10th Circuit Court Says States Can’t Ban Gay Marriage

In a ruling that strikes down gay marriage ban in Oklahoma, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said today that the 14th Amendment protects same-sex couples’ right to marry.

The decision is in the Utah case, which  was considered on a fast track with the Oklahoma case. In both cases, federal judges struck down state bans.

The Oklahoma case is still pending. However, the principle involved in the Utah case applies to Oklahoma and the other states in the circuit: Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico.

Here is a key passage:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of th e State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?
“Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so.
“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. 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. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.”
 In the 2-1 decision, the court dismissed arguments from the state of Utah that allowing same-sex marriages would have a destabilizing effect on opposite-sex marriages.
“We cannot imagine a scenario under which recognizing same-sex marriages would affect the decision of a member of an opposite-sex couple to have a child, to marry or stay married to a partner, or to make personal sacrifices for a child,” the court ruled.

The opinion can be found here.

Source: NewsOK, “10th Circuit Court Says States Can’t Ban Gay Marriage,” by Chris Casteel Modified: June 25, 2014 at 12:05 pm •  Published: June 25, 2014

LANDMARK VICTORY: 10th Circuit Appeals Court rules in favor of the freedom to marry

** BREAKING: The 10th Circuit has upheld a lower court ruling finding that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry in Utah is unconstitutional! This is the first federal appellate court ruling since ‘Windsor.

 

Today the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled in favor of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry, upholding a marriage ruling out of Utah in December. It is the first ruling by a federal appellate court since last year’s victory in the Supreme Court and, unless reversed, will pave the way for the freedom to marry throughout the 10th Circuit, including in Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas.

The ruling is stayed pending further action, which could include an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

The ruling, written by Judge Lucero, reads:

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not [deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry]. 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. 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.

Read the full ruling HERE. 

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, released the following statement:

Today, from the heart of the Mountain West, in a case arising out of Utah, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has brought us one giant step closer to the day when all Americans will have the freedom to marry. This first federal appellate ruling affirms what more than 20 other courts all across the country have found: There is no good reason to perpetuate unfair marriage discrimination any longer. America is ready for the freedom to marry, and it is time for the Supreme Court to bring our country to national resolution and it should do so now.

The decision is in Kitchen v. Herbert, brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and private counsel, on behalf of same-sex couples. Meet two of the plaintiffs, Derek Kitchen & Moudi Sbeity, and Laurie Wood & Kody Partridge, HERE.

Currently, 44% of Americans live in states where gay couples share in the freedom to marry: 19 states and the District of Columbia. Recent polling by the Washington Post/ABC News shows 59% of Americans support marriage, including a majority of young evangelicals and Republicans under 45 in other polls.

Oregon and Pennsylvania became the most recent states to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after courts found the ban on the freedom to marry unconstitutional. In total, 22 rulings in recent months have found that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

Learn all about pending marriage litigation – the 70+ cases in every single state in the country – HERE.

10th Circuit arguments on gay marriage ban focus on family, fairness

As red numerals ticked away the minutes on a digital timer, lawyers fielded a barrage of questions from three federal appeals-court judges considering Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In a rapid-fire series of exchanges, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges repeatedly interrupted the lawyers and, at times, even one another. They directed Thursday’s discussion toward the role of parents in rearing children, the constitutional rights of gay couples and the right of states to govern their own affairs.

As viewed through a fisheye lens, Anna Simon of Denver carries a sign about the state of her marriage to her partner at a protest outside the Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. The protest, sponsored by Support Marriage Equality in Colorado, was held as a federal appeals court weighs inside the Denver courthouse whether to give an important victory to gay couples' right to marry in Utah and Oklahoma. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

As viewed through a fisheye lens, Anna Simon of Denver carries a sign about the state of her marriage to her partner at a protest outside the Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. The protest, sponsored by Support Marriage Equality in Colorado, was held as a federal appeals court weighs inside the Denver courthouse whether to give an important victory to gay couples’ right to marry in Utah and Oklahoma. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

The oral arguments in the Kitchen vs. Herbert case marked the first time that a state has defended its gay-marriage ban at the federal appellate level. It could take months for the judges to issue a ruling, and legal experts expect that the issue eventually will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Scores of gay-marriage supporters and traditional-marriage supporters have submitted friends-of-the-court briefs.

