Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marr...

Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marriage on Hold

There are 300 comments on the News Max story from Jan 6, 2014, titled Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marriage on Hold. In it, News Max reports that:

Shelly Eyre holds the marriage license issued to her and her partner Cheryl Haws at the Utah County Clerk's office in Provo on Dec. 26. The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Max.

First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#1 Jan 6, 2014
Sad day.

Or maybe not. Maybe they're just giving them more rope.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#3 Jan 6, 2014
I've read the order and know that it is a one page stay from the FULL Court......obviously Justice Sotomayor DOESN'T have the necessary means to take a stand!!!

I guess requirements for a Stay really mean NOTHING if they can be ignored!!!

I still believe that Utah will NOT win at the 10th or SCOTUS, but that is just my opinion!!!!
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Jan 6, 2014
"[Mormon whatever it is] officials say they hope a higher court validates its [belated, under duress] belief that marriage is between a man and woman."

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Jan 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
Sad day.
Or maybe not. Maybe they're just giving them more rope.
I agree.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#7 Jan 6, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
Sad day.
Or maybe not. Maybe they're just giving them more rope.
If we are ever going to get a US Supreme Court decision on the issue; this is a required step in the process
.
Justice Sotomayor took the most efficient and least disruptive path by referring it to the full court instead of making the decision herself
.
The stay is effective only until the pending 10th circuit appeal ruling is issued
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#8 Jan 6, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
I've read the order and know that it is a one page stay from the FULL Court......obviously Justice Sotomayor DOESN'T have the necessary means to take a stand!!!
I guess requirements for a Stay really mean NOTHING if they can be ignored!!!
I still believe that Utah will NOT win at the 10th or SCOTUS, but that is just my opinion!!!!
They left almost 1000 gay marriages intact in UTAH
.
Our foot is in the door forevermore

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Jan 6, 2014
I hate to say I told you so.....

Apparently the entire SCOTUS agreed to the stay, which is just another way of putting the brakes on things.

That tells every other federal judge considering ruling against a state ban to go ahead and stay their ruling until the appeal is over.

So the earliest this could be resolved is Oct, and that's only if the SCOTUS refuses any appeal of the 10th circuit ruling.
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#10 Jan 6, 2014
Another opportunity for reason and respect to rule over the madness of rejecting the overwhelming will of the people in a State to reject perversion and disease as qualified to receive special status.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Jan 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
If we are ever going to get a US Supreme Court decision on the issue; this is a required step in the process
.
Justice Sotomayor took the most efficient and least disruptive path by referring it to the full court instead of making the decision herself
.
The stay is effective only until the pending 10th circuit appeal ruling is issued
I don't think that she should've referred it to the full court. She could've made the decision herself to simply not issue a stay.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#12 Jan 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
They left almost 1000 gay marriages intact in UTAH
.
Our foot is in the door forevermore
I honestly don't believe that they would have NULLIFIED any legal marriages just because the State wants it that way and I DON'T believe the 10th will do that either.......remember that in Strauss vs Horton(CSSC ruling 5/29/2009) the CSSC ruled that something they allowed to happen could NOT be undone UNLESS there was some provision in Prop 8 that was retroactive and there WASN'T!!!

I just don't see the State of Utah prevailing here!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#13 Jan 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I hate to say I told you so.....
Apparently the entire SCOTUS agreed to the stay, which is just another way of putting the brakes on things.
That tells every other federal judge considering ruling against a state ban to go ahead and stay their ruling until the appeal is over.
So the earliest this could be resolved is Oct, and that's only if the SCOTUS refuses any appeal of the 10th circuit ruling.
I still DISAGREE with ya........I believe the 10th will have a ruling issued sometime this summer and if it goes against the State, an appeal will be made to the High Court probably in October.........but we really DON'T know how the Court Justices ruled, just that NO dissent was posted.

