Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

SALT LAKE CITY (RNS) Lawyers for the three same-sex couples announced Thursday (Aug. 7) that they will join with Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes in calling for the Supreme Court to hear their case.


  1. The Governor and Attorney General of Utah are either the most clever marriage equality supporters in existence or its dumbest opposition ever.

    They didn’t even have arguments which could pass muster in one of the most conservative Federal judicial districts in the nation, at two levels. Losing 20+ cases across various federal districts of varying political temperaments should be a warning sign that one doesn’t really have much of a chance. There are still no coherent rational or secular arguments proffered to meet the government’s burden needed to support gay marriage bans. If it were not the case, the court decisions would be far more mixed.

    This is a guaranteed loser for the Utah state government.

    Justice Kennedy may be a bit of a conservative wonk who is a touch too pro-corporation for sanity’s sake, but he also has been the key figure in support of gay rights litigation. Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Windsor v. US were all his decisions. They are the integral building blocks to all of the cases striking down gay marriage bans. Kennedy is not going to overrule himself. There is your 5th Justice right there.

    I am expecting SCOTUS to punt on the issue. I sincerely doubt Scalia and pals really want to be backed into a corner of having to discuss Equal Protection arguments here.

    • I think you’re wrong; that is, I think the Supreme Court will accept the case. How they will rule I have no idea.

      • If they chose to hear it (I sincerely doubt the Conservative wing wants to) it will be 5-4 against Utah. The liberal 4 + Kennedy. Kennedy is solidly in the gay rights corner. His prior decisions are the basis for all of these lawsuits.

      • The ruling will have a much different outcome then the lgbt ppl believe. The doma case was about state law v federal, mass passed a law allowing gays to get married doma made the law invalid in a sense. The 10th amendment states that federal law cannot trump state law on issues of voting laws age of consent marriage ect. The lgbt side thinks this means the 14th amendment is in play, but Kennedy never used that he used the 10th amendment on dealing with winsor v usa. Lastly the epc of the 14th amendment does not protect sexual behavior, the right of expression is to a point until it is vulgar. If the lgbt ppl were smart they would not help utah. Myself i do not support gay marriage, but from a legal sense when it goes to the scotus kennedy will be questioned on his past ruling. Since the winsor v usa was state law v federal marriage bans are the same thing texas utah ohio ect have laws in place, so these cases are pretty much now like winsor, does a state have a right to regulate marriage or do federal laws now take over and the 10th amendment is null and void.

    • There are still no coherent rational or secular arguments proffered to meet the government’s burden needed to support gay marriage bans.

      There are no coherent, rational arguments about why a constitutional provision passed in 1868 to nullify black codes applies in the least to conventional matrimonial law. People who make that argument have not a shred of integrity.

      • Really? I take it you have never read a single SCOTUS decision from the 1920’s onward. Almost a century of interpreting Equal Protection and Due Process clause say you are full of crap.

        Equal protection was specifically written as the death knell of “State’s rights” that sparked the Civil War. States and local governments cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of civil liberties. Our most egregious forms of legal discrimination happen at that level.

        And no, there are still no rational and secular arguments for the government to institute a gay marriage ban.

        • Kennedy isnt in the gay corner honestly no one really is. Kennedy went by the 10th amendment and the 5th amendment. Since mass had a law allowing gays to marry they had to have due process under the law, because they were the same as a true married couple and doma was federal. Now if gay marriage was not allowed in mass Doma would still be the law. Get it or little too much

  2. No Frank, you may think you’ve lost something. That’s too bad. But the rest of us will rejoice about coming out of the moral dark ages. God is smiling on us.

          • “God wants this”
            “Nope…he wants that”
            “Nope….he wants this”
            “Nope …he wants that.”
            “No true Christian would….”
            “No true Christian would not….”

            Execute them all – Jesus (luke 19:27)

            Folks, we don’t need this nonsense and we will be better without it.
            It isn’t real.

  3. New Mexico already has state-wide marriage equality, so the statement about other states in the tenth circuit is incorrect.