 

Euell Santistevan of Denver holds a rainbow flag during a protest outside the Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. The protest, sponsored by Support Marriage Equality in Colorado, was held as a federal appeals court weighs inside the Denver courthouse whether to give an important victory to gay couples' right to marry in Utah and Oklahoma. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Euell Santistevan of Denver holds a rainbow flag during a protest outside the Federal Courthouse in downtown Denver on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. The protest, sponsored by Support Marriage Equality in Colorado, was held as a federal appeals court weighs inside the Denver courthouse whether to give an important victory to gay couples’ right to marry in Utah and Oklahoma. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

 

3

Plaintiff Derek Kitchen and his partner Moudi Sbeity outside the Byron White U.S. Courthouse. (Kirk Mitchell, The Denver Post)

“I’m thrilled to be here with my partner,” said Derek Kitchen, kissing Moudi Sbeity outside the Byron White U.S. Courthouse in downtown Denver. “It was difficult to hear people arguing against us.”

About 100 spectators packed into the ornate courtroom with navy-blue carpet, wood molding and a glass-tiled ceiling with gold designs decorated with the seal of the United States. The three gay and lesbian couples who filed the lawsuit sat on a bench behind their attorneys’ table. They often smiled and squeezed each other’s shoulders.

An attorney for each side took turns standing at a lectern with the timer. Both were allowed to speak beyond the allotted 15 minutes, partly because of interruptions from the judges.

Two of the three justices on the panel seemed to telegraph their political inclinations with their questioning, while Jerome Holmes asked tough questions of both sides. Though appointed by President George W. Bush, Holmes and another circuit judge refused to stay a decision by a federal judge who found Utah’s gay-marriage ban unconstitutional. It allowed 1,335 gay and lesbian couples to marry before the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily restored the ban.

Judge Carlos F. Lucero, appointed by President Bill Clinton, frequently interrupted Gene Schaerr, an attorney for Utah who was the first to give oral arguments. Although Schaerr tried several times, he could never finish a four-tiered definition of marriage, which appeared to be a highlight of his argument.

When plaintiffs attorney Peggy Tomsic came to the podium, Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr., who rarely asked Schaerr questions, bored in, frequently cutting Tomsic off midsentence. Kelly was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

At one point, Lucero even interrupted a question by Kelly, who wanted Tomsic to explain whether there was something wrong with a state legislature defining its own state law. Before Tomsic could answer, Lucero asked whether constitutional law didn’t trump state laws.

Tomsic smiled at Lucero’s softball pitch and answered that constitutional law trumped legislative decisions when state laws infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens. Tomsic’s chief argument was that Utah’s ban on gay marriage violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

And so the hearing went.

Lucero asked Schaerr how Utah would treat children of a same-sex couple married in a state that allows gay marriages. The judge said it seemed to contradict Utah’s argument that the welfare of children was a major concern.

While acknowledging that children would be better off if their same-sex parents were married, Schaerr said it would likewise be better for thousands of children in polygamist households if they were allowed to legally marry.

“Let’s not talk about polygamy. Let’s talk about gay marriage,” Lucero said, setting off a peal of laughter through the courtroom.

Schaerr said the government has a legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual marriages between a child’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex marriages would dilute that message, he said. A lesbian couple could conceive a child through artificial insemination and the child would not have a masculine role model, he said.

Schaerr told justices a key risk of gay marriage is that children are raised by someone other than their natural parents and that those children have a higher rate of criminal behavior. He said it also changes the primary role of marriage from being child-centric to adult-centric.

Later in the hearing, Kelly brought up polygamy again. He asked Tomsic why she would discriminate against polygamist households, if everyone has a right to marry.

Tomsic argued the gay-marriage ban violates the rights of only one class of citizen — same-sex couples.

“Every day, same-sex families face the stigma and harm of being treated like second-class citizens,” Tomsic said.

After the hearing, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes spoke with Kitchen and Sbeity. He said he told them the case was not intended to be personal.

Reyes also said the federalism argument will be the key to the court’s decision.

