Was this the right thing for the Fed. judge to do?

[carlimac]

A-hah! My new-found abilities using a different browser is allowing me to copy and paste- finally! I'm so happy I could cry. 

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865603490/Federal-judge-orders-recognition-of-same-sex-marriages-performed-in-Utah.html

 

My husband doesn't think this was the right course of action by the Fed. judge because even though Judge Shelby over ruled Amendment 3, the jury is still out if it was legal for him to do that. So even though 1300 gay couples were "married" during those few weeks, they weren't necessarily legal marriages. 

 

I dunno. Can o' worms, that's for sure!!

[Still_Small_Voice]

I am not for redefining marriage.  It should be between one man and one woman.  If Utah is for making "Civil Unions" for homosexuals who wish to solemnize their partnership I am not against it. 

 

I am personally for getting the government out of marriage.  It is between a church who performs a marriage and the couple.  But I cannot be for fornication, adultery, homosexuality, polygamy or any other acts that violate God's law of chastity.

[carlimac]

I'm a little surprised no one had anything to say about this. It wasn't about same gender marriage per se, but more about whether the judge can say the state must recognize the marriages that may not have been legal to begin with.

 

I'm glad he issued a 3 week stay at least till it can be looked at more closely. But what was the point of stating "recognition" anyway. Seems pointless.

[Just_A_Guy]

Kimball's no liberal; but his colleague on the bench put him in a very difficult position.  Kimball says "The state has placed plaintiffs and their families in a state of legal limbo".  Actually, it's the federal bench--particularly, Kimball's colleague Shelby, who has created the problem.  But Kimball can't really come out and say that--different judges on the same court have to at least present a facade of unanimity, for the sake of their court's prestige.  I suspect Kimball's privately hoping the 10th Circuit stays his ruling.

[Quin]

Sticky.

I agree with JAG, Kimball really had no choice in his ruling, regardless of his personal politics... And was right to kick it upstairs (or at least leave the door open).

Hey all y'all lawyer types... Am I right in thinking this is in part an Ex Post Facto issue?

Q

[applepansy]

This whole can of worms started when a Judge decided he could decide a moral issue for the citizens of Utah.  And then he didn't put a delay on when it became valid thus placing Utah in a bad position by forcing gay marriages to be performed.  If he had been honorable in his intentions then he would have put his ruling on hold for 21 days too, which would have given the State time to file for a stay.

 

He wanted to create the problem the State now faces and he wanted hundreds of gay couples to hurriedly get "married" so the State would have to deal with it. 

 

He needs to be removed from his position as a Judge.  He let his personal feelings get in the way of what the people of Utah decided was right.

[Blackmarch]

A-hah! My new-found abilities using a different browser is allowing me to copy and paste- finally! I'm so happy I could cry. 

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865603490/Federal-judge-orders-recognition-of-same-sex-marriages-performed-in-Utah.html

 

My husband doesn't think this was the right course of action by the Fed. judge because even though Judge Shelby over ruled Amendment 3, the jury is still out if it was legal for him to do that. So even though 1300 gay couples were "married" during those few weeks, they weren't necessarily legal marriages. 

 

I dunno. Can o' worms, that's for sure!!

dunno i don't know enough red tape regarding that. the underlying principle tho is whether or not they can be considered legal. If they can be, then they will have to either recognize them or go through some legal process to annul recognition.