LGBT News Justices Say Utah Doesn't Have to Recognize Gay Marriages

This bites . Well, I guess I could just visit, just never live there..le sigh :/.

 

Because saying that a legally binding social contract flat out does not exist is a good precedent to set and all... I feel awful for the 1300+ couples who were married.

 

I think it's important not to read too much into the stay. The title is misleading. The SCOTUS just said that they don't have to recognize the marriages - yet. This is why stays are always issued with the rulings, it's to prevent situations like this where people get trapped in legal limbo, and to allow everything to work its way through the courts.

They are not saying that the marriages are nullified. They're just saying that Utah doesn't have to recognize them until the courts have made their final ruling. It would have been shocking had they given a different decision. Had they ruled differently, they would have essentially legalized marriage equality in Utah, even as there is a fierce legal battle going on in the courts.

This isn't a loss for us, it's just the SCOTUS maintaining due process until the case has worked their way up through the courts. This is why stays are usually issued right along with the rulings in most cases.

Here is the ruling the SCOTUS issued.

Here is a more in depth discussion from SCOTUSBlog.

In short, nothing changes in Utah. Things continue to move forward through the courts.

 

At this point, I think they'll rule 5-4 that we don't have the right to marry. They've gotten even more partisan since last year, and by the time this hits the court, well, it may be a mistake to take it there at this point.

 

It's going to the 10th Circuit next, but yes, ultimately it will end up on the SCOTUS doorstep.

They did issue a ruling to avoid confusion. That was the point of the stay that was issued to give things time to work through the system. The only reason it's costing a ton of money and time is because Utah keeps appealing. They lose and then they appeal, and when they appeal it moves up to the next level of the courts, slowly working it's way up to the SCOTUS.

The real question is when it finally lands on the SCOTUS doorstep whether or not they'll take the case. If they refuse to hear it then the lower court's ruling becomes law, and it looks like the 10th is going to follow in the tradition of those who have come before them since the fall of DOMA and deliver a pro-marriage equality verdict.

All the lower courts seem to be in agreement, and seem to be making the same arguments. Really, I suspect the Supreme Court could very well choose NOT to hear the case, and just let these things work their way up through the courts. They may only choose to hear the case in a situation where there is an anti-marriage equality opinion or a conflict in the rulings.

I could see the SCOTUS doing this so they never have to actually rule in favor of marriage equality themselves, but instead let the lower courts do their dirty work for them. It would take a few years longer, sadly, but the more the SCOTUS stalls the higher the approval rate will move on the marriage issue... so it's hard for me to see a reason why the SCOTUS wouldn't stall.

And actually, it may be the safest course of action for us if they do. This means we don't have to read the tea leaves for Kennedy, wondering if his love for states rights will trump his love for equal rights, or have to wonder if Roberts can be persuaded in light of previous rulings and concern over his legacy.

 

Setting aside any potential accidents or illnesses, we are certain to outlive all four of them. All we have to be willing to do is bide our time, and prepare to have a Democrat in the White House to appoint their replacements.

The biggest defeats we've suffered since Obama has taken office hasn't come from Republicans in Congress, it's come from the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Controlling the Supreme Court should always be our top priority, unless and until a time comes when widespread Constitutional reform is possible (and therefore reforming the Supreme Court as well).