Gay marriage Ban Struck Down in Utah.

[RedSLC]

The people and representatives of Utah together banned it. The federal government needs to respect the will of the citizens of Utah and California to maintain and enforce their bans of gay marriage. Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment apply in this case. Keep standing against this activist judge and enforce the ban in the name of the Constitution.  Liberty without Morality is anarchy

If it violates the constitution, then guess what - it doesn't matter how many people approve it, it cannot be enforced. period.

And how do you define "morality"?

[RedSLC]

Also, I'm going to re-post my response to you on the NM ruling, because this elaborates far more on the subject:

Article 1, Section 8 describes the powers of Congress. Since Prop 8 was overturned by the courts, this is pretty much irrelevant to the actual case.

And here is the text of the Tenth Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice the bolded part. This means that if the constitution says that something is not allowed, then it is not allowed, regardless of public approval, period. It is part of the constitutional framework designed to prevent the majority from oppression of the minority, and  is there to further ensure that everyone's best interests are represented.

Now here is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prohibiting gay couples from having the same benefits of straight couples falls afoul of the bolded part. If something violates the constitution, judges have complete authourity to overturn it. It's part of how our country works.

[PJ]

The people and representatives of Utah together banned it. The federal government needs to respect the will of the citizens of Utah and California to maintain and enforce their bans of gay marriage. Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment apply in this case. Keep standing against this activist judge and enforce the ban in the name of the Constitution.  Liberty without Morality is anarchy

If it violates the constitution, then guess what - it doesn't matter how many people approve it, it cannot be enforced. period.

And how do you define "morality"?

You don't. The concept of morality is modern society is stretched so much that if one person says something is immoral, a large portion of the population will simply follow suit. We shouldn't even have to debate LGBT rights, but somebody wrote down that homosexuality was bad thousands of years ago, and apparently that means we ignore simple logic and kindness to follow the will of that ancient sentence.

[hawkeye59]

The people and representatives of Utah together banned it. The federal government needs to respect the will of the citizens of Utah and California to maintain and enforce their bans of gay marriage. Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment apply in this case. Keep standing against this activist judge and enforce the ban in the name of the Constitution.  Liberty without Morality is anarchy

Liberty is moral itself.

[RedSLC]

Another update on the counties:

Most of the states 29 counties have agreed to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

The six counties that have not agreed to start issuing licenses are: Box Elder County (Brigham City), Cache County (Logan), Juab County, Piute County, San Juan County, and Utah County (Provo/Orem). Millard County, despite previously declining, appears to have reversed course.

Additionally, Garfield County has not yet stated its intentions with regards to the issue.

[Zioneer]

To add to SLValleyMan's update, the AG's office is now telling county clerks that if they deny marriage licenses to LGBT couples, they're breaking the law.

Yet the newly appointed AG Sean Reyes (who is in all other respects a reformist), is still looking to overturn the ruling. And yes, he is seeking re-election in 2014.

[afleitch]

I wonder how long they will try and fight this?

[Blue3]

This is like a dagger into the heart of the anti-SSM opposition. If they don't put much of a fight into this, or if they lose, then social conservatives everywhere will finally confront the fact that they've lost this issue.

[bedstuy]

This is like a dagger into the heart of the anti-SSM opposition. If they don't put much of a fight into this, or if they lose, then social conservatives everywhere will finally confront the fact that they've lost this issue.

An interesting point.  However, you look at the anti-SSM crowd and they've tried to pivot to a state's rights position.  Even Ted Cruz said, leave it to the states.  This could take that argument off the table and perhaps force the social conservatives back to strong support of a constitutional  amendment.  More likely though I think the Republicans will just whine about "activist judges" and how they're being persecuted, rather than take an actual position.

[Thomas D]

From the AP Twitter about 10 minutes ago:

BREAKING: Court allows gay marriages to continue in Utah, refusing to grant state's request for stay.

So I guess an appeal would got to SCOTUS now. Sotomayor to be exact, I think.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Hopefully this means less coverage on social issues in the 2016 election.

[Smash255]

Hopefully this means less coverage on social issues in the 2016 election.

If anything the GOP might double down on social issues, especially during Primary season to go after Christie for not fighting the court decision hard enough.

[PJ]

Hopefully this means less coverage on social issues in the 2016 election.

On the contrary, LGBT equality progression will simply paint the tea party and other Anti-SSM republicans as even more extreme, especially with youth voters.

Edit: Smash beat me to it.

[Peeperkorn]

http://fox13now.com/2013/12/22/10th-circuit-court-denies-utahs-emergency-motion-for-temporary-stay/

10th Circuit Court denies Utah’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay

Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert filed seeking an Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay following a federal judge’s ruling that struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, and on Sunday the United States Court of Appeals Tenth District denied the motion.

According to court documents, “The Defendants-Appellants ask this court to stay the district court’s order pending the district court’s ruling on a motion for stay pending appeal that is currently pending in that court.”

According to the documents, the filing for an Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay did not address nor satisfy the factors that must be established to be entitled to a stay pending an appeal. The denial is without prejudice if the defendants-appellants file a motion for stay pending appeal that complies with regulations.

Hahaha it's a Christmas miracle!

This is like the best Christmas present ever

As they said before, karma.

And no, majorities or pluralities shouldn't be used against minority rights. It's like basic Liberal Democracy.

[politicallefty]

I beg to differ.  Rehearing en banc is an extraordinary procedure for a specific purpose of correcting a major error or conflict with the circuit's precedents.  It's pretty difficult to have an obvious conflict in a case where the precedent in the circuit is thin.  This is the first post Hollingsworth case of its kind.  What precedent of the circuit would it conflict with?

I'll agree to disagree with you on the en banc possibility. I think this issue could bring about such a possibility, particularly if it's a 2-1 decision overturning the lower court's ruling.

As for precedent and the possible circuit split (not including the Ninth Circuit and Prop 8), the Eighth Circuit upheld Nebraska's gay marriage ban in 2006 in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. That decision made a point of denying the Equal Protection Clause argument. Either way, I think this case will reach SCOTUS. If the Tenth Circuit upholds Judge Shelby's ruling, I think it's a near certainty that the case reaches the Supreme Court. If it goes the other way, I have a hard time seeing the liberals on the Court willing to kick the can down the road several more years by denying cert.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/utah-gay-marriage-supreme-court-101641.html?hp=l5

[Thomas D]

Sotomayor doesn't have time for this. She has balls to drop.

Well, one ball.