Eric Holder declares same sex marriage legal in Utah

Eric Holder turned the Department of Justice loose on the state of Utah in the same sex marriage law suit.

As a refresher, the state of Utah was sued by homosexual groups over gay marriage. The District Court Judge who heard the case found for the homosexuals and declared gay marriage legal in Utah. Nothing unusual so far.

Cases like this are presented to the District Court all the time on all sorts of issues. On high profile issues like gay marriage no matter who wins in District Court the case will be appealed to the appropriate appellate court, in this the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The likelihood is that the decision of the 10th Circuit will be appealed to the Supreme Court by whoever loses.

Here’s the unusual part.

The District Court Judge and then the 10th Circuit declined to issue a stay of the judge’s order pending appeal. The normal procedure on any case where a decision is going to be appealed is for the issuing judge to order a stay. The effect of not issuing a stay in this case is that hundreds of homosexuals in Utah have gotten “married”. If either the 10th Circuit or SCOTUS finds for the state those “marriages” are null and void.

The situation is so outrageous that when the 10th Circuit refused to stay the order the state of Utah went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS voted 9-0 to stay it. Those conservative justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg keep meddling in people’s bedroom habits. Shame on them.

Actually, the reason has nothing to do with Justice Ginsberg’s desire to check your bedroom, it has to do with the completely outrageous action by both the District Court Judge and the 10th Circuit.

Here’s an update on the situation.

What we have here is a situation where the Obama administration, who opposed same sex marriage until the President made a quick about-face in time for fund raisers before the last election, through Eric Holder and the Department of Justice is meddling in court procedure.

The whole point of this whole mess, when the judge declined to stay his order, was to make time for as many homosexuals as possible to get married. That, and the accompanying stories in the national news, would exert pressure on the 10th Circuit and SCOTUS to uphold the decision.

SCOTUS, all nine Justices, apparently took great umbrage at that.

The Obama administration, never one to let a crisis go to waste, has now jumped into the fray and declared that “State of Utah be damned, married homosexuals in Utah are ‘married’ as far as the federal government is concerned.”

There hasn’t been an administration in power in Washington for 100 years that paid much respect to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The Obama administration, however, has decided that it doesn’t even exist. Kind of like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th.

Hey, who needs a Constitution when you can have an Imperial Presidency?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Curmudgeon - Check Out 600w 200h

Target v. ObamaCare on transparency
The Obama Economy; Lowest Labor Participation Rate Since 1978
  • Walter_Cronanty

    Well, Obama has usurped Congress’ role in government, why not the Supreme Court’s? Now, Obama, Ray LaHood and Thomas Friedman get their collective wish – The US is now like China.

  • JWH

    The whole thing is bizarre. I’m still not clear on why both the District Court judge and the 10th Circuit refused to stay the decision. I could see some level of bias, etc., on the part of the district judge, but I wonder why the 10th Circuit refused to stay the decision … three times, if the coverage is to be believed. That makes me wonder if Utah bungled its stay applications in some way.

    Also, from what I’ve read, Utah’s attorney general didn’t do the state any favors with his announcement, either. According to links I followed off of Volokh Conspiracy, the Utah attorney general basically said, “We’re not going to treat these couples as married … except when we do.”

    The best-case scenario would have been for the District Court or the 10th Circuit to stay the ruling pending appeals. In the second-best-case scenario, the Utah government would have chosen to recognize the marriages, or chosen not to recognize them, and left it to the couples to challenge that declaration in court.

    As it is, the 1,600 same-sex couples are in a legal no man’s land, and the federal government only added to the confusion.

    • Michael Becker

      Agreed on all points.

      The post really wasn’t taking sides with the argument before the court (although I do have a side) it was related to strangeness of the judge and the Circuit.

      I agree that the judge could well have an axe to grind but I can’t figure out the 10th Circuit for the life of me. I would think that appellate judges would be hiding their head in shame after being overruled 9-0 by SCOTUS.

      • Guest

        There’s something there. What puzzles me is that (if I’m reading it right) the 10th Circuit turned aside three petitions for a stay. That tells me that Utah might have botched its petitions.

        • Michael Becker

          Three botched petitions to the 10th and they win at SCOTUS. Maybe they needed the practice 🙂

        • jim_m

          Given that the consequences of not giving the stay would be marriages that are illegal and the likelihood of creating a real legal mess, the greater probability is that the refusal of the stay was ideologically motivated and not legally. That has been said in a number of quarters.

          While I do not expect the appeals to succeed, I think that the SCOTUS ruled correctly

      • JWH

        I dunno. I’d have to take a look at their rulings. But to be honest, tracking down the 10th Circuit’s rulings on three stay petitions isn’t at the top of my to-do list.

  • 914

    Well it’s official. Barry and Holder can now tie the knot.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I challenge any of the lib-o-crat trolls on the site to explain to me, why it will be wrong for the next republican president/attorney general use their authority to over ride the law, like our current president/attorney general are doing on a daily basis.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Politics has consequences. Keep that in mind when you’re sitting on the couch in Nov. ’16.

  • Bob Jones

    Thanks for the use of scare quotes. It makes it so much easier to determine that the whole article isn’t completely without bias. After all, style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion. And before you go painting me as a liberal democrat, (if it even mattered, as the validity of a claim depends on its evidence, not who presents it) let me state I’m independent. I would find the use of scare quotes around terms like religious liberties or family values equally indicative of bias.

    • jim_m

      That’s fine. Do you have anything to say about the substance or are you just the Strunk and White style police?

      It’s a blog not the great American novel.

    • LiberalNightmare

      An avowed independent, on a right wing blog, whining about anything but the subject of a blog post.


      • jim_m


        No. I’m thinking left.

        Usually when someone tries to preemptively claim that they are not what they seem it is because they are exactly what they seem,

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Mr. Becker has never claimed to be impartial – just correct.
      By the way, those “scare quotes” around the words “married” and “marriages” in the 5th paragraph – I assume that is what you are referring to – won’t be “scare quotes” if either the 10th Circuit or the Supreme Court overturns the District Court. Those “marriages” won’t be marriages anymore.

      • Brucehenry

        I don’t get why anyone would come to a political blog looking for impartiality. You won’t find it at Wizbang any more than you’d find it at Kos or Firedoglake or Little Green Footballs or Powerline.

        At least Wizbang tolerates dissent in the comment section. Some of the blogs I mentioned, and many more I didn’t do not.

        • Michael Becker

          And Bruce, at least when you disagree you have points of argument.

          • Not consistently,

          • Michael Becker

            Come on Rod, I didn’t say they were “good” points of argument… 🙂

    • Michael Becker

      I’m not impartial. Never said I was.

      I wouldn’t paint you as a “liberal Democrat” I don’t know anything about you. I would, however, have no qualms labeling you an ignorant jerk.

      If the best you can do is criticize my use of “scare quotes” you don’t have a damn thing to say. Oh, and since you’ve painted yourself as an “independent” it tells everybody who has an IQ that: 1) you think you can keep your biases off the table by claiming you have none; 2) you don’t believe in anything governable.

      Oh, and the quotation marks above are used because I am quoting your pathetic little diatribe.

      You may now give your mom her laptop back – wipe off the screen first – and go fill out an application at Jack-in-the-Box.

  • westcoastwiser

    Ho hum! The feds have no jurisdiction on marriage. You get a license in the state, not from the feds… this is more Holder and Obama making law by directives and it will be the ruination of America… pretty soon you’ll be able to declare you’re married, just like you can declare your own sex in CA…