I guess it also shows us that what is the point in having requirements for a Stay if a Stay can be granted without ANY requirement being met!!!
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#14 Jan 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
They left almost 1000 gay marriages intact in UTAH
.
Our foot is in the door forevermore
They did not leave those "marriages" unaffected. The stay goes to the original ruling and makes those "marriages" null and void.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#15 Jan 6, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Another opportunity for reason and respect to rule over the madness of rejecting the overwhelming will of the people in a State to reject perversion and disease as qualified to receive special status.
Disease cannot be voted on; sugar
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#16 Jan 6, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
They did not leave those "marriages" unaffected. The stay goes to the original ruling and makes those "marriages" null and void.
You didn't read the order

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jan 6, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I still DISAGREE with ya........I believe the 10th will have a ruling issued sometime this summer and if it goes against the State, an appeal will be made to the High Court probably in October.........but we really DON'T know how the Court Justices ruled, just that NO dissent was posted.
I guess it also shows us that what is the point in having requirements for a Stay if a Stay can be granted without ANY requirement being met!!!
That's why I said Oct would be the earliest this could be resolved, and that's only if the SCOTUS refuses to take the appeal of the 10th circuit ruling.

I do agree it's likely the SCOTUS refuses any cert request regardless of the 10th circuit ruling.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#18 Jan 6, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
They did not leave those "marriages" unaffected. The stay goes to the original ruling and makes those "marriages" null and void.
Sorry, but NO that is NOT what the Stay means......it just means going forward from today's date that NO more Same-Sex Couples can get married!!!

Just like Prop 8 did NOT invalidate or nullify the existing 18,000 legal marriage that took place before the passage of Prop 8!!!

Once a marriage is legal and valid.......it CAN'T be nullified UNLESS it was done under fraudulent reasons and the roughly 1000 legal marriages were done with the legal sanction of a Court order!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#19 Jan 6, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I said Oct would be the earliest this could be resolved, and that's only if the SCOTUS refuses to take the appeal of the 10th circuit ruling.
I do agree it's likely the SCOTUS refuses any cert request regardless of the 10th circuit ruling.
It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS handles this one......it will be a direct issue regarding a State's right to define marriage without regard to a compelling interest as well as answer the question about is Marriage truly a FUNDAMENTAL right or just a FUNDAMENTAL right for heterosexuals ONLY!!!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#20 Jan 6, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but NO that is NOT what the Stay means......it just means going forward from today's date that NO more Same-Sex Couples can get married!!!
Just like Prop 8 did NOT invalidate or nullify the existing 18,000 legal marriage that took place before the passage of Prop 8!!!
Once a marriage is legal and valid.......it CAN'T be nullified UNLESS it was done under fraudulent reasons and the roughly 1000 legal marriages were done with the legal sanction of a Court order!!!
.....and that court order was issued by none other than the attorney general of UTAH himself
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-...
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#21 Jan 6, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but NO that is NOT what the Stay means......it just means going forward from today's date that NO more Same-Sex Couples can get married!!!
Just like Prop 8 did NOT invalidate or nullify the existing 18,000 legal marriage that took place before the passage of Prop 8!!!
Once a marriage is legal and valid.......it CAN'T be nullified UNLESS it was done under fraudulent reasons and the roughly 1000 legal marriages were done with the legal sanction of a Court order!!!
"As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision." Shelby's decision. It goes to Shelby's decision, which makes null and void any actions since Shelby's decision.

"The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it.'

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops...

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#22 Jan 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
.....and that court order was issued by none other than the attorney general of UTAH himself
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-...
Interesting, but as of this moment in time, Same-Sex Couples are being harmed by NOT be allowed their FUNDAMENTAL right to marry!!!

This is one of the key questions that will come back to SCOTUS much sooner than later!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 2 hr NorCal Native 466
News Oregon issues final order in gay wedding cake case 3 hr Mitt s Santorum S... 26
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Bruce 34,560
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 3 hr WasteWater 93
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 4 hr tongangodz 6,636
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 6 hr Reverend Alan 846
News GOP proposes protections for clergy on gay marr... 11 hr WasteWater 4
More from around the web