AURORA | An Aurora man says his small group has halted an effort to ask Colorado voters to repeal the state’s 2006 ban on gay marriage in light of the recent federal court decision to overturn a similar ban in Utah.
“With the recent Utah decision and the change in New Mexico, we decided we would see what happens next,” said Jeremy Mathis. He and Lisa Starcher of Colorado Springs started the initiative process earlier this year hoping that others would jump on the bandwagon to collect the more than 86,000 signatures needed to get the measure on the Colorado 2014 ballot. That hasn’t happened, and so he and others were looking toward the 2016 election.
About 54 percent of Colorado voters approved the state constitutional ban in 2006, which is de facto, limiting marriage between one man and one woman.
The surprise court decision on Utah’s ban, a similar nullification of a virtual ban in New Mexico, and a recent Adams County gay couple’s court challenge of Colorado’s ban has prompted to see what might happen next. In October, Rebecca Brinkman and Margaret Burd filed the suit in Adams County District Court, seeking to overturn the Colorado ban on grounds that it’s unconstitutional.
Mathis said he wants to see how their efforts might support new causes and actions to overturn Colorado’s ban. He said he had planned to file the suspension paperwork at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office this week.
The state just this year created civil union legislation that extends some marriage benefits to homosexual couples, but gay unions still do not provide federal benefits as do gay marriages in other states.
A federal judge on Monday allowed gay marriage to continue in Utah, rejecting a request to put same-sex weddings on hold as the state appeals a decision that has sent couples flocking to county clerk offices for marriage licenses.
Judge Robert J. Shelby overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage Friday, ruling the voter-approved measure is a violation of gay couples’ constitutional rights. The state then asked him to put a stop to the weddings, but he rejected the request.
Lawyers for the state quickly filed a request with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put gay marriage on hold.
More than 200 gay couples have obtained marriage licenses since Friday in Utah’s most populous county. On Monday, an estimated 100 licenses were issued in other counties, while some clerks shut their doors as they awaited Shelby’s decision.
Couples began lining up Sunday night at the Salt Lake County clerk’s office as they hoped to get licenses amid the uncertainty of the pending ruling. They anxiously eyed their cellphones for news on the decision, and a loud cheer erupted once word spread that Shelby wouldn’t be blocking weddings.
For now, a state considered one of the nation’s most conservative has become the 18th to allow same-sex couples to legally wed, joining the likes of California and New York.
In court Monday, Utah lawyer Philip Lott repeated the words “chaotic situation” to describe what has been happening in Utah since clerks started allowing gay weddings. He urged the judge to “take a more orderly approach than the current frenzy.”
Peggy Tomsic, the lawyer for the same-sex couples who brought the case, called gay marriage the civil rights movement of this generation and said it was the new law of the land in Utah.
“The cloud of confusion that the state talks about is only their minds,” she said.
Lawyers for the state waged a legal battle on several fronts as they sought to stop the same-sex weddings.
On Sunday, a federal appeals court rejected the state’s emergency request to stay the ruling, saying it couldn’t rule on a stay since Shelby had not yet acted on the motion before him. The court quickly rejected a second request from Utah on Monday. The state plans to ask the court a third time to put the process on hold.
In Shelby’s 53-page ruling, he said the constitutional amendment that Utah voters approved violates gay and lesbian couples’ rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.
The ruling has thrust Shelby into the national spotlight. He has been on the bench for less than two years, appointed by President Barack Obama after GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch recommended him in November 2011.
Shelby served in the Utah Army National Guard from 1988 to 1996 and was a combat engineer in Operation Desert Storm. He graduated from the University of Virginia law school in 1998 and clerked for the U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Greene in Utah, then spent about 12 years in private practice before he became a judge.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Government recognition of any marriage or any marriage rights, responsibilities or benefits in American law is unconstitutional.
The constitutional support for the argument is outlined in the article:
Opinion: Marriage Rights and the US Constitution.
Arm yourself with the fair, equitable and constitutional solution to the marriage rights issue.
Actually, the blog that you have linked as your “source” doesn’t speak from a legal perspective, but most likely just one type of opinion.
The truth of the matter is U.S. States govern what constitutes a “civil” marriage as they issue the legal marriage license. The exception to that being under our Federal form of government, the rights granted to all U.S. citizens within the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the Federal courts and it doesn’t have to state them specifically, but imply them) trumps all State laws that deny U.S. citizens their fundamental rights.
Which is the reason why when some U.S. States denied interracial couples the right to marry who they wanted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional.
However, the U.S. government doesn’t take issue with those “religious” marriages performed by various religions, with the exception that they will not be considered legal until such time they are issued by the governing U.S. State the residents live in.
Hope this clarifies any misunderstanding of what U.S. law entails…
Correct, my source article is opinion; the article is titled
“Opinion: Marriage Rights and the US Constitution”.
Correct, states currently do issue marriage licenses. The main job of the Supreme Court is to either affirm or invalidate current law in cases brought before the Court.
Marriage is a religious instrument; therefore, the Supreme Court must invalidate marriage rights, responsibilities and benefits codified in American law as an unconstituional “establishment of religion”.
Per state and federal laws, marriage isn’t really a religious instrument. Religions are allowed to officiate at marriages, but the civil authorities (i.e. State County Registrars) authorize the legality of the marriage via registering the marriage license for the parties being married.
If a religion marries in contradiction to state (or federal) law, that marriage will not be considered legal. And for those people who are not religious or do not wish to be married by a religious authority, they can choose to be married by civil or secular entities.
That’s the reason why marriage was taken out of the hands of religious authorities because not everyone wants to be married in a religious setting, which is why it is called “civil” marriage.
Again: “The main job of the Court is to either affirm or invalidate current law.”
When the Court invalidates marriage rights, responsibilities and benefits in the law as an unconstitutional “establishment of religion”, then civil marriage will no longer exist.
Well… such a lawsuit isn’t in front of any court so until such time someone initiates such a lawsuit, i.e. that marriage is solely a religious prerogative, and a Federal Court or the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise, it will remain as it currently is.
I don’t think a lawsuit needs to be initiated that specifically advocates for the solutions that I advocate.
The Court could apply the constitutional solutions that I advocate to any current or future lawsuits regarding any aspect of government involvement in marriage, marriage rights, responsibilities, benefits or similar marriage issues, the net result being that the government would not be involved in marriage, and laws regarding marriage would be invalidated.
I think this string of thought has run it’s course… good luck with your aspirations though! Have a good day.
Have a good day, Doc. 🙂
The 10th Amendment of the he Constitution of the
United States of America recognizes “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Legislature of the United States of America PROPERLY
recognized the power to define marriage as a power of each sovereign state by
the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L.
104–199, 110 Stat. 2419,
enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C),
The federal government has no authority to order state
agencies to comply with rulings that conflicts with state law [Printz v. United
States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)],
The federal Courts of the United States have no authority to
define marriage in any State of the Union, nor any authority to order action by
agents of any State.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “… No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”