Same-sex marriage (SSM) in Utah:
Court declares 2004 amendment to Utah
constitution invalid. SSMs begin. State seeks
multiple stays & an appeal.
U.S. Supreme Court
issues a stay. State
and Utah State
2013 and 2014: Summary of the fight for marriage equality in Utah:
If you thought that path to achieve marriage equality in New Mexico was chaotic, it looks as if the path in Utah will be much worse.
In 2004, voters in the State of Utah joined with voters in ten other states to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. All of the amendments were passed with strong majorities. In the case of Utah, the vote was 66% vs 34% in favor of its Amendment 3. Since 2004, support for same-sex marriages has steadily risen nationally while opposition has declined. It is doubtful that Utah's amendment would pass if it were voted on in 2013, because it banned same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. This is a position currently favored by only 29% of Utah voters. Also, support for SSM has risen to 48% according to a mid-2014-JAN poll, while opposition to SSM has dropped also to 48%. Meanwhile a very strong majority of voters currently favor civil unions for same-sex couples in spite of high levels of animus taught by the predominant Mormon faith in the state where about two-thirds of the population follow that religion.
There is unanimous agreement among constitutional experts that it is the responsibility of individual states to define who is eligible to be married. But there is a serious disagreement between many social and religious conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage, and religious liberals, secularists and others who generally support marriage equality:
- Many religious and social conservatives believe that any state constitutional amendments passed by the voters automatically become the law of the state. They appear to believe that the United States is a pure democracy, where the will of the voters is automatically binding, even if the voter's will conflicts with the civil liberties guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
- The vast majority of constitutional experts, religious and social liberals, historians, lawyers, educators, etc. believe that the United States is a constitutional democracy and that whatever amendments to the state Constitution that are passed by the voters are only binding if they do not conflict with the requirements of the federal Constitution. In case of a conflict, the amendment is unconstitutional and void. A major function of the federal court system is to decide if and where such conflict exists.
The founding fathers of the United States were concerned of the "tyranny of the majority." That is, if the U.S. were a pure democracy, then there were no limits to prevent the majority of voters from withholding basic human rights from disfavored minorities. So, they composed a strong Constitution containing a Bill of Rights that put limitations to basic human rights beyond the reach of both the legislators and voters. The United States became a constitutional democracy where the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution guarantees equal protection and treatment for all of its citizens.
Kitchen et al v.
Herbert et al" -- a federal lawsuit seeking marriage for loving, committed same-sex couples in Utah:
On 2013-MAR-25, three same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. It is titled "Kitchen et al v.
Herbert et al". Two of the couples were seeking permission to marry in Utah. The third was already married in a different state and wanted Utah to recognize their existing marriage.
Hearings were held on 2013-DEC-04. A ruling was expected in late 2014-JAN. However, federal judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for Utah surprised everyone by issuing his 53 page ruling on DEC-20. He declared Amendment 3 to be unconstitutional. He reasoned that the amendment violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, at least temporarily, Utah became the 18th state to have attained marriage equality. It was at this point that the Utah Government realized that they had made a very serious oversight: they had neglected to ask for the District Court to stay its ruling pending an appeal to a higher court. As a result, same-sex couples were able to obtain marriage licenses immediately. They converged on their county offices in large numbers, and obtained licenses. Many solemnized their marriages very quickly thereafter.
The state applied to appeal the case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They also launched four requests to obtain a stay on the lower court's ruling so that further same-sex marriages could be halted. These were all rejected. The District Court and Court of Appeals reasoned that marriage equality did not impact opposite-sex couples to any significant degree, whereas to stay the lower court's decision would immediately cause hardship to same-sex couples. The state finally requested a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on 2014-JAN-06.
This left over 1,300 married same-sex couple in a state of limbo. The state quickly decided that it would not recognize their marriages and would deny them access to the few hundred state benefits and protections that are automatically given to opposite-sex married couples. Meanwhile, the federal Justice department decided that the couples were legally married and made them eligible for access to the 1,138 federal benefits and protections that are given to same-sex and opposite-sex married couples.
The next step is for the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the case and issue its own ruling. It has adopted an expedited schedule because of the importance of the case to the happiness and security of same-sex engaged couples and their children.
The events in Utah once more demonstrate the importance for same-sex engaged couples to be ready to respond instantly to any opportunity to marry in their state. Previous windows of opportunity to marry in other states have been open only for a few hours. So, speed is of the essence.
Topics covered in this section:
- During 2014-JAN:
- During 2014-FEB:
Copyright © 2013 & 2014 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Originally written: 2013-DEC-22
Latest update: 2013-FEB-07
Author: B.A. Robinson