Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage in Utah, putting hundreds of couples in legal limbo

  • Article by: BRADY McCOMBS , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 6, 2014 - 5:10 PM

SALT LAKE CITY — Gay couples in Utah were thrown into legal limbo Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court put a halt to same-sex marriages in the state, turning jubilation to doubt just weeks after a judge's ruling sent more than a thousand couples rushing to get married.

  • 46
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jpcooperJan. 6, 1411:33 AM

Its a State issues unless the State votes against Gay marriage then its a Federal issue! Right Liberals!

19
59
adamskoglundJan. 6, 1412:01 PM

"Its a State issues unless the State votes against Gay marriage then its a Federal issue! Right Liberals!"----Nope. It's a moral issue, regardless of which state it's in. Question back at you though, if it's such an "emergency" for the state of Utah that these 900 couples have gotten married, can you name me one single negative effect that has harmed the state of Utah over the past couple of weeks since they started marrying couples? Have buildings collapsed? Riots in the streets? Avalanches? Mudslides? Locusts and frogs? Exactly what negative consequences have come to the state of Utah that could even remotely make the marriage of loving couples be considered an "emergency?"

62
21
TaxFreeTennJan. 6, 1412:17 PM

What a silly argument, a "moral issue". There is no "right" for two same sex people to marry. To suggest it's in the constitution is a perversion of the original intent. But you know that, right. The only "moral" issue is homosexuals attempting to take over a word and force their perversion on the rest of us.

22
76
ghutchJan. 6, 1412:19 PM

Equality is a radical concept. The clumsy machinery of the courts will eventually resolve the legal issues. This is what bending the curve towards justice looks like. (MLK)

50
13
adamskoglundJan. 6, 1412:20 PM

Sorry, I misspoke in that last rhetorical question. What I meant to say was "Exactly what negative consequences have come to the state of Utah that could even remotely make PREVENTING the marriage of loving couples be considered an "emergency?"

45
10
ericgus55Jan. 6, 1412:25 PM

It's just delaying the inevitable. The ruling that the ban violates the US Constitution (deprivation of liberty without due process, denial of equal protection) will be the winning argument over 'we don't think gay folks should get the same legal rights/protections/liberties as straight folks.' In the end, it doesn't matter if the citizens of a state vote 99% to 1% to ban an activity (whether its speech, gun ownership, or marriage) if that ban is ruled to be in violation of the US Constitution.

52
7
pragmatictafJan. 6, 1412:46 PM

"The only "moral" issue is homosexuals attempting to take over a word and force their perversion on the rest of us."-------Here's how I would re-word this statement, "The only "moral" issue is fundamental christians attempting to take over a word and force their perversion on the rest of us. No difference, just one side or the other. That said, neither are right.

39
12
newsnutJan. 6, 1412:51 PM

I love how Mormons talk about supporting "traditional marriage" when they have polygamists in their midst.

41
12
jgmanciniJan. 6, 1412:52 PM

"Its a State issues unless the State votes against Gay marriage then its a Federal issue! Right Liberals!"-----Um, actually, the state of Utah was the one that turned it into a Federal issue. The state supreme court said they had to allow gay marriage and Utah asked the Federal goverment to step in and reverse the decision. Not sure how you can blame that on liberals.

36
7
colenickmainJan. 6, 1412:57 PM

This was a wise decision by Sotomayor and shows she understands that her colleagues on the court know that this lower court judge has amateurishly put the cart before the horse on this issue. No court has yet ruled that people who claim to identify as homosexual are indeed a "suspect or protected class." As such, this justice improperly applied the strict scrutiny test to Utah's constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and woman. Sotomayor will no doubt conclude that this law violates equal protection because she likely believes people who have self-professed same sex attraction are a discreet, oppressed minority. But at least she is willing to admit that this issue has not yet been adjudicated as such and that, as with any appeal, a "stay" is the just thing to do as Utah has a right as a state to define marriage in this way until the courts definitively rule that gays are a protected class. I believe in the final analysis, the pro-same sex marriage people will find that they need to continue to take these battles to the legislature and redefine marriage through the legislative process, instead of trying to continue to abuse the courts with this fight. Marriage laws like the one in Utah do not violate the federal constitution, because these laws are rational related to a legitimate government purpose - i.e. to incentivize couples who can and do procreate to stay in a monogamous relationshop and rear their children under one roof together - which has been proven to be the most stable, ideal setting for raising productive, model citizens.

9
42

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT