Thursday, January 2, 2014

Utah politicians fight same-sex marriage

A federal judge in Utah has ordered the state to permit same-sex marriages.  This decision seems to be transforming the local gay-rights stage into a grand showing on a national civil rights stage -- and frankly, I am happy to have the battle happen in my adopted home state.

Is marriage a civil right, Mormons ask?

Utah officials, including Governor Gary Herbert, asked US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to put a temporarily stay on the federal judge’s decision made on December 20th of 2013 -- a ruling that requires the state of Utah to permit same-sex marriages as per constitutional law despite a state constitutional amendment outlawing same sex marriage.
Justice Sotomayor responded by saying no, and requesting more information from legal representatives of several gay couples who have been challenging the initial Utah state ban. Those briefs are due in court on Friday, Jan 3rd.

Meanwhile -- back at the farm --  more than 900 same-sex couples have taken advantage of the judge’s ruling and have obtain marriage licenses in Utah.

The Christian Science Monitor states: "The immediate question is whether the judge’s same-sex marriage order should be stayed pending further appeals, the underlying issues will require Sotomayor – and perhaps the entire high court – to address the single most significant question in the legal debate over gay marriage. The question is whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the US Constitution."

Once again, the national question is not whether the public agrees with homosexuals or homosexuality, or even the right to be homosexual.  What is being decided is whether marriage is a civil right as defined by the constitution.


  1. It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't help but think the court will grant some temporary thing, but then wait to decide this case this summer.

  2. A stay would seem likely as it will "maintain the status quo ante" pending a thorough hearing of the points of appeal.

    But that raises the questions that often arises: If one's constitutional rights are being infringed, should a court truly seek to allow the infringement to continue, and the rights denied, while a lengthily process works its way through the system?

    Justice delayed is justice denied perhaps?