“We didn’t create a second class of people to harm them,” he said.

The same panel of judges will hear oral arguments in Oklahoma’s gay-marriage case next Thursday. Colorado has two same-sex marriage cases.

Kirk Mitchell: 303-954-1206, denverpost.com/ coldcaseskmitchell or twitter.com/kmitchelldp

DENVER, CO. - APRIL 10:  Utah Plantiffs from left to right, Derek Kitchen and partner, Moudi Sbeity, Kate Call and partner, Karen Archer, Laurie Wood and partner, Kody Partridge, stand outside of the Byron White U.S. Courthouse during a press conference Thursday morning, April 10, 2014 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit listened to oral arguments on the gay marriage ban in Utah. (Photo By Andy Cross / The Denver Post)

DENVER, CO. – APRIL 10: Utah Plantiffs from left to right, Derek Kitchen and partner, Moudi Sbeity, Kate Call and partner, Karen Archer, Laurie Wood and partner, Kody Partridge, stand outside of the Byron White U.S. Courthouse during a press conference Thursday morning, April 10, 2014 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit listened to oral arguments on the gay marriage ban in Utah. (Photo By Andy Cross / The Denver Post)

Source: The Denver Post, “10th Circuit arguments on gay marriage ban focus on family, fairness,” By Kirk Mitchell, Posted:  04/10/2014 08:17:52 AM MDT | Updated:   about 10 hours ago

U.S. Court Seems Split on Utah Gay Marriage Ban

Plaintiffs on Utah’s Ban on Gay Marriage Two of the plaintiffs in a case challenging Utah’s ban on gay marriage, Moudi Sbeity and Derek Kitchen, discussed why they were pursuing the lawsuit. Photo: Jim Auley, The New York Times

Plaintiffs on Utah’s Ban on Gay Marriage
Two of the plaintiffs in a case challenging Utah’s ban on gay marriage, Moudi Sbeity and Derek Kitchen, discussed why they were pursuing the lawsuit.
Photo: Jim Auley, The New York Times

DENVER — The push for same-sex marriage, which has celebrated victory after victory in courtrooms across the country, entered an uncertain stage on Thursday as a federal appeals court appeared divided about whether the socially conservative state of Utah could limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In an hour of arguments inside a packed courtroom, three judges from the Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit sparred with lawyers about how such bans affected the children of same-sex parents and whether preventing gay couples from marrying actually did anything to promote or strengthen heterosexual unions and families.

Judge Paul J. Kelly, who was nominated by the elder President Bush, appeared more deferential to Utah’s voters and its legislature while Judge Carlos F. Lucero, a Clinton appointee, asked pointed questions about whether Utah was stigmatizing children of gay couples. Legal observers said the deciding vote appeared to belong to Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, and lofted tough questions at both sides.

“Why does it matter who’s claiming the right?” Judge Holmes asked a lawyer representing Utah. “It’s a fundamental right, and why does it matter the participants in that enterprise? Why does it matter?”

Thursday’s arguments signaled the first time an appeals court had considered the issue since the Supreme Court handed two major victories to gay-rights supporters last summer, striking down a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples and clearing the way for same-sex marriages across California.

It was a day freighted with emotion for gay-rights supporters and same-sex couples in Utah. Dozens flew to Denver from Utah to attend the arguments, lining up early Thursday morning for a seat in the courtroom. A conservative state lawmaker was one of a handful of supporters of the ban to attend the hearing. “Our lives are on the line here,” said Derek Kitchen, the plaintiff who lent his last name to the case — Kitchen v. Herbert. Gary R. Herbert is Utah’s Republican governor.

As Mr. Kitchen and the other plaintiffs chatted and exchanged reassuring pats on the shoulder in the courtroom, they were approached by Utah’s attorney general, Sean Reyes, whose office has taken the lead role in defending the same-sex marriage ban. Shaking hands and greeting the plaintiffs, Mr. Reyes crouched down and told them: “I’m sorry that we’re causing you pain. Sometime after the case is over, I hope we can sit down.”

After the hearing, Mr. Reyes said he had told the plaintiffs that the legal confrontation was not personal, and that he knew that the plaintiffs’ families were as important to them as his own was to him. But he said it was unclear what would happen to the unions and benefits of Utah’s newly married same-sex couples if the state prevailed in its appeals. Utah has previously raised the possibility that those marriages could be dissolved.

