Appeals Court Refuses To Stop Same-Sex Marriages In Utah

Last Friday, a federal judge declared Utah's ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The state asked that judge (U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby) to stay his decision until they could appeal it and get a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Shelby refused, and state officials immediately asked the appeals court itself to issue a stay until the state's appeal could be heard.

I had thought the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals might issue that stay, but I was wrong. On christmas eve, the appeals court refused to issue the stay. The court said the state had failed to show it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the stay was not issued. That means same-sex couples can now be married legally in that states -- and all but four counties are now issuing those marriage licenses (and in light of the appeals court refusal, those four counties must now comply with Judge Shelby's decision, or face penalties).

And there is even better news for those of us who believe in equal rights for all Americans. In denying the stay, the appeals court went on to say that the state had also failed to show it had a "significant likelihood" of winning their appeal when the case is finally heard by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. That means the state of Utah stands a good chance of losing their appeal.

This makes sense. The state will probably try to make a religious freedom argument. But that won't really fly, since all the decision says is that the state government cannot prevent same-sex marriages. It does not force any church or individual to participate in those marriages, while reinstating the ban would force individuals to accept a state-imposed religious belief.

If the appeals court does uphold Judge Shelby's decision, which is now expected to happen, the state will undoubtably appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Until now, that court has avoided having to make a decision on the constitutionality of state-imposed bans on same-sex marriages. But they would no longer be able to avoid it. They would either have to take the case, and finally decide the question -- or refuse to hear the case, which would mean the appeals court decision would be the law of the land (and could be used to overturn the bans on same-sex marriages in other states).