10th Circuit Turns Down Utah's Appeal on Gay Marriage: Then Stays Its Own Decision?

[Silhouette]

June 25, 2014

In a landmark decision Wednesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

The appeals court covers the territory of Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Kansas. The court currently is also considering a case involving Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage.

The three-judge panel immediately stayed its 2-1 decision until the U.S. Supreme Court can take up the issue. That means same-sex couples will still not be able to get married in Utah. Federal appeals court strikes down Utah's gay marriage ban, but stays its decision - The Denver Post

You know, I can't say I'm surprised. Windsor is the document cited by Utah and there is a lot of stuff in it that supports Utah's case. The 10th "finding" for gay marriage essentially was instead finding for its own reticence to untangle the mess in Windsor.

Some "Landmark" decision. What was achieved for the gay litigants? Nothing but an appeal to the inevitable news held waiting for them in Windsor v United States. United States v. Windsor

And that is evidenced by their placing a stay on their own decision. How's that for a vote of confidence on "finding for gay marriage"? What a slap in the face to the gay litigants.

"I'm finding for you but my finding in no way alleviates your grievances or helps you at all in the real world" ie, the 10th de facto does not believe gay marriage should be forced on the states.

Anyway, it should be interesting watching this thing move forward to the final Hearing along with all the rest. Read the link for Windsor Opinion, pages 14-22. See what you think they'll say. Will states get to decide for themselves or be overlorded and ruled by minority behaviors who parade publicly and lewdly as a matter of "pride" in front of children?

Would you force Utah to adopt kids to these people?

About that last bit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[martybegan]

June 25, 2014

In a landmark decision Wednesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

The appeals court covers the territory of Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Kansas. The court currently is also considering a case involving Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage.

The three-judge panel immediately stayed its 2-1 decision until the U.S. Supreme Court can take up the issue. That means same-sex couples will still not be able to get married in Utah. Federal appeals court strikes down Utah's gay marriage ban, but stays its decision - The Denver Post

You know, I can't say I'm surprised. Windsor is the document cited by Utah and there is a lot of stuff in it that supports Utah's case. The 10th "finding" for gay marriage essentially was instead finding for its own reticence to untangle the mess in Windsor.

Some "Landmark" decision. What was achieved for the gay litigants? Nothing but an appeal to the inevitable news held waiting for them in Windsor v United States. United States v. Windsor

And that is evidenced by their placing a stay on their own decision. How's that for a vote of confidence on "finding for gay marriage"?...lol What a slap in the face to the gay litigants.

"I'm finding for you but my finding in no way alleviates your grievances or helps you at all in the real world" ie, the 10th de facto does not believe gay marriage should be forced on the states.

Anyway, it should be interesting watching this thing move forward to the final Hearing along with all the rest. Read the link for Windsor Opinion, pages 14-22. See what you think they'll say. Will states get to decide for themselves or be overlorded and ruled by minority behaviors who parade publicly and lewdly as a matter of "pride" in front of children.

About that last bit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

Basically the 10th Circuit punted the ball.

 

[Silhouette]

Basically the 10th Circuit punted the ball.

I think it's worse than that. How can you interpret that they support gay marriage when they stayed their own decision before the ink was dry? If they truly believed gays had these "rights" so that their behaviors might access adoptable orphans as one of the priveleges of marriage in Utah in "marriage", why didn't they simply allow it until the appeal is heard at the Top? There's so much political bullshit going on with these court cases that they really do threaten to unravel American law. If the 10th meant it supports gays wishes to marry, they simply should allow it to happen. This double-talk and the Prop 8 thing, "lack of standing" & shutting down County Clerk's rights for clarity and all the rest without explanation is getting worse and worse for the inevitable. How can you judge a case without judging a case? That's bullshit. And it's very frustrating for both sides of the debate.

No, the 10th did not find for gays, nor did they punt. They did punt, but only because they know the High Court has to speak for Windsor on its own. Their stay means they agree with Windsor but wanted to look publicly like they supported gay marriage...for some reason... If they support it, they should allow it. But they didn't.

 

[martybegan]

Basically the 10th Circuit punted the ball.

I think it's worse than that. How can you interpret that they support gay marriage when they stayed their own decision before the ink was dry? If they truly believed gays had these "rights" so that their behaviors might access adoptable orphans as one of the priveleges of marriage in Utah in "marriage", why didn't they simply allow it until the appeal is heard at the Top? There's so much political bullshit going on with these court cases that they really do threaten to unravel American law. If the 10th meant it supports gays wishes to marry, they simply should allow it to happen. This double-talk and the Prop 8 thing, "lack of standing" & shutting down County Clerk's rights for clarity and all the rest without explanation is getting worse and worse for the inevitable. How can you judge a case without judging a case? That's bullshit. And it's very frustrating for both sides of the debate.

No, the 10th did not find for gays, nor did they punt. They did punt, but only because they know the High Court has to speak for Windsor on its own. Their stay means they agree with Windsor but wanted to look publicly like they supported gay marriage...for some reason... If they support it, they should allow it. But they didn't.

