Colorado | Gay Marriage | News

Colorado Supreme Court Halts Gay Marriages in Denver and Adams County

The Colorado Supreme Court halted the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples in Denver on Friday, though other counties continued on, the Denver Post reports:

SuthersThe order by Colorado's high court follows an emergency request filed Monday by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (pictured), asking the Supreme Court to order all county clerks to stop issuing gay marriage licenses. The order also imposes a stay preventing the Adams County clerk — which was also named in the case — from issuing such licenses.

The Adams County clerk had not begun issuing the licenses.

Clerks in Boulder and Pueblo, whose clerks are currently issuing same-sex marriage licenses, are not affected by the ruling and said they would continue issuing licenses to gay couples. So far, Boulder has issued 156 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Here is the ruling.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. On our Supreme Court sit a bunch of bigoted jerks. Why would you deny people the right to marry who have already been legally married just so you can hear the case all over again. Are you hoping to change the outcome to satisfy the religious right, i.e., deny equality to one segment of society for religious reasons just as you did with Hobby Lobby?

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | Jul 19, 2014 1:01:44 PM


  2. I know that this is really shallow of me and that I should be focusing on the man's hateful policies and positions, BUT I just have to say: Nice comb-over, dude.

    Posted by: Kit | Jul 19, 2014 3:17:18 PM


  3. I'd really like to see that ruling. Whaaaat? Boulder and Pueblo Co's are being allowed to continue issuing licenses? How does that work again? Oh, wait, you drive from Denver to either [38 mins to Boulder, 1:50 to Pueblo] and get a license and oopsie, married in CO.

    It really IS starting to look like the right is completely flummoxed by this. 1st Utah couldn't seem to zip their fly, IN got caught with their pants down and now CO seems to have wet itself a little bit.

    I'm just glad it is on "our" side, but honestly, who ARE these people and who checked their competence?

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 19, 2014 3:43:18 PM


  4. @ BEN~ANDY :

    Agreed.
    And let's make a new rule;
    White, fat, round, bald, white men are hereby prohibited from expressing any opinion or participating in any decisions or discussions whatsoever in matters concerning and/or touching upon sexuality, sexual orientation and gender issue......any Constitutional prohibitions notwithstanding.

    And new tests for congenital stupidity will be immediately instated and will be an absolute bar to holding any public funded employment in any capacity.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 19, 2014 3:56:56 PM


  5. lol, @Jack. I'm sooooo down with only electing the intelligent.

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 19, 2014 6:12:47 PM


  6. But wait, I'm not sure we're allowed to discriminate against white, fat, round, bald white men!?! And isn't it a bit "piling on" to put both "fat" and "round" and really "bald" in as they soooooo much tend to go together [w/ Midwest especially, but South has quite a few, along with W. Coast and East - generally anywhere there's a Costco]?

    If you look at the polls, pretty much anyone before the baby boomers tends to be agin us. Fortunately, they also tend to be the ones dieing off soonest. Work on your grammies and grampies, kids! They're the ones who always VOTE!

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 19, 2014 6:18:45 PM


  7. @ BEN~ANDY :

    I'm not making any effort to be fair here.

    It has always struck me that these pigs are invariably look-a-likes from some Iowa County Fair, who are having their bit on the side. They reek, not only of bigotry and stupidity, but they just reek........generally !

    On a serious note, our agenda must be focused.
    We have to become wide awake and razor sharp for the next few years.
    Any attempt to renege on our rights or any push-back from the religious right with their 'strongly held beliefs' ( what BS),such as the Hobbt/Lobby decision must be
    reversed at all costs.

    So we must focus on Hillary and on the Supreme Court. Alito is an up and coming time-bomb and my opinion is that he will become an embittered right wing nut.
    We must replace the great Ginsberg with a Liberal.....preferably gay Justice.
    But probably all that's in our power for the moment is the election of Hillary.

    The last thing we want is a white fat round piece of pork a la Browne-type.....or this joker above.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 19, 2014 8:26:03 PM


  8. Could someone please explain why the courts keep granting stays in these cases? I thought a stay was granted when the party who asked for the stay could be HARMED if the ruling was followed in the interim before the appeal was heard. No one has been able to demonstrate how any of these states or people in "traditional marriages" would be harmed by allowing the same sex marriages to take place and be recognized. But disallowing the recognition of legally performed marriages DOES harm the parties who have been married. Ari? Anyone? I don't get it.

    Posted by: StillmarriedinCA | Jul 19, 2014 9:01:29 PM


  9. It is hard to understand. Basically, when the state wins, there isn't a stay because that's the status quo, nothing changes. But when the state LOSES, well, they ask for a stay because they end up with messes like our many thousand marriages in CA AFTER our Supremes said we could get married and BEFORE the populace, in their ignorance, said we couldn't.

    So, the house favors the house, or in this case, the courts favor the state generally. It certainly is a delaying tactic and yes it would be so messy to go about declaring that all these people who took a vow are now and not ever were married. In fact, it would be a public relations nightmare, which is realistically the only harm that would come of it. They already look like absolute Bozos [and off the bus thumbing for a ride rather than ON the bus], I mean complete morons.

    They can't win a case, repeatedly they can't win one, and it is as if they don't even follow along and know what other states have tried, what arguments they've used. They just trot out the same old tired stories of "to ensure children are raised by their parents" and "since time immemorial" and "children aren't as happy with same-sex parents", all of which are thoroughly discredited.

    But the JUDGES DO follow along. You'll notice, if you read the decisions [which I highly recommend] that they QUOTE from even other TRIAL JUDGEMENTS, refuse to accept Degenerate, er Regenerus' study, note how states allow anybody at all to get married [except homos], get divorces [repeatedly], not have kids, not be ABLE to have kids, adopt, etc. They will start quoting from the Circuit Courts of Appeal decisions too.

    This ruling was the STATE Supreme Court, but, what? It isn't a blanket order? Why not? How are Boulder and Pueblo Counties "different" or "special"? I'm glad they apparently are, but why? Why the US Supremes grant stays? We don't know, they don't tell us. Obviously, they might want to rule on it before it simply becomes a marriage free for all, but that isn't likely to happen until next June or at the very earliest, by the end of the year.

    Remember, 4 Supremes vote to TAKE a case [grant cert], 5 Justices decide how it comes out. But none of them want to take a case like marriage w/o knowing how Justice Kennedy will vote. He's Catholic, but from CA. He's written most of our major victory decisions. The liberals need him to win, so do the idiots. Until he tips his hand [however that happens], I think they avoid taking any case. Remember, they don't HAVE to take a case until there is disagreement in the Courts of Appeal and from something I saw, not even then. 4 to take it, nothing is automatic.

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 20, 2014 1:18:29 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Florida Governor Rick Scott Gives Whackadoodle Answer When Asked About Gay Marriage: VIDEO« «