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

[Stone holm]

I tend to agree with you.  My bigger point is, that even if studies showed that gay parents didn't do as good of job, what difference would that make.  Unless we start limiting marriage to only groups that perform well in studies, it would still be discrimination.  You have to either apply that litmus test to everyone who wants to marry or to none who want to marry.

 

Just like every other state that has tried to defend their prejudicial treatment of gay couples, Utah is in a bad position of going to court without any argument that is logical and 2 million dollars poorer.

Well for a two million dollar fee, I could probably get very creative, I understand they put the legal representation out for bid.

[Stargazer]

A SCOTUS decision upholding Judge Shelby's ruling would not be "the government promoting gay marriage". It would be the judicial branch agreeing that a state amendment violated the US Constitution. Which is, of course, the job of the judicial branch of our government.

CFR that the case was tried on the "personal feelings of the judge" or kindly retract the statement.

 

It's my opinion.  And I am right.  There's the Reference.  What do you think, there's some "authoritative" source for this?  Get a grip.

 

Perhaps a British person might not understand that each state has it's own Constitution, and that sometimes federal judges over-reach and decide that the Federal Constitution applies to some state statute that does not violate the state constitution.  Sometimes such judges get reversed because the federal constitution does not cover the matter in quite the way that the judge thinks.  If such a judge gets reversed, then at that time SCOTUS is saying that the judge erred.  If they uphold it, then he or she didn't err.

 

But even SCOTUS can be wrong.  They sometimes, occasionally, even reverse themselves, too.

[thesometimesaint]

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution trumps State laws, including State Constitutions every time. We keep rehashing it in the courts and all too often on the bloody battlefields from Antietam to Vicksburg.

 

True, the USSC does reverse itself. But usually not before great cost in lives and treasure to us.

[Daniel2]

The plaintiffs have filed their opposition to the Utah Attorney General's request to Justice Santomayer for a stay. It's a worthwhile read:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/195405369?width=360#fullscreen

[Tacenda]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/utah-hunger-strike-gay-marriage_n_4537434.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

 

I'm afraid this guy might need to relent before something bad happens to his body.  I know the heart my not be able to handle it.  When Karen Carpenter lost a lot of weight, didn't she die of a heart attack?  But maybe because she abused her body through being anorexic.  Hopefully he has some medical back up. 

 

This is sad to me but probably heroic to some out there.  I feel for the guy, this is so extreme, his lips look blue.

[The Nehor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/utah-hunger-strike-gay-marriage_n_4537434.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

 

I'm afraid this guy might need to relent before something bad happens to his body.  I know the heart my not be able to handle it.  When Karen Carpenter lost a lot of weight, didn't she die of a heart attack?  But maybe because she abused her body through being anorexic.  Hopefully he has some medical back up. 

 

This is sad to me but probably heroic to some out there.  I feel for the guy, this is so extreme, his lips look blue.

 

Ahhhh, the grown-up equivalent of a child telling their parents: "I'm going to hold my breath until you give me what I want."

 

If gambling were not a sin I bet this guy either gives up in less then six days or cheats.

 

Can we excommunicate him? One of the prime reasons for that action is to avoid disrepute being brought on the Church through the member's actions.

[ERayR]

Ahhhh, the grown-up equivalent of a child telling their parents: "I'm going to hold my breath until you give me what I want."

 

If gambling were not a sin I bet this guy either gives up in less then six days or cheats.

 

Can we excommunicate him? One of the prime reasons for that action is to avoid disrepute being brought on the Church through the member's actions.

 

Or maybe it is the grown-up way of saying I don't know what else to do to bring attention to this issue.

[The Nehor]

Or maybe it is the grown-up way of saying I don't know what else to do to bring attention to this issue.

 

Because there was no attention on this issue until this guy stepped in. The whole same-sex marriage thing would have been completely under the radar if not for this brave citizen calling attention to it and pointing out that Utah can simply nullify the decision in contradiction to all established legal precedent.

 

Plus he's cheating. He's taking vitamins. Hey BUDDY!!!! YOU'RE AN INSULT TO HUNGER STRIKERS EVERYWHERE!!!!!

[ERayR]

Because there was no attention on this issue until this guy stepped in. The whole same-sex marriage thing would have been completely under the radar if not for this brave citizen calling attention to it and pointing out that Utah can simply nullify the decision in contradiction to all established legal precedent.

 

Plus he's cheating. He's taking vitamins. Hey BUDDY!!!! YOU'RE AN INSULT TO HUNGER STRIKERS EVERYWHERE!!!!!

 

You misunderstand me.  I was not talking about attention to the issue in general terms but rather his own personal efforts.  IMNSHO it is not a smart way to get attention. 

[Stone holm]

It's my opinion.  And I am right.  There's the Reference.  What do you think, there's some "authoritative" source for this?  Get a grip.

