Justices Say Utah Doesn't Have to Recognize Gay Marriages

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday said Utah is not required to recognize the marriages of roughly 1,000 same-sex couples there while state officials pursue appeals.

The court's order was two sentences long and said only that a lower court's ruling 'is stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal' by the federal appeals court in Denver.

The marriages took place between Dec. 20, when Judge Robert J. Shelby of Federal District Court in Salt Lake City struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, and Jan. 6, when the Supreme Court issued a stay blocking that ruling while the decision was appealed.

On June 25, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Denver, upheld Judge Shelby's ruling. Utah officials have announced that they will soon ask the Supreme Court to hear that case, which presents the separate and much larger question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Friday's order came in a different case, one concerning the status of what the state calls 'interim marriages,' meaning those entered into during that period in December and January when same-sex marriage was briefly allowed.

Utah officials initially sent mixed messages about whether they would recognize the marriages but ultimately said they were 'on hold.' Federal officials said they would recognize the marriages.

On May 19, Judge Dale A. Kimball, a second judge on the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, ruled that Utah must recognize the marriages.

'The state has placed plaintiffs and their families in a state of limbo with respect to adoptions, child care and custody, medical decisions, employment and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance and many other property and fundamental rights associated with marriage,' Judge Kimball wrote. 'These legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day that the marriage is not recognized.'

Judge Kimball entered a brief stay of his decision. The Tenth Circuit, which has yet to rule in the case, extended the stay through Monday. A dissenting appeals court judge said the majority's approach, of failing to stay the lower court's decision while appeals proceeded, invited chaos.

State officials echoed the point in urging the Supreme Court to step in. 'Constitutional rights do not spring into existence by mass social activity triggered by the unreviewed decision of a single district court judge,' their brief said, adding that the status quo should be maintained until the Supreme Court has the last word.

The case seeking recognition of the 1,000 or so marriages was brought by four same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

'There is no such thing as an 'interim marriage,'  ' they told the justices. 'In seeking to nullify marriages that were legal at the time they were solemnized, defendants seek to do something unprecedented in our nation's history.'

from Google News http://#

via IFTTT

Tweet