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

[EllenMaksoud]

 

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

 

I am not at all sure that anyone except a gay or lesbian has a stake in this issue. Why do we think we must take a stand on it? Can not God defend himself? In Islam, the men proudly proclaim that Allah SWT has no helpers, yet there are thousands of the "devout" out there draggin AK47's around for the sake of Allah's  SWT honor.

 

Do we need to do anything but not participate in gay marriage? Does God require anything of us but to be righteous before him?

[Stargazer]

Why is nobody able to successfully make JWhitlock's argument in front of these judges?  Crazy activists and their insistence on constitutional liberties.

 

Maybe they are the judges are just doing what they want, regardless.  It wouldn't be the first time.  That's the definition of "activist judge", after all.

[rockpond]

Maybe they are the judges are just doing what they want, regardless. It wouldn't be the first time. That's the definition of "activist judge", after all.

So how does one define an activist judge? And is there a point at which enough of them agree on the 14th amendment argument in favor of marriage equality to decide that it isn't actually judicial activism?

[Daniel2]

In a strange twist:

http://t.co/tHykc9BKrm

[Stone holm]

Maybe they are the judges are just doing what they want, regardless.  It wouldn't be the first time.  That's the definition of "activist judge", after all.

Not really. The concept of the activist judge, I believe was framed during the desegregation battles where judges were actually drafting busing plans etc.

[Danzo]

Maybe they are the judges are just doing what they want, regardless.  It wouldn't be the first time.  That's the definition of "activist judge", after all.

 

I would be willing to bet that this judge had a draft of his opinion before the trial.

[jwhitlock]

You might re-consider which gay sites you are apparently visiting. Your condemnation of an entire group based on the ideas of a few about "monogamish" marriages is painting with a broad brush something that I doubt you'd appreciate having done to you. You love to quote the Affirmation site when it suits you but then you seem to forget that they want the same committed, monogamous, eternal marriages that you and I get.

 

My "condemnation of any entire group" is your most egregious misrepresentation yet. We're talking about my well-founded opposition to SSM, not my condemnation of gays. I've been careful to try to make it clear that I do not condemn those with SSA. However, SSM proponents often demonize their opponents with accusations that they hate gays in general, which is simply false in my case. So I would appreciate it if you'd keep to the topic at hand and not bandy about tripe like this.

 

And by the way, it's been very clear from my conversations on this board that when I talk about being monogamous, I have to specifically qualify it as including full sexual fidelity. In virtually all the conversations I've had with gays, monogamy does not necessarily include that aspect, which is another interesting commentary on how the definition of marriage is going to be changed.

[rockpond]

My "condemnation of any entire group" is your most egregious misrepresentation yet. We're talking about my well-founded opposition to SSM, not my condemnation of gays. I've been careful to try to make it clear that I do not condemn those with SSA. However, SSM proponents often demonize their opponents with accusations that they hate gays in general, which is simply false in my case. So I would appreciate it if you'd keep to the topic at hand and not bandy about tripe like this.

And by the way, it's been very clear from my conversations on this board that when I talk about being monogamous, I have to specifically qualify it as including full sexual fidelity. In virtually all the conversations I've had with gays, monogamy does not necessarily include that aspect, which is another interesting commentary on how the definition of marriage is going to be changed.

Condemn: to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on.

You've said that there are "very, very few gays" interested in the full fidelity and commitment of marriage. Have you polled all of those couples flocking to get marriage licenses in Utah?

[thesometimesaint]

In the U.S., if you get civilly married first, you have to wait a year before you can be sealed in the temple.  The marriage license that you get (and take to the temple) is just permission to be married, it is not the marriage itself.  The marriage is done by the temple sealer who will want to first see that you have a license or a certificate.

 

Temple sealings are legally recognized (in the U.S.).  You are simply wrong and/or uninformed on this point.

 

Temple Sealing's are NOT recognized by the State. The marriage is.

[thesometimesaint]

I would be willing to bet that this judge had a draft of his opinion before the trial.

 

It wouldn't matter a whit if he did. The case was tried on the merits of the law.

[rockpond]

Temple Sealing's are NOT recognized by the State. The marriage is.

 

Agreed, sealings are not recognized by the state, only the marriage.  But they are the same ceremony in the temple.

[Stone holm]

You really don't think highly of the church you claim to be a member of, do you.

You don't have to think highly of all the leadership's statements in order to think highly of the Church, there were a lot of members who did not think highly of the spin that leadership put out in justification of the Priesthood ban, those explanations have since been disavowed.

[EllenMaksoud]

I wonder what it would be like if we spent more time regulating our own conduct and less time regulating the conduct of others? I wonder if God is very interested in the laws we make to control others?

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's a difference between a judicial opinion and the application of valid constitutional law. The former is what is happening more often today as judges "interpret" the constitution they way they want it to read. The latter has been pretty much shredded as far as I'm concerned. What we're left with is judges ruling by fiat. That is clearly evident when Shelby declares Utah's marriage law as unconstitutional, which is his own opinion since the constitution is silent about that specific subject.

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that has been the function of the US Courts since 1803. We don't have to agree with their legal opinions, I sure don't, but they do get to decide on what the Constitution says. 

[ERayR]

As a matter of written policy, we restrict Bishops in where, how, and who they can marry (either bride or groom MUST be a member of the Bishop's ward).  Additionally, we restrict where, how, and who temple sealers can marry.  Have these well known restrictions ever been successfully challenged in court?

 

How does that change what I have posted?  You are dragging a lot of red herring.

