New York Times

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for three couples challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage said Thursday that they would join with their opponents to urge the Supreme Court to hear their case, even though they recently won an appeals court ruling striking down the law.

The unusual move could hasten a final ruling from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. It also reflects confidence among proponents of same-sex marriage that the court would rule in their favor.

“Now is the time for the Supreme Court to bring certainty to this fundamental civil rights issue of our time,” said Peggy A. Tomsic, a lawyer for the couples.

On Tuesday, Utah officials asked the Supreme Court to hear their appeal and uphold the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. “We recognize this litigation has caused uncertainty and disruption and have accordingly tried to expedite its resolution as quickly as possible,” said Sean D. Reyes, Utah’s attorney general. “All Utah citizens will benefit when the Supreme Court provides clear finality on the important issue of state authority to define marriage.”

Ms. Tomsic said she found herself in agreement with her adversary on one point. “We absolutely agree that this is a critical issue for decision,” she said, and she praised state officials for moving the case along quickly.

It is quite uncommon for the winning side to urge the justices to hear an appeal, but there have been a handful of notable exceptions recently. One of them was the Hobby Lobby case, in which a chain of craft stores that had won in the appeals court nonetheless urged the justices to hear the government’s appeal and ultimately won in the Supreme Court, too.

Neal Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general who also represents the Utah couples, said the importance of the issue warranted an unusual approach. “This is the defining issue for the Supreme Court in our lifetime,” he said. “The notion that the government could deny life’s greatest partnership on the basis of orientation is capricious and strikes at everything this country is about.”

He said the couples would file a brief in the coming weeks joining Utah’s request that the Supreme Court hear the case. Such a filing would come in time for the justices to consider the case at their first private conference when they return from their summer break. Should the justices agree to hear the case, they could schedule arguments in the winter and issue a decision by June.

There are other same-sex marriage cases in the pipeline, including ones from federal appeals courts striking down bans in Oklahoma and Virginia. The Supreme Court could agree to hear one or more of the several cases, or none of them.

Most of the usual signs suggest the court will step in. It is no small thing for a lower federal court to strike down a state law or a provision of a state Constitution, and that alone may warrant review. The Supreme Court has indicated its interest in developments in Utah bytwice issuing stays that blocked lower court rulings that would have allowed gay marriages to proceed or be recognized. And it cannot hurt that both sides in the Utah case agree the case should be heard.

All that is missing from the standard criteria for Supreme Court review is disagreement in the lower courts, which have unanimously ruled against same-sex marriage bans in the last year. A set of casesheard Wednesday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, may soon supply that last element. Two other federal appeals courts are also scheduled to hear appeals in the coming weeks.

The Utah ruling came from the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. It said an amendment to the Utah Constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman denied gay couples the fundamental right to marry under the federal Constitution.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Utah officials said the ruling had deprived the state’s voters, who adopted the ban in a 2004 referendum, of a different fundamental right, one allowing them to “act through a lawful electoral process.”

“A vast cloud covers this entire area of the law, and only this court can lift it,” the brief said. “This case provides an ideal vehicle to do just that.”

Here, too, Ms. Tomsic said she agreed with her adversaries that uncertainty over same-sex marriage is intolerable. “We are one country,” she said. “Even if you are in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, you are at risk if you travel or move.”

She added it is fitting that the first in the current wave of same-sex marriage cases comes from Utah. “If it can happen in Utah, it can happen anywhere,” she said. “We are a very conservative state.”