Breaking: Supreme Court Temporarily Grants Utah Request On Recognition Of Same-Sex Marriages

[Fearless]

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the State of Utah's request to stay a ruling that would have fired it to recognize the legal, civil marriages of 1300 same-sex couples.

Minutes ago the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in once again on the State of Utah's attempts to maintain its ban on same-ex marriage and thwart the rights of legally-marriage same-sex couples. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that Utah must recognize the marriages of the 1300 couples who married in December and early January after a federal judge delated Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

GOP Attorney General of the State of Utah, Sean Reyes, Wednesday filed a motion with the Supreme Court, requesting a stay on the 10th Circuit's ruling. Reyes claimed if the Court did not grant it, Utah would suffer "chaos" and "irreparable harm."

"Absent a stay," Reyes' petition claimed, "there is a likelihood—indeed, a certainty—of irreparable harm to the State" should it be forced to recognize the 1300 legal civil marriages of same-sex couples.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking_supreme_court_temporarily_grants_utah_request_utah_will_not_have_to_recognize_same_sex_marriage

----------------------------

What the FUCK is wrong with this country??

[CBGLuthier]

1. WTF is wrong with this country? At the moment Five fuckers on the SC,

40+ some in the senate and a couple hundred in the house of representatives.

Now lets do all we can, legally, to take out the trash.

[William769]

2. This is not good with all the suits heading to SCOTUS.

They didn't even have the fucking guts to sign their names.

Why would they allow a stay at this time?

[Fearless]

3. My guess would be Mormon lobbying money

This is the first case the Court as taken up since invalidating Section 2 of DOMA. This will either end very good or very very bad.

[William769]

5. This is where I am ignorant

I don't understand lobbying money in connection of SCOTUS.

Maybe I'm thinking one dimensional here but why grant a stay if the outcome is obvious? Now it's making me think it's not so obvious.

Surly that suit will make it to the Supreme Court in their next session & maybe a couple others. I am just completely confused now, especially what SCOTUS did last week in PA.

Forget the equal protection clause, I think we are now in the territory of cruel & unusual punishment to LGBT people (you can marry here, you can't marry here, you might be able to marry here, you were allowed to marry here but now you can't). It's enough to drive someone fucking insane!

[Fearless]

7. I'm not saying that the justices are bribed

What I'm saying is that some will on the side do... for instance... a speaking appearance at sponsored events where they get paid money by lobbying groups... Scalia in particular is notorious for this sort of "not bribery".

And then court cases come up and they vote reliably in the interest of the people who paid them "not bribes".

I have little doubt this will come up in the next session. I have a bad feeling I know how it will play out though...

Something to the effect of states should not be forced to recognize marriage equality unless they want to.

That would be my guess.

Ignoring school integration/sodomy laws/interracial marriage precedents at the same time. The only chance we have is to find a way to word the case to sway Anthony Kennedy to side with the liberal justices. The only bright spot there is he tends to vote in favor of more rights instead of fewer rights... but the plaintiffs could argue that they are losing rights by allowing marriage equality, and I'm not sure he wouldn't agree.

[William769]

9. Thanks for the clarification.

Although this still has me confused as all can be but I understand what you are saying.

[Cooperstown]

4. An entire state built upon a religion based upon the words of a con-artist

based upon the words of a con-artist, an entire state, fears the consequences of giving 100% of that state's citizens equal rights under the law?

And the Supreme Court of the USA, or a part of that body, defends the rights of that state over the rights of a minority of that state's citizens?

This is kind of an Through-the-Looking-Glass kind of Supreme Court ruling; preserve the rights of the state over the rights of that state's citizens?

NUTS!

[customerserviceguy]

12. Yep

I lived there for six months in early 2005. Longest ten years of my life.

What makes it work for them? Isolation, there are no other major outposts of civilization that close to Salt Lake City and its suburbs to give them a sense that there might well be other ways of thinking. I specifically remember the conversation I had with a woman who had no concept that a person without a religion could have ethical values, even though they were atheist.

[Keefer]

6. That article

was hard to read. Whoever authored it needs remedial spelling. (DAVID BADASH)

"The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the State of Utah's request to stay a ruling that would have fired it to recognize the legal, civil marriages of 1300 same-sex couples.

Minutes ago the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in once again on the State of Utah's attempts to maintain its ban on same-ex marriage and thwart the rights of legally-marriage same-sex couples. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that Utah must recognize the marriages of the 1300 couples who married in December and early January after a federal judge delated Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional."

This sentence - "The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that Utah must recognize the marriages of the 1300 couples who married in December and early January after a federal judge delated Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.", doesn't even make sense.

[Fearless]

8. The word in the last bold sentence is "declared" not "delated"

My guess is that they wanted to get the story up quickly and will fix errors later?

[xfundy]

10. Proofreaders actually used to be a thing.

A person would actually read a writer's work before it was published. As was the style at the time.

[Keefer]

11. I agree.

[MNBrewer]

13. Religion

Faith. People of Faith.

[Fearless]

14. Sounds about right.