operating procedures.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-gaymarriageutah-20140109,0,2171883.story

Unlikely given the (at least) 5/4 pro-gay majority on the court. The Supreme Court can, and in my opinion likely will, stall on the issue for a little while longer by refusing cert in cases which rule in our favor.

The "5/4 majority" cannot really be considered "support" for gay marriage amongst the justices of the current Supreme Court.

This court has strived mightily NOT to endorse gay marriage. You saw this in both Windsor and Perry. I'm not sure I would call that majority "support" for gay marriage amongst the justices.

And it is amazing that, in 2014, about half of the most prestigious court on earth still does not understand either the biology of homosexuality or the fundamental nature of human rights. My head spins.

I believe you said similar words in regards to the Perry case. Regardless, "death" and "limbo" are two completely different things.

I said that the logical conclusion of Windsor would be a fundamental right to same sex marriage throughout the United States - but that the justices specifically avoided the obvious. That is disconcerting, to say the least. These guys are going out of their way to avoid bringing justice to America.

They are legally married (though temporarily unrecognized by Utah), and any mistreatment now is just going to prove our case further.

According to Utah, the same sex marriages performed there are NOT legal.

I personally do not believe that the image of states intervening to stop acts of love and commitment on the grounds that love and commitment are threats to public order can prevail forever. But, it can prevail for quite a long time in states as bigoted as Utah. Therein lies the frustration.

Personally, I believe the Supreme Court granted a stay simply to let justice work it's way up and stave off what they may perceive as a possibly chaotic situation. A VERY telling sign is that in the stay order they said that the stay will be lifted upon the ruling from the 10th Circuit, and NOT upon disposition by the Supreme Court. This leads me to believe they anticipate the 10th Circuit will rule in our favor and they will not hear the appeal.

SCOTUS cannot possibly allow a 10th Circuit ruling (regardless of what it is) to stand without hearing the appeal. This would leave marriage rights varying according to which circuit district in which American citizens lived. Hardly a tolerable situation.

Well they did already shoot their load as it were and to no effect... It doesn't look they are wasting any money on legal counsel for this case.

Not sure what the Mormon church is spending publicly to stop gay marriage in Utah.

But I do not believe for a second that the church is not directing the state's opposition to gay marriage.

One day, the Mormon church will accept gay marriage as doctrinally obvious. This church once insisted that blacks were inferior to whites by the decree of God, conveyed to their president via direct revelation from God. But God changed his mind about blacks shortly after public opinion in America turned against such ideas as disgusting.

Amazing how God alters His doctrine so radically in response to popular opinion, but there can be no questioning the ways of the Almighty. The Mormon God will eventually insist that He was always a huge fan of gay rights - He was just misunderstood. But, my concern is that it may take God a few decades to realize what the rest of the civilized world already knows.

Yah I think they know how the courts are going to rule:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/01/utah-ag-instructs-county-clerks-to-finish-gay-marriage-paperwork/

I don't think Utah ordered the completion of paperwork for gay marriages because it has accepted the inevitability of same sex marriage in Utah, and wishes to facilitate its implementation.

I do believe that Utah will someday enjoy the benefits of enlightenment. But I do not expect that state to arrive at that revelation without a great deal of consternation. And I believe that outside intervention is necessary to bring civilization to these people, anytime within reason.

 

[hotatlboi]

I just reviewed several legal sites which state that it has always applied to marriage

Then those sites would be wrong.

More evidence on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

In regards to interracial marriage (most prominent state disagreement on marriage prior to gay marriage), you had the same situation. Some states did not recognize the interracial marriages of other states. They were never forced to do so by the FFACC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/us/bans-on-interracial-unions-offer-perspective-on-gay-ones.html

''No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to,'' said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of ''The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law.''

My reading of this from other legal scholars indicate that construct was correct.