Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JAHS

Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Recommended Posts

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."


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57291925-78/ban-judge-sex-court.html.csp


Share this post


Link to post

I am speechless... wow!!!! Congrats, Utah!!!

Share this post


Link to post

I am speechless... wow!!!! Congrats, Utah!!!

I hope you will understand if some of us, who hold different points of view, are not as delighted. In any case, my guess is the 10th Circuit will stay it, and back we go to the Supremes. They already struck down DOMA saying it was up to the states to decide, and now a federal judge has said it's not up to the states to decide after all. Dueling rulings, something's gotta give.

Share this post


Link to post

I am speechless... wow!!!! Congrats, Utah!!!

This had nothing to do with Utah, they did not have a say in the matter. This is very disturbing to me on many levels. We are no longer allowed to vote on what we would like to financially subsidize as a society. We are simply mandated to shut up and open our wallets whether we support the item or not. If we do not support it we are not allowed to draft laws or elect officials to end its subsidization.

This is wrong on so many levels and has nothing to do with whether you support same sex marriage or not.

-guerreiro9

Share this post


Link to post

I hope you will understand if some of us, who hold different points of view, are not as delighted. In any case, my guess is the 10th Circuit will stay it, and back we go to the Supremes. They already struck down DOMA saying it was up to the states to decide, and now a federal judge has said it's not up to the states to decide after all. Dueling rulings, something's gotta give.

I understand your lack of enthusiasm...

As for your other comment, wow... wouldn't it be supremely ironic if this ends up being THE case that goes all the way to the SCOTUS that ends up legalizing civil same-sex marriage nationwide....?

Share this post


Link to post

This had nothing to do with Utah, they did not have a say in the matter. This is very disturbing to me on many levels. We are no longer allowed to vote on what we would like to financially subsidize as a society. We are simply mandated to shut up and open our wallets whether we support the item or not. If we do not support it we are not allowed to draft laws or elect officials to end its subsidization.

This is wrong on so many levels and has nothing to do with whether you support same sex marriage or not.

-guerreiro9

I'm not sure what you mean by "subsidizing" others' marriages--it's not your right to interfere with two consenting adult's freedom and right to marry each other.

It has never been anyone's "right" to vote away minorities' constitutional rights guaranteed by the equal protection clause. This protects all citizens--including religious minorities.

Share this post


Link to post

Statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court."

— Cody Craynor, spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=28099570#wIy6yXS9XAZgJ4hb.99

Share this post


Link to post

I hope you will understand if some of us, who hold different points of view, are not as delighted. In any case, my guess is the 10th Circuit will stay it, and back we go to the Supremes. They already struck down DOMA saying it was up to the states to decide, and now a federal judge has said it's not up to the states to decide after all. Dueling rulings, something's gotta give.

 

I'm finding it increasingly odd what people think is a appropriate to say/do that limits the personal lives of other people. Why is it any of your business if two gay people want to get married? Do you also oppose gay people having driving licences?

Share this post


Link to post

http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/12/20/breaking-utahs-first-gay-married-couple/

Michael Adam Ferguson and J. Seth Anderson may well be Utah’s first gay couple to legally marry in the state of Utah. The couple, hearing that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby has declared Utah’s Amendment 3 as unconstitutional, went to Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen’s office asking for a marriage license.

“Our application for a marriage license was just accepted by the state of Utah,” Ferguson wrote on his Facebook wall.

Deputy Salt Lake County Clerk Wany Morrison was in tears as she handed the couple their license to marry. As the couple was awaiting an officiant, Morrison told the couple she would marry them, but was pulled out of the ceremony by Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill, who said he wanted to wait on official notice from the state.

QSaltLake reporter Bob Henline, who is also an official marriage officiant, married the couple on the spot.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm finding it increasingly odd what people think is a appropriate to say/do that limits the personal lives of other people. Why is it any of your business if two gay people want to get married? Do you also oppose gay people having driving licences?

 

Marriage (in a legal sense) is a collection of rights given to people by the government.

In a democracy it is everyone's responsibility to be aware of, engage in, and help define those rights.

 

To suggest that citizens (in a democracy at least) should not participate in the formation of laws is to disenfranchise them.

Share this post


Link to post

Marriage (in a legal sense) is a collection of rights given to people by the government.

In a democracy it is everyone's responsibility to be aware of, engage in, and help define those rights.

 

To suggest that citizens (in a democracy at least) should not participate in the formation of laws is to disenfranchise them.

 

We don't live in a pure democracy.  We live in a constitutional republic.  The constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.  Those rights cannot be voted away by the citizenry.  Therefore, we have this ruling.

Share this post


Link to post

Another win for freedom of religion!  That's two this week (the polygamy ruling being the other).   A great week for Utah.