 

Perhaps a British person might not understand that each state has it's own Constitution, and that sometimes federal judges over-reach and decide that the Federal Constitution applies to some state statute that does not violate the state constitution.  Sometimes such judges get reversed because the federal constitution does not cover the matter in quite the way that the judge thinks.  If such a judge gets reversed, then at that time SCOTUS is saying that the judge erred.  If they uphold it, then he or she didn't err.

 

But even SCOTUS can be wrong.  They sometimes, occasionally, even reverse themselves, too.

Trying to make sense of your statements. Some State judiciaries have ruled that their State Constitution required what is termed marriage equality, that is because many State Constitutions are worded slightly different than the Federal Constitution. But the 14th Amendment was specifically adopted to make sure that the individual liberties we associate with the Federal Constitution apply to the States. If a State statute or a State Constitution violates the 14th Amendment then it fails. State Constitutions do not trump the 14th Amendment. The Federal Government may not have the authority to enact marriage laws, but the Federal Courts do have the right to strike down State provisions regarding marriage which violate the Federal Constitution. The State if it targets a minority must have at least a rational basis, otherwise they are vulnerable to a Constitutional challenge. The DOMA case is unclear since the opinions of the majority were not all based on the same theories. But DOMA was a Federal statute a portion of which was held invalid. But since it was a Federal statute the 14th Amendment did not apply. There has been some confusion regarding the DOMA case as to whether it is a ruling based on Federalism, or a 5th Amendment case. Although Scalia in his dissent may have created a self fulfilling prophecy which wound up guiding the opinion in Utah to a conclusion he did not desire.

[Stargazer]

Trying to make sense of your statements. Some State judiciaries have ruled that their State Constitution required what is termed marriage equality, that is because many State Constitutions are worded slightly different than the Federal Constitution. But the 14th Amendment was specifically adopted to make sure that the individual liberties we associate with the Federal Constitution apply to the States. If a State statute or a State Constitution violates the 14th Amendment then it fails. State Constitutions do not trump the 14th Amendment. The Federal Government may not have the authority to enact marriage laws, but the Federal Courts do have the right to strike down State provisions regarding marriage which violate the Federal Constitution. The State if it targets a minority must have at least a rational basis, otherwise they are vulnerable to a Constitutional challenge. The DOMA case is unclear since the opinions of the majority were not all based on the same theories. But DOMA was a Federal statute a portion of which was held invalid. But since it was a Federal statute the 14th Amendment did not apply. There has been some confusion regarding the DOMA case as to whether it is a ruling based on Federalism, or a 5th Amendment case. Although Scalia in his dissent may have created a self fulfilling prophecy which wound up guiding the opinion in Utah to a conclusion he did not desire.

 

 

I just deleted four paragraphs of verbiage discussing this.  It's pointless.

 

It is a fact that marriage is a relationship contract between 2 persons of opposite sex.  That is and has been the definition of it for a million years or so.  Arguing that a relationship contract between two persons of same sex is a marraige is absurd on its face.  It is like arguming that roses are daisies.  The fact that some persons insist that marriage be redefined to suit them is nonsense.

 

I might as well start a legal fight to allow me to marry my cat.

[Stone holm]

I just deleted four paragraphs of verbiage discussing this.  It's pointless.

 

It is a fact that marriage is a relationship contract between 2 persons of opposite sex.  That is and has been the definition of it for a million years or so.  Arguing that a relationship contract between two persons of same sex is a marraige is absurd on its face.  It is like arguming that roses are daisies.  The fact that some persons insist that marriage be redefined to suit them is nonsense.

 

I might as well start a legal fight to allow me to marry my cat.

Oh sorry, thought you were trying to formulate a cognizable legal argument rather than just making assertions.

[thesometimesaint]

I just deleted four paragraphs of verbiage discussing this.  It's pointless.

 

It is a fact that marriage is a relationship contract between 2 persons of opposite sex.  That is and has been the definition of it for a million years or so.  Arguing that a relationship contract between two persons of same sex is a marraige is absurd on its face.  It is like arguming that roses are daisies.  The fact that some persons insist that marriage be redefined to suit them is nonsense.

 

I might as well start a legal fight to allow me to marry my cat.

Then why were blacks of opposite sex not allowed to be legally married in this country? Then why was it illegal for a white and black person of opposite sex to be legally married until Loving V Virginia?

 

Humans have existed for about 1/5 that time. We have no record of any marriage rites until about 6000 years ago. We in the US get our marriage laws from the Romans by way of the Britain's from about 200 CE.

 

Issues of species separation and legal consent would make doing that problematic.

 

Ps; http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/utah-same-sex-marriage-opponents-call-for-uprising

 

Pretty sure an "uprising" would be as bad for the State of Utah just as it was bad for the South in the 1860's.

[Stone holm]

Then why were blacks of opposite sex not allowed to be legally married in this country? Then why was it illegal for a white and black person of opposite sex to be legally married until Loving V Virginia?