What they were trying to prevent was forcing Utah into an undetermined state when it came to issuing marriage licenses. So the judges probably agreed that they law should be overturned, but they practically knew that if the SC overturned them, there would be marriage license in limbo.

This is actually a good result for traditional marriage supporters in Utah. It prevents the clerks from issuing a license, which eliminates the whole "you would be taking away marriage from people who already had it" argument. It was going to the Supreme Court anyway, so it might as well be settled like this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

June 25, 2014

In a landmark decision Wednesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

The appeals court covers the territory of Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Kansas. The court currently is also considering a case involving Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage.

The three-judge panel immediately stayed its 2-1 decision until the U.S. Supreme Court can take up the issue. That means same-sex couples will still not be able to get married in Utah. Federal appeals court strikes down Utah's gay marriage ban, but stays its decision - The Denver Post

You know, I can't say I'm surprised. Windsor is the document cited by Utah and there is a lot of stuff in it that supports Utah's case. The 10th "finding" for gay marriage essentially was instead finding for its own reticence to untangle the mess in Windsor.

Some "Landmark" decision. What was achieved for the gay litigants? Nothing but an appeal to the inevitable news held waiting for them in Windsor v United States. United States v. Windsor

And that is evidenced by their placing a stay on their own decision. How's that for a vote of confidence on "finding for gay marriage"?...lol What a slap in the face to the gay litigants.

"I'm finding for you but my finding in no way alleviates your grievances or helps you at all in the real world" ie, the 10th de facto does not believe gay marriage should be forced on the states.

Anyway, it should be interesting watching this thing move forward to the final Hearing along with all the rest. Read the link for Windsor Opinion, pages 14-22. See what you think they'll say. Will states get to decide for themselves or be overlorded and ruled by minority behaviors who parade publicly and lewdly as a matter of "pride" in front of children.

About that last bit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

Basically the 10th Circuit punted the ball.

No, they ruled Civil Marriage discrimination was unconstitutional in their jurisdiction (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma). However because the SCOTUS (had already approved a stay) to prevent a cluster fuck of some couples marrying if the SCOTUS disagreed with their ruling - they put a hold on it's implementation.

Just like when the when the Prop 8 case was placed in a stay status until the SCOTUS ruled, once they ruled on the case and didn't overturn the District Court Judge - the lower court lifted the stay and Civil Marriages started.




They didn't punt because if the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, that is the final ruling.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What they were trying to prevent was forcing Utah into an undetermined state when it came to issuing marriage licenses. So the judges probably agreed that they law should be overturned, but they practically knew that if the SC overturned them, there would be marriage license in limbo.

This is actually a good result for traditional marriage supporters in Utah. It prevents the clerks from issuing a license, which eliminates the whole "you would be taking away marriage from people who already had it" argument. It was going to the Supreme Court anyway, so it might as well be settled like this.

Yep, you got it.





>>>>

 

[martybegan]

What they were trying to prevent was forcing Utah into an undetermined state when it came to issuing marriage licenses. So the judges probably agreed that they law should be overturned, but they practically knew that if the SC overturned them, there would be marriage license in limbo.

This is actually a good result for traditional marriage supporters in Utah. It prevents the clerks from issuing a license, which eliminates the whole "you would be taking away marriage from people who already had it" argument. It was going to the Supreme Court anyway, so it might as well be settled like this.

Yep, you got it.





>>>>

Someone receiving a punt can always let it go into the end zone

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is dead wrong and knows it.

Windsor is misstated by Utah, and the 10th's FINDING clearly gutted and untangled the Amendment 3 arguments by the appellants.

The defense team is considering asking the entire 10th court to consider the 2-1 ruling, even though they have been told that it will be denied.

When SCOTUS refuses to hear the defendants' appeal, as I believe it will, same sex marriage will be legal in the states of the 10th.

I believe SCOTUS is going to goose the various Circuit Courts to make the decisions for marriage equality, one at a time.

That allows SCOTUS to avoid having to rule until it can apply to all states.

 

[jillian]

June 25, 2014

In a landmark decision Wednesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

The appeals court covers the territory of Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Kansas. The court currently is also considering a case involving Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage.

The three-judge panel immediately stayed its 2-1 decision until the U.S. Supreme Court can take up the issue. That means same-sex couples will still not be able to get married in Utah. Federal appeals court strikes down Utah's gay marriage ban, but stays its decision - The Denver Post

You know, I can't say I'm surprised. Windsor is the document cited by Utah and there is a lot of stuff in it that supports Utah's case. The 10th "finding" for gay marriage essentially was instead finding for its own reticence to untangle the mess in Windsor.

Some "Landmark" decision. What was achieved for the gay litigants? Nothing but an appeal to the inevitable news held waiting for them in Windsor v United States. United States v. Windsor

And that is evidenced by their placing a stay on their own decision. How's that for a vote of confidence on "finding for gay marriage"?...lol What a slap in the face to the gay litigants.

