{"id":556,"date":"2013-12-24T20:11:00","date_gmt":"2013-12-24T20:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=556"},"modified":"2023-12-21T17:16:25","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T17:16:25","slug":"same-sex-marriage-gets-a-foothold-in-utah-and-ohio","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2013\/12\/24\/same-sex-marriage-gets-a-foothold-in-utah-and-ohio\/","title":{"rendered":"Same-sex marriage gets a foothold in Utah and Ohio"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>A federal district court judge in Utah struck down the state&#8217;s marriage laws to the extent they disallowed same-sex couples to marry.\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/www.utd.uscourts.gov\/documents\/213cv217_memdec.pdf\" class=\"mtli_attachment mtli_pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Kitchen v. Herbert<\/a>, (D. Utah 2013). Holding the right to marry to be a fundamental constitutional right and denial of that right to same-sex couples a violation of the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, the judge refused to stay his opinion. As a result hundreds of couples began applying for and receiving marriage licenses. The decision is being appealed by the state of Utah and may be overturned by the Tenth Circuit. In a related ruling, a federal district court judge in Ohio ruled it unconstitutional for Ohio to deny marriage status to same-sex couples married out of state when one dies in-state.\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/lawprofessors.typepad.com\/files\/obergefell.pdf\" class=\"mtli_attachment mtli_pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Obergefell v. Wymyslo,<\/a>\u00a02013 WL 6726688 (S.D. Ohio 2013). \u00a0the judge ordered that the death certificates record the fact that the decedent was married.\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2013\/12\/24\/us\/judge-allows-same-sex-weddings-to-continue-in-utah.html?_r=1&amp;\" target=\"_blank\">read article<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/antidiscrimination-law\/\" rel=\"tag\">Antidiscrimination Law<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/marital-property\/\" rel=\"tag\">Marital Property<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/sexual-orientation\/\" rel=\"tag\">Sexual Orientation<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A federal district court judge in Utah struck down the state&#8217;s marriage laws to the extent they disallowed same-sex couples to marry.\u00a0Kitchen v. Herbert, (D. Utah 2013). Holding the right to marry to be a fundamental constitutional right and denial of that right to same-sex couples a violation of the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, the judge refused to stay his opinion. As a result hundreds of couples began applying for and receiving marriage licenses. The decision is being appealed by the state of Utah and may be overturned by the Tenth Circuit. In a related ruling, a federal district court judge in Ohio ruled it unconstitutional for Ohio to deny marriage status to same-sex couples married out of state when one dies in-state.\u00a0Obergefell v. Wymyslo,\u00a02013 WL 6726688 (S.D. Ohio 2013). \u00a0the judge ordered that the death certificates record the fact that the decedent was married.\u00a0read article<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[39,65,55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antidiscrimination-law","category-marital-property","category-sexual-orientation"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}