Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court puts Utah marriage equality on hold for now (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ex Post Facto laws are uncontitutional (4+ / 0-)

    They are explicitly banned by the Constitution.  Thus, once a person is married, that marriage cannot be undone by a future law.  What's done is done.

    Those 900 people in Utah are married forever, and anyone who would have been married today but for this stay, would have been married forever.  

    This stay was issued to placate conservatives and keep any more people from being permanently married.  All the court challenge could do is ban future weddings.  Ex Post Facto applies here.

    •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Norm in Chicago

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:05:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pretty sure a few of them will end up divorced (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, Tonedevil, Pi Li, TopCat
      Those 900 people in Utah are married forever
    •  That's now how ex post facto works (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, telamonides

      It simply prohibits a new law from being enacted that apply retroactively in certain cases.  For example, a state or Congress can't pass a law making a certain act illegal and then apply it retroactively to people who committed that act in the past.

      Utah voters changed their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.  One federal judge overturned that, but his decision is subject to appeal.  What happens to those marriages in the interim may be uncertain (they'd likely be invalid if the judge is reversed) but ex post facto isn't in play.

      •  Until the appeal is done, judges's ruling stands (0+ / 0-)

        Marriage was illegal.  The judge made it legal.  900 people were married, and that can't be undone.  

        If the judge's decision is overturned, marriages become illegal again.  Without the stay, gay marriage would have remained legal.  Which is why the stay was granted.

        •  What's that got to do with ex post facto? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          telamonides

          I think you're confusing a fairness concept - they're married now so they should stay married - with a legal term of art.  Ex post facto - at least as it refers to the US Constitution - just doesn't mean what you think it does because it applies specifically to laws enacted by a state legislature and then applied retroactively.

          Whether something else prevents the 900 marriages from being undone (if the 10th Circuit or Supremes reverse), I don't know.  But it won't be ex post facto.

        •  Not ex post facto (0+ / 0-)

          As Darmok says, ex post facto applies to new laws after a situation has occurred. Reason that it doesn't apply here is that this applies to application of a law that was in place at the time. It also has been defined by the SCOTUS at times to only apply to punishments in criminal cases.

          If it's ultimately ruled that the law is constitutional and should have been in force at the time, they may be able to invalidate the marriages.

          "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

          by ThinkerT on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:19:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That NOT how ex post facto works (0+ / 0-)

        Damn my fingers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site