This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/26/colorado-issues-gay-marriage-licenses-confusion

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Colorado clerk issues gay marriage licenses amid nationwide confusion Colorado clerk issues gay marriage licenses amid nationwide confusion
(35 minutes later)
A county clerk in Colorado is issuing same-sex marriage licenses following a first-of-its kind ruling by a federal appeals court on Wednesday that said Utah, and the five other states covered by the circuit, cannot ban same-sex marriage.A county clerk in Colorado is issuing same-sex marriage licenses following a first-of-its kind ruling by a federal appeals court on Wednesday that said Utah, and the five other states covered by the circuit, cannot ban same-sex marriage.
Colorado’s attorney general said the licenses issued are invalid because the tenth circuit court of appeals decision was immediately stayed, but Boulder county clerk and recorder Hillary Hall said the office will continue offering licenses unless a court stops her.Colorado’s attorney general said the licenses issued are invalid because the tenth circuit court of appeals decision was immediately stayed, but Boulder county clerk and recorder Hillary Hall said the office will continue offering licenses unless a court stops her.
"Couples across Colorado have been waiting a long time to have their right to marry the person they love recognized," Hall told the Associated Press. "I want to act immediately to let them carry out that wish.""Couples across Colorado have been waiting a long time to have their right to marry the person they love recognized," Hall told the Associated Press. "I want to act immediately to let them carry out that wish."
The tenth circuit’s 2-1 decision upheld an earlier ruling that struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, which has been shuffled through multiple courts since a federal judge’s December 2013 ruling that Utah’s ban was unconstitutional.The tenth circuit’s 2-1 decision upheld an earlier ruling that struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, which has been shuffled through multiple courts since a federal judge’s December 2013 ruling that Utah’s ban was unconstitutional.
In upholding that decision, the tenth circuit also made the ban law in the five other states it covers – Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming. The court immediately put a stay on the ruling, pending an appeal, so same-sex marriages do not have to be permitted in the states, yet.In upholding that decision, the tenth circuit also made the ban law in the five other states it covers – Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming. The court immediately put a stay on the ruling, pending an appeal, so same-sex marriages do not have to be permitted in the states, yet.
“I am relying on the tenth circuit's statement that marriage is a fundamental right,” Hall said in a statement. “Because the Court stayed its mandate, officials in Utah will not have to implement the decision immediately. Even so, I believe the opinion is clear and it is important to act immediately.”“I am relying on the tenth circuit's statement that marriage is a fundamental right,” Hall said in a statement. “Because the Court stayed its mandate, officials in Utah will not have to implement the decision immediately. Even so, I believe the opinion is clear and it is important to act immediately.”
Utah’s attorney general’s office said it would file a petition with the supreme court and ask the 10th circuit to review its decision.
Of all the states impacted by this decision, only New Mexico allows same-sex marriage. It is illegal in Wyoming and Kansas, while Oklahoma has a case nearly identical to Utah’s pending in the 10th circuit.
“We are aware of the panel’s decision,” Kansas’ attorney general’s office said in a statement. “The court has stayed its ruling pending further litigation. It is clear this will not be the last word on the subject, and we will continue to meet our duty to defend against legal challenges to the provision Kansas voters included in the state constitution.”
The court said in its ruling that people should not interpret the fourteenth amendment, which grants citizens equal protection under law, to impose their own beliefs about same-sex marriage.
We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws,” the court said in its ruling. “A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.
On this day last year, the supreme court struck down the controversial Defense of Marriage Act which discriminated against gay couples in the US. This decision enabled a spate of lawsuits against state bans on same-sex marriages, which are now legal in 19 states and Washington DC.On this day last year, the supreme court struck down the controversial Defense of Marriage Act which discriminated against gay couples in the US. This decision enabled a spate of lawsuits against state bans on same-sex marriages, which are now legal in 19 states and Washington DC.
Six federal appeals courts, including the tenth circuit, are involved in cases similar to the one that struck down Utah’s ban. The supreme court is expected to accept another same-sex marriage case in response to these rulings, and ensuing appeals, though it is not obligated to rule on the issue. The earliest these cases could be brought to the court is in 2015.Six federal appeals courts, including the tenth circuit, are involved in cases similar to the one that struck down Utah’s ban. The supreme court is expected to accept another same-sex marriage case in response to these rulings, and ensuing appeals, though it is not obligated to rule on the issue. The earliest these cases could be brought to the court is in 2015.