Utah continues legal fight against same-sex marriage ruling
by Rudy Herndon
Staff Writer
Jan 02, 2014 | 3660 views | 0 0 comments | 85 85 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Same-sex marriages are an “affront” to Utah and its residents, and they must be put on hold while the state appeals a federal court ruling that legalized them, a state-hired attorney argued this week.

Idaho-based marriage law attorney Monte Stewart is asking U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for an immediate stay of a Dec. 20 ruling that struck down Utah’s voter-approved gay marriage ban.

Sotomayor presides over emergency requests within the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and she has the authority to review them on her own, or to forward them on to the full Supreme Court.

The Denver-based 10th Circuit has already rejected three similar requests for a stay. So has U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby, who set things in motion when he found that Utah’s Amendment 3 is an unconstitutional violation of same-sex couples’ due process and equal protection rights.

Hundreds of same-sex couples around the state have tied the knot since the judge issued his ruling, and Stewart argues that Utah and its citizens will suffer “irreparable injury” if gay marriage remains the law of the land.

“Every marriage performed uniting persons of the same sex is an affront to the sovereignty of the State and to the democratically expressed will of the people of Utah,” Stewart wrote in his 25-page application for a stay.

The state may also incur constantly increasing administrative and financial costs before the case is resolved, and same-sex couples may be irreparably harmed if their marital status is ultimately negated, he said.

“Any one of the injuries qualifies as irreparable,” he wrote. “Together they establish exceptional harm.”

Until the 10th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court can review the state’s appeal, it is in the public’s interest to put Shelby’s decision on hold, Stewart wrote.

The state’s legal team has made virtually identical arguments in the past, but Shelby found no reason to believe that Utah or its residents would be harmed in any way by same-sex marriage.

“In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens,” Shelby wrote in his Dec. 20 ruling.

Amendment 3, on the other hand, perpetuates inequality by maintaining that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not – and never will be – worthy of recognition, Shelby ruled.

“[The 2004 law] does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples,” the judge wrote.

Critics of Shelby’s decision, including the Sutherland Institute, a conservative think-tank, have accused him of being an “activist judge.”

In a Dec. 28 posting on its website, the Sutherland Institute said the ruling bends constitutional provisions beyond recognition and invents facts to support predetermined conclusions.

“It is not, in fact, legal analysis at all but a preference dressed up in a mixture of sophistic logic, pop psychology, and conclusory reasoning,” the posting stated.

Others who were caught off-guard by the ruling had an entirely different reaction.

“It was a welcome surprise to see this sweeping change in equality rights hit Utah so soon,” Moab Pride co-founder Amy Stocks said. “I’ve always been proud to be from Moab. My pride in Utah is growing as we progress through the coming changes.”

Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.