24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Utah to Take Gay Marriage Ruling Directly to Supreme Court (UPDATE: Colorado's Ban Struck Down)

But oh, oh the summer nightsCredit: lwaldal / photo on flickr

This item was updated at 3 p.m. to add news about Colorado's ban.

No federal en banc review over the constitutionality of Utah’s ban on gay marriage recognition. Rather than asking the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hear a round of arguments (a panel of circuit court judges ruled 2-1 in June that the state’s ban is unconstitutional), the state’s attorney general is heading straight to the top court, if they’ll listen. From the Associated Press:

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes' office said in a statement the appeal will be filed in the coming weeks. "Attorney General Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of our state," the statement said.

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear the appeal, and there is no deadline to make a decision, said William Eskridge, a law professor at Yale University. The three-judge 10th Circuit panel put its June 25 ruling on hold pending an appeal.

The Utah case is certain to pique the Supreme Court's interest, but the justices usually look for cases that involve split rulings from federal appeals courts, said Douglas NeJaime, a University of California-Irvine law professor. The court may wait and take up the matter after one or more of the five other appeals courts with pending gay marriage cases has ruled.

SCOTUSBlog, though, predicts on Twitter that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case later this year, actually take arguments next spring, and then rule next June. That would certainly end up changing the tone of next June’s gay pride celebrations, depending on the outcome.

UPDATE: At 3 p.m. today a state judge in Colorado ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage recognition is unconstitutional, but put a stay on the decision pending appeal.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • swampfaye||

    The problem I see (as experience has taught us in other states) with legalizing it, is once it's legal, it becomes a reason to sue people for not participating or serving the potential gay marriage. I don't see how this will not lead to churches being sued and forced to perform gay marriages too. Instead of fighting FOR government to be involved, the one thing we could all agree on but liberals refuse to fight WITH us on, would be to get government out of marriage (and business) entirely. Where are the articles supporting that? Why DO you have an article essentially encouraging the government to have a say in this instead of advocating to the other side how we should get the government out entirely. You won't find disagreement on that here, or even in the GOP, you'll find it strangely on the other side that has, for so long, called a marriage license "A piece of paper." A piece of paper they want so desperately, they are willing to rip it out of the hands of others to have it.

  • briannnnn||

    Absolutely right. The ease of obtaining a divorce has made government sanctioned marriage meaningless beyond the goodies that come with it.

  • TJ Bigelow||

    Agreed, my friend. Most of the folks at Reason have abandoned principle on this issue. Note to staff: the ends do not justify the means!

  • Normandy||

    Swamp-its actually not a problem at all. The cases you cite are discrimination cases which is illegal. You see, when you have a public business, it is supported by taxpayer money in the forms of sidewalks, power grids, etc. So you must serve the public. If you dont want to, make it a private business. We simply cannot tolerate a person taking gay tax money and not sevring gays. Would you be cool with refusing blacks or jews? Of course not. Secondly, youre obviously a little uneducated when it comes to constitutional law. A Church can NEVER be forced to do anything-that's why you dont see jews marrying in catholic churches or vice versa. Its just silly chicken little talk. Look it up and stop worrying! Marriage is too entwined to remove from govt. You really think 100s of millions of marraiges should eb annulled and then redone? Silly and not going to happen. Bigost will just have to get used to gays being equal. You can have marriage and your piece of paper and we will certianly have ours too (why are so many GOP sheep weird about sharing?)

  • AlgerHiss||

    May 3 women marry one another?

    Perhaps 5 males can marry?

    May a Mother marry her two daughters?

    If not, why not?

  • Normandy||

    Polygamy has biblical roots and should be considered. Let the advocates begin. But that is a differnet fight solely because current marriage is two people. There will need to be some legal wrangling with inheritances, children parenting and custodialship, etc but anything can be worked out. As long as eveyrone is an adult. The incest stuff is quite a different matter, so not sure about that-it seems a little gross and would involve victims I think...

  • privatizedemniz||

    The oligarch replaces democracy in one
    major area of commerce after another,
    literally seeking to feast on the very
    adversity deliberately created, while
    men waste entire lives, enslaved paranoids,
    clowns.
    His ally--his wife, simply, often--calls
    unmanly theh disapprover.

    It had a populational effect.

    If you are right handed, pointer finger
    shorter than index finger, born in the
    summer, and more, you can prove to your
    bully you are not gay. Gays' occurrence
    serves group benefit along multiple
    purposes. It's higher in the gay bashing
    communities owing to causing lesbians to
    marry heterosexually.

    This is not a matter of this or that
    gender being made defensive. It simply
    passes on a location on the female
    chromosome (men get one, women 2,) exept
    where incidene occurs because of events
    in the wom at a particular vulnerable
    location, especially for later-borns.

    It makes sense:
    later-borns would serve a species
    group benefit.

    The child of the oligarch replacing
    democracy with his fascist self and his
    mother calling disapprovers unmanly will
    be the likelier gay gene carrying little
    fascist in his own right as Momma will be
    disinclined to ever recognize lesbianism.

    At best, the by will only know judging
    and ego defense, denial of love, appreciation
    and recognition. He'll embrace
    scapegoating.

    In Israel:illegal to protest plutocracy.

    IT's how it is it's a device for war
    for bankers, and fascists.

    duckduckgo:
    Rothschild Vatican; C. Richelieu;
    Peter Pan Syndrome

advertisement