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion it's no big deal to me if gay people want to get married. It won't affect my own marriage one bit. I think what people have a problem with is the fact that things like this happening are one more sign that the world is becoming more and more secular and leaning more and more away from the laws of God, and they don't like to see that happening. Anyone who believes the Bible though would recognize it as a sign of the end times as related in Isaiah in regards to the second coming of Christ:

 

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws," (Isa 24: 5)

Share this post


Link to post

It's only a matter of time, now, before they come after the Church and try to force it to recognize same-sex marriages if not perform them.

 

It's already happening with some of the political pressuring that's been going on in this very forum and elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

We don't live in a pure democracy.  We live in a constitutional republic.  The constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.  Those rights cannot be voted away by the citizenry.  Therefore, we have this ruling.

 

We have this ruling because a group of people persuaded a judge to give them this ruling.

There are plenty of other judges that would have given a different ruling.

Share this post


Link to post

This had nothing to do with Utah, they did not have a say in the matter. This is very disturbing to me on many levels. We are no longer allowed to vote on what we would like to financially subsidize as a society. We are simply mandated to shut up and open our wallets whether we support the item or not. If we do not support it we are not allowed to draft laws or elect officials to end its subsidization.

This is wrong on so many levels and has nothing to do with whether you support same sex marriage or not.

-guerreiro9

Haven't gays been financially subsidizing our marriages for years? Why not return them the favor?

Share this post


Link to post

We have this ruling because a group of people persuaded a judge to give them this ruling.

There are plenty of other judges that would have given a different ruling.

 

How many judges need to say that SSM bans are a violation of the 14th amendment?

Share this post


Link to post

How many judges need to say that SSM bans are a violation of the 14th amendment?

 

If the judge had ruled differently, would it have changed your mind on the subject?

Share this post


Link to post

If the judge had ruled differently, would it have changed your mind on the subject?

 

Well put.  No, it wouldn't have changed my mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Scott - you mean like the way they "came after the church" and forced it to allow blacks to hold the priesthood (pre 1978) or the way they forced the church to allow non-worthy or non-members into the temple?  Oh, wait...that didn't happen.  Neither will "they" force the church to recognize or perform gay marriages.

Share this post


Link to post

Scott - you mean like the way they "came after the church" and forced it to allow blacks to hold the priesthood (pre 1978) or the way they forced the church to allow non-worthy or non-members into the temple?  Oh, wait...that didn't happen.  Neither will "they" force the church to recognize or perform gay marriages.

 

Right - In the USA it is very unlikely that Bishops of the LDS church will ever be forced to perform gay marriages either civilly or in the temples. The constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion is still in place, and the courts would apply that principle should anyone ever try to bring a lawsuit against the LDS church or any other church over this. 

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion it's no big deal to me if gay people want to get married. It won't affect my own marriage one bit. I think what people have a problem with is the fact that things like this happening are one more sign that the world is becoming more and more secular and leaning more and more away from the laws of God, and they don't like to see that happening. Anyone who believes the Bible though would recognize it as a sign of the end times as related in Isaiah in regards to the second coming of Christ:

 

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws," (Isa 24: 5)

With a 50% divorce rate, falling interest in getting married by straight couples, increase in adultery, more and more kids growing up in single family homes, rampant ponography, and you point to gay marriage as being the end of the world fulfillment of prophecy? 

 

This is one of the big reasons I have a problem with both the way the church looks at gay marriage and many of the members.  Many seem to view the .01% of the population that wants to get married as being the worst immoral crime in America.  Geeeze.

Share this post


Link to post

What has always puzzled me, is why there is a need to designate a protected class based on someones behavior or belief.

 

I know we define religious behavior as protected, but sexual behavior? or is it sexual belief?

 

My fear is that once behavior and belief have been elevated to the same protections as religions, it will make it easier to denigrate them both

 

Once everyone is special, no one is.

Share this post


Link to post

With a 50% divorce rate, falling interest in getting married by straight couples, increase in adultery, more and more kids growing up in single family homes, rampant ponography, and you point to gay marriage as being the end of the world fulfillment of prophecy? 

 

This is one of the big reasons I have a problem with both the way the church looks at gay marriage and many of the members.  Many seem to view the .01% of the population that wants to get married as being the worst immoral crime in America.  Geeeze.

 

Do you think that the divorce rate will go down as a result or this ruling?

Share this post


Link to post

We have this ruling because a group of people persuaded a judge to give them this ruling.

There are plenty of other judges that would have given a different ruling.

You have this ruling because of this.  There is no legal argument against gay marriage.  If you have one, you should speak up, because no one else has found one.

 

"The state of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the state’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the state’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens," Shelby said. "Moreover, the Constitution protects the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...