Separately, in Indiana on Thursday, a federal judge ruled that the state must, for now, recognize the same-sex marriage of a woman who is terminally ill. Nikole Quasney and Amy Sandler have two children and joined one of five lawsuits challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage last month, citing the need to have their relationship legally recognized in order to access benefits for surviving family members. Ms. Quasney received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in 2009; the couple married in Massachusetts last year.

Source:  The New York Times, “U.S. Court Seems Split on Utah Gay Marriage Ban,” by Jack Healy, April 10, 2014

Federal judge strikes down Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage

Judge says ban approved by Oklahoma voters in 2004 is unconstitutional, but he puts a hold on his ruling while the issue is appealed.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Tulsa struck down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional on Tuesday but prevented his ruling from going into effect while the issue makes its way through appeals.

w300-129070a4b2f8cda1b433ea5f05c64c9d

Photo – In this Oct. 10, 2013 photo, Sharon Baldwin, left, and Mary Bishop speak at East Central University in Ada, OK, as part of the ECU Gay-Straight Alliance’s National Coming Out Day event. (AP Photo/Eric Turner) Eric Turner

Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern, ruling more than nine years after Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a statewide question to prohibit same-sex marriage, said the ban discriminated against same-sex couples for no rational reason.

After dissecting the arguments supporters voiced to justify the ban, Kern said that “moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification.”

Moreover, he said, protecting the sanctity of marriage wasn’t a valid reason for the ban, given Oklahoma’s high divorce rate of opposite-sex couples, and encouraging procreation wasn’t logical either since opposite-sex couples aren’t required to say they’ll produce offspring in order to get a marriage license.

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed,” Kern said in his 68-page decision.

“It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”

Don Holladay, the Norman attorney who took over the case after it lost steam several years ago, said Tuesday, “It’s a good victory for marriage equality. It’s a good victory for couples who have lived together for years in committed relationships.”

A federal judge in Utah last month struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage — passed in 2004, the same year as Oklahoma’s — and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal from Utah on a fast track.

Oklahoma is in the same federal circuit as Utah, and Holladay said he hopes the two cases are combined. The U.S. Supreme Court last week put gay marriages on hold in Utah while the appeals court hears the case, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the marriages that already had occurred would be recognized by the federal government.

Leaders disappointed

Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith was the primary defendant in the challenge to the state ban because she declined to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. She was represented in the case by an Arizona group called Alliance Defending Freedom.

Byron Babione, an attorney for the group, said Tuesday that Kern’s decision ignores the “time-tested and rational definition of marriage — affirmed by 76 percent of Oklahoma voters — and replaces it with the recently conceived notion that marriage is little more than special government recognition for close relationships.”

“A court should not impose this novel view of marriage on the people of Oklahoma. We will review the decision with our client, the Tulsa County clerk, and consider her next steps.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt called the decision “troubling” and said Tuesday that the issue “most likely will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and the outcome will dictate whether Oklahoma’s constitutional provision will be upheld.”

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said, “I am disappointed in the judge’s ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government.”

Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said, “We’re thrilled that the court has struck down this discriminatory law.”

‘So much emotion’

The lawsuit ruled on Tuesday was filed by two couples the day after the Oklahoma constitutional amendment was approved.

Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, of Broken Arrow, who are both editors at the Tulsa World newspaper, challenged the state ban prohibiting same-sex marriages.

“There’s so much emotion; I’m kind of crying right now,” Bishop told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “It’s overwhelming to think that we finally won.

“Sharon and I want to get married here in Oklahoma. We’ve been together for more than 17 years — it’s time. This is something that when I was young, I thought I’d never see in my lifetime.”

Susan Barton and Gay Phillips, of Tulsa, who were married first in Canada and then in California, challenged the state law and the federal law that was struck down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his decision, Kern dismissed the complaints regarding the federal law, and said Barton and Gay did not have standing to sue the Tulsa County court clerk over the state’s prohibition on recognizing their out-of-state marriage because the clerk wasn’t the right person to sue over that issue.

