Utah Governor Refuses to Recognize Lesbian and Gay Couples Who Married in that State

The state of Utah will not recognize the same-sex marriages that took place in the brief period when such unions were legal between December 20, when a federal judge ruled the state's voter-approved ban on marriage equality unconstitutional, and Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay on that ruling. 

A statement from Gov. Gary Herbert's office today announced that more than 1,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the 17 days when such unions were permitted in Utah will not be considered legal, according to CNN. Because Utah's constitution prohibits the state from recognizing as a valid marriage any union other than that of one man and one woman, state agencies are not required to recognize same-sex marriages as valid, an aide to the governor announced today. 

"Based on counsel from the Attorney General's Office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice," said the governor's chief of staff, Derek Miller, in a letter to cabinet officials obtained by CNN. "Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages — that is for the courts to decide. The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages."

The announcement comes as a surprise, especially given the predictions of legal experts that the marriages that took place in the brief window would remain valid. Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor told MSNBC's Chris Hayes last week that the Supreme Court's injunction had no bearing on the validity of the marriages that took placewhen they were legal. 

"The fact that the Supreme Court halted the further issuances of marriage licenses through this stay,"Taylor explained Monday, "that doesn't do anything about the validity of those thousand marriage licenses that are already out there."

Taylor also noted that in most cases litigating the freedom to marry, there was a stay granted up until the ultimate ruling was issued, even when courts routinely found in favor of marriage equality. 

That was the case in California, when thousands of same-sex couples married after  the state Supreme Court ruled in July 2009 that the constitution guaranteed those couples the freedom to marr, and before Proposition 8 passed in November and effectively revoked marriage equality. After a five-year legal battle that took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, Proposition 8 was finally struck down for good last summer in the court's landmark rulings in favor of equality. 

But the invalidation of marriages that took place while they were legal isn't without precedent. The legislature for Australia's Capital Territory passed a marriage equality bill last fall, and although the commonwealth government appealed the decision, contending that it violated the national marriage amendment defining marriage as an exclusively opposite-sex union, the nation's high court decided to let the law take effect before deciding on its fate. Less than a week after Australian same-sex couples began marrying in the Capital Territory, which includes the nation's capital, Canberra, the high court struck down the territorial law and effectively voided the same-sex marriages that had already occurred. 

Utah's governor and attorney general have appealed the December ruling striking down the state's discriminatory marriage amendment, and the case is expected to go before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in February. Attorney General Sean Reyes has pledged to spend "whatever it takes" —possibly exceeding $2 million — to defend the state's antigay constitutional amendment and keep marriage equality from becoming the law in Utah.