[ERayR]

In the U.S., if you get civilly married first, you have to wait a year before you can be sealed in the temple.  The marriage license that you get (and take to the temple) is just permission to be married, it is not the marriage itself.  The marriage is done by the temple sealer who will want to first see that you have a license or a certificate.

 

Temple sealings are legally recognized (in the U.S.).  You are simply wrong and/or uninformed on this point.

 

Incorrect the sealing post civil marriage is a temple sealing, not a marriage.  The marriage license you get from the civil authorities is the same as the one you get and take to a judge or anyone else authorized by the state to do marriages.  When you go for a sealing after a civil marriage you do not need a marriage license as you are already married.  What you need is a temple recommend.

 

It is not the temple sealing that is recognized but the marriage that is performed just prior to and in conjunction with the sealing.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed, sealings are not recognized by the state, only the marriage.  But they are the same ceremony in the temple.

 

It would be a rather sticky wicket in the US if they weren't. If only LDS ministers were precluded from officiating at a wedding, the Saints would be in a good position to sue for religious discrimination. If ALL ministers were precluded, like much of Europe, it would be a different subject.

[jwhitlock]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that has been the function of the US Courts since 1803. We don't have to agree with their legal opinions, I sure don't, but they do get to decide on what the Constitution says. 

 

The difference between what authority the Constitution actually gave to the judiciary and what they have usurped over time is evidently lost on you. The don't get to decide; they have taken the power to "decide" to themselves and act as the final authority, without recourse - in their minds. They not only interpret the constitution according to their individual agendas, they mandate laws that must be implemented and practices that must be abolished or started - such as segregation. To any reasonable person, such fiat power is far beyond what was ever intended or given in the Constitution, and is a form of tyranny.

 

Ultimately the power to govern lies in the hands of the people - not appointed judges. That's what makes the California situation so egregious; the people clearly spoke twice about what their will was concerning marriage, and the judges ignored it on flimsy grounds of "equal protection", which has become a catch-all rationalization for whatever they want to do. In looking at the phrases used in their decisions about "harm" and "rights" it is very clear that they are being misused as justification for a course of action to mandate the agendas of the special interests they represent.

 

Frankly, those who insist that the decisions of judges be accepted without question and that their usurped authority be blindly acceded to are simply supporting tyranny, which undermines individual freedoms and liberties. While those whose agendas are gleefully implemented by judicial fiat may rejoice, they may soon find that the monster they have unleashed comes back to haunt them.

[jwhitlock]

Condemn: to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on.

You've said that there are "very, very few gays" interested in the full fidelity and commitment of marriage. Have you polled all of those couples flocking to get marriage licenses in Utah?

 

Glad to see, at least, that you view the concept less than full fidelity in marriage as something adverse or unfavorable - even though I didn't specifically express it that way.

 

You really do need to get out and read more about what gays themselves write about full sexual fidelity in marriage. Google it; you may actually find out something accurate.

[Danzo]

It wouldn't matter a whit if he did. The case was tried on the merits of the law.

 

Except, it wasn't.

 

The judge made his own law. (that is why the case made news, it was a new finding, a new law, invented by the judge)

[Stone holm]

Except, it wasn't.

 

The judge made his own law. (that is why the case made news, it was a new finding, a new law, invented by the judge)

Really, I thought the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment were older than that, guess in misunderstood my history and legal training.

[california boy]

Glad to see, at least, that you view the concept less than full fidelity in marriage as something adverse or unfavorable - even though I didn't specifically express it that way.

 

You really do need to get out and read more about what gays themselves write about full sexual fidelity in marriage. Google it; you may actually find out something accurate.

And while you are at it, Google how opposite sex couples view fidelity, adultery, divorce, and cohabitation.  Not all gays view marriage the same, and not all straights view marriage the same.  You have no argument.

[Danzo]

Really, I thought the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment were older than that, guess in misunderstood my history and legal training.

 

Maybe if you actually read the 14th amendment, you would know that it doesn't not mention marriage.

 

Maybe if you actually read the 10th amendment, you would know that powers not mentioned in the constitution are reserved to the states.

 

But why read the actual constitution when you can just rely on what others say it says?

[jwhitlock]

And while you are at it, Google how opposite sex couples view fidelity, adultery, divorce, and cohabitation.  Not all gays view marriage the same, and not all straights view marriage the same.  You have no argument.

 

If I had every made the inane claim that straights all treated marriage better, then you'd have a point. They don't, and I've been very clear in pointing out the fact that marriage has already sustained considerable damage. That doesn't change the fact that SSM will cement in a new low as to the structure of marriage in general, as it provides legal precedent to formally dismiss certain long held legal protections - such as the expectation of full fidelity and how breaking that expectation protects the innocent spouse in a marriage.

 

I've done quite enough Googling on both sides of the marriage issue to understand a bit about what attitudes seem to be prevalent among gays when it comes to total sexual fidelity in marriage. That particular expectation doesn't rank very high at all on the list of what marriage is about.

 

While we're at it, here's an article from the NY Times on the subject of open marriage and the concept of monogamish. A bit of an eye opener.

[Stone holm]

Maybe if you actually read the 14th amendment, you would know that it doesn't not mention marriage.

 

Maybe if you actually read the 10th amendment, you would know that powers not mentioned in the constitution are reserved to the states.

 

But why read the actual constitution when you can just rely on what others say it says?

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States, if you had taken as many graduate courses in US History, and as many professional courses in Constitutional law, as I you would know that, or if you had stayed awake in your High School History course you might have understood what you read. And by the way, are you actually aware of what Madison said of the 10th Amendment?