Kern’s decision marked the third time a federal judge had struck down a state ban; Utah and California were the other states.

Kern, a 1994 appointee of former President Bill Clinton, said in his decision that civil marriage in Oklahoma “is not an institution with ‘moral’ requirements” for opposite-sex couples.

The Tulsa County court clerk, he said, “does not ask a couple if they intend to be faithful to one another, if they intend to procreate, or if they would someday consider divorce, thereby potentially leaving their child to be raised in a single-parent home.

“With respect to marriage licenses, the State has already opened the courthouse doors to opposite-sex couples without any moral, procreative, parenting, or fidelity requirements.

“Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived ‘threat’ they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships.”

Previously: Utah decision spurs arguments in Oklahoma same-sex marriage case

Source: The Oklahoman,Federal judge strikes down Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage,” By Chris Casteel Modified: January 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm • Published: January 14, 2014

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Paul Fraughton | Salt Lake Tribune People gather at the amphitheater at Library Square for a vigil in support of gay marriage on March 25, 2013. Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled on Dec. 20 that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The man on the right is unidentified.

Paul Fraughton | Salt Lake Tribune People gather at the amphitheater at Library Square for a vigil in support of gay marriage on March 25, 2013. Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled on Dec. 20 that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The man on the right is unidentified.

A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

Shelby’s ruling is the first decision to address whether a state may ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision this summer that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Utah judge ruled just 16 days after he heard arguments in the case and well before his self-imposed deadline to render a decision by Jan. 7, when the next hearing in the matter was to be held.

“It feels unreal,” said Moudi Sbeity, who with his partner Derek L. Kitchen were plaintiffs in the case. “I’m just very thrilled that Derek and I will be able to get married soon, if all goes well and the state doesn’t appeal. We want a farmer’s market wedding because it’s where we spend a lot of time.”

The two make and sell Mediterranean-style spreads at farmer’s markets throughout Utah. Sbeity said he and Kitchen, both 25, had just heard the news from their attorney. Kitchen “just has a very large smile on his face,” Sbeity said.

The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are: Karen Archer, 67, and Kate Call, 60; and Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge, 47. Archer and Call already have a marriage license issued in Iowa, but joined the lawsuit to protest that their legal marriage was not recognized in Utah. The other two couples applied for a license from the Salt Lake County Clerk’s office in March but were denied one.

Peggy A. Tomsic and James E. Magleby, who represented the plaintiffs, called the decision historic, saying in a statement that it brings “marriage equality to Utah, not only for the plaintiffs, but all other same-sex couples residing in Utah who desire to marry or have their legal marriage from another state recognized in Utah.”

“While the Utah decision only directly affects same-sex couples in Utah, it will provide legal precedent to support other plaintiffs’s constitutional challenges to similar state laws in the remaining states where there is marriage inequality,” the statement said.

“We cannot capture in words the gratitude and joy plaintiffs feel that Judge Shelby had the courage to declare, as the United States Constitution requires, that same-sex couples, like all other U.S. citizens and Utah residents, are constitutionally entitled to marriage equality in Utah.”

Tomsic said, however, that since the state is likely to appeal, the fight is not over. But she believes the ruling will prevail.

Shelby said that while he agreed with Utah that marriage has traditionally been left to regulation by the states, such laws must comply with the Constitution.

“The issue the court must address in this case is not who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution,” the judge said.

Shelby acknowledged the politically charged climate that surrounds the issue and said that was particularly true in Utah, where 66 percent of voters approved the amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004.

“It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action,” Shelby said. “But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its Legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins.”

The ACLU of Utah filed an amicus brief in the case and legal director John Mejia said Friday the organization was “thrilled” by the decision.

“We think that it was a discriminatory law that only served to deny loving and committed couples the protection and dignity of marriage,” he said. “We congratulate the brave plaintiffs for making such a historic stand and their legal team for putting up such a great fight.”

With the ruling, Utah becomes the 18th state where same-sex marriage has become legal through either court decisions, legislation or referendums.

Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, Brooke Adams
Published: December 20, 2013 02:07PM
Updated: December 20, 2013 03:00PM

Tribune reporter Erin Alberty contributed to this report.