"I'm finding for you but my finding in no way alleviates your grievances or helps you at all in the real world" ie, the 10th de facto does not believe gay marriage should be forced on the states.

Anyway, it should be interesting watching this thing move forward to the final Hearing along with all the rest. Read the link for Windsor Opinion, pages 14-22. See what you think they'll say. Will states get to decide for themselves or be overlorded and ruled by minority behaviors who parade publicly and lewdly as a matter of "pride" in front of children.

About that last bit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

Basically the 10th Circuit punted the ball.

well, maybe. but seems they didn't want people to get married and, then, if the Supreme Court were to reverse, have to say those marriages are a nullity. that's already happened in places.

but I think at this point where the court is going to go seems pretty clear.

 

[jillian]

I believe SCOTUS is going to goose the various Circuit Courts to make the decisions for marriage equality, one at a time.

That allows SCOTUS to avoid having to rule until it can apply to all states.

yes. and they'll do it by refusing to take the cases on cert as they have been, imo

 

[Silhouette]

What they were trying to prevent was forcing Utah into an undetermined state when it came to issuing marriage licenses. So the judges probably agreed that they law should be overturned, but they practically knew that if the SC overturned them, there would be marriage license in limbo.

This is actually a good result for traditional marriage supporters in Utah. It prevents the clerks from issuing a license, which eliminates the whole "you would be taking away marriage from people who already had it" argument. It was going to the Supreme Court anyway, so it might as well be settled like this.

How does their ruling affect California, whose clerks sought clarification on their legal role once the 9th shoved their duties into a legal gray zone? As you know, Prop 8 is still law and not struck down. The 9th and Supreme Court denied to place a stay in California or to clarify the clerk's tenuous legal position of defying the will of the voters as expressed by their initiative system. Clerks in California have extremely viable standing when it comes to challenging on Prop 8. They swear an Oath to the People of their state to dispense laws and licensing as the majority defines or allows. They can lose their credibility, their job.

The US Supreme Court's refusal to provide clarity without comment or explanation to these people is abetting the dissolving of democracy at its foundation. We are watching our legal system unravel as we speak and all through the machinations of the gay agenda's keen attorneys, people placed in powerholds and via also no little amount of blackmailing and brute tactics. Tell me how this is different from the 3rd Reicht in the 1930s? Or any other despot or oligarchy's tyrannical rise to power? These issues are precisly what the USA was founded to avoid by our forefathers. They set the country up to be managed by the lowest level of the powerholders: the People. Precisely because they lived through the tyranny of nepotism, oligarchies and "judicial activism" back in the old country. You may remember the gallow's pole was in frequent and arbitrary use back then?

What say you?

 

[Silhouette]

Well?

 

[Silhouette]

Bodecea, I know you're reading this. You responded to a less current thread on this topic. This is the current thread.

It's about how the 10th stopped gay marriage cold in its tracks, disallowing its own decision to go forward that appears on the surface to have been in favor of gay marriage.

I wonder if you can answer why they did that if they are in support of and actually believe gay marriage should trump Utah? Your thoughts?

 

[Silhouette]

Indiana follows Utah's bid; will likely get the say until the US Supreme Court hears the case:

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana attorney general’s office wants a federal judge to stay his ruling striking down the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage while it appeals...

...The stay request says it’s premature to require Indiana to change its definition of marriage until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue. But it says marriages are already taking place in violation of the ban and are expected to continue.

The state says it’s urgent that Young stop the same-sex marriages before a final decision on the issue. Indiana AG asks judge to stay same-sex marriage ruling while state appeals ? LGBTQ Nation

These stays are needed and really are urgent. Building up false hopes in people in California all the way to the East that their make-believe illegal marriages are "real" is not very nice.

I think that's why the 10th circuit ruled and then placed a stay on their own ruling. They have a crystal ball... It's called "they read the Windsor Opinion"...

Legally speaking, all these appeals going to the top are really just formal requests to the SCOTUS to clarify Windsor so that activist judges cannot keep pretending that they don't understand the intent of the Court when it said it wants states' broadest consensus to have the say on marriage definition under the question of so-called "gay marriage". They're all happily dodging the bullet of spelling that out and want SCOTUS to do it for them.

Long story short. And it's very not nice to build up the cult of LGBTs hopes only to dash them and retroactively annul their misconceptions just a year later.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Long story short. And it's very not nice to build up the cult of LGBTs hopes only to dash them and retroactively annul their misconceptions just a year later.

Not gonna happen. This ship has sailed, and left you sitting wet and cold, crying on a rock.

Gay marriage is about "equality", not that nonsense you believe...

 

[Silhouette]

Long story short. And it's very not nice to build up the cult of LGBTs hopes only to dash them and retroactively annul their misconceptions just a year later.

Not gonna happen. This ship has sailed, and left you sitting wet and cold, crying on a rock.

Gay marriage is about "equality", not that nonsense you believe...

Then I suppose you have some theory to offer as to why the 10th "spoke up for gay marriage" and then immediately acted to halt gay marriage on its own proclamation?

I'd like to hear your theories on that.