 

Humans have existed for about 1/5 that time. We have no record of any marriage rites until about 6000 years ago. We in the US get our marriage laws from the Romans by way of the Britain's from about 200 CE.

 

Issues of species separation and legal consent would make doing that problematic.

 

Ps; http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/utah-same-sex-marriage-opponents-call-for-uprising

 

Pretty sure an "uprising" would be as bad for the State of Utah just as it was bad for the South in the 1860's.

Species consent, so a dog doing his thing on your leg wouldn't constitute consent? The Scandanavian countries seemed to have a lot of legends about cross pollination, was that because of the long nights and cold climate?

[thesometimesaint]

Species consent, so a dog doing his thing on your leg wouldn't constitute consent? The Scandanavian countries seemed to have a lot of legends about cross pollination, was that because of the long nights and cold climate?

 

The term I used was legal consent. Nonhuman species, and human minors for most in this country, don't have legal consent. Though I do remember at time when legal consent to marry was 14 years of age. At least 18 years old is now the norm.

 

Human to nonhuman reproduction is not possible. So legends about it are just that. It's called a three dog night for a reason.

[Stone holm]

The term I used was legal consent. Nonhuman species, and human minors for most in this country, don't have legal consent. Though I do remember at time when legal consent to marry was 14 years of age. At least 18 years old is now the norm.

 

Human to nonhuman reproduction is not possible. So legends about it are just that. It's called a three dog night for a reason.

Really so all the bird brains if have encountered over the years are not actually of avian descent, oh my. Actually consent with regards to marriage is something of a modern conception.

[Daniel2]

Editorial: Time to let gay marriage ban go, Utah

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57354282-219/utah-marriage-sex-court.html.csp

Gay marriage is not going away

First Published Jan 05 2014 10:12 pm 

Last Updated Jan 05 2014 10:12 pm

   

Those wanting to bring back a ban on same-sex marriage in Utah should carefully consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion when it struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. The opinion, written by the court’s traditional swing vote, Ronald Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, had this to say about DOMA:

"This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects. ... And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

It’s simply not logical to expect the same court to now say, "But all this is OK in Utah."

That is why U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby two weeks ago killed Utah’s same-sex marriage ban and declined to stay his decision when it was appealed. And it’s why the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a stay and gave no indication that Utah’s appeal would succeed.

If Utah’s leaders feel blindsided by those decisions, then they haven’t been paying attention. Same-sex attraction, far from being unnatural, has been around since the dawn of time, and in recent decades mainstream America has come to accept it as something other than deviant. The American Psychiatric Association has considered homosexuality a normal sexual variation, not a mental disorder, since 1973. The Supreme Court in 2003 made same-sex sexual activity legal in every state, and then last June the court took that step of saying same-sex couples have a due-process right to marry.

Younger people by and large take a more libertarian view of same-sex relationships, and that is what has fueled the nation’s shift since Utah passed its ban in 2004.

There are 32 states with laws still in effect banning gay marriage, but only one state has passed such a law since 2006. Since that time seven state legislatures have passed laws to allow same-sex marriage, and three more states did so through popular vote. Court decisions have struck down the laws in another seven states, including Utah. One of those states is California, where state officials stopped defending their same-sex marriage ban when it became obvious where the future lies.

Utah’s ban passed with 66 percent of voters approving it, but it’s a legitimate question whether it would pass today if another election were held. Even the LDS Church has gone from actively participating in the marriage wars to simply explaining its own beliefs and practices.

The tide has turned. It’s time for Utah to turn with it.

[Daniel2]

Court stops Utah gay marriages

Posted Mon, January 6th, 2014 10:34 am by Lyle Denniston

The Supreme Court on Monday morning put on hold a federal judge’s decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, thus stopping a wave of such marriages across the state.  The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it.

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents.  The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman.  Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law.

Since the Monday order provided no explanation, it was not clear which of the arguments made by state officials had been convincing to the Justices.  The state had argued, among other things, that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s decision nullifying Utah’s ban had preempted the power of the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on that question.  The state also had contended that its interest in enforcing its ban would have been undercut by a refusal of a stay.  And it had said that it would be difficult to untangle marriages that had occurred in the meantime, if the ban were ultimately upheld in the courts.

The state had asked for a delay from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles such emergency requests from the geographic region that includes Utah — that is, the Tenth Circuit.  She referred it to the full Court rather than acting alone.

The Court appeared not to have labored over what to do with the request:  it acted within a short time after the final written filing had been submitted by state officials, earlier in the day.

As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision.  The appeals court has ordered briefing to begin on January 27 and to be completed by February 25.  It has indicated it is not likely to grant any extensions of time to file those documents.  It has not yet set a hearing date.

With the Justices’ order in the case, it now appears almost certain that the question of state power to bar same-sex marriages will not be before the Justices during the current Term.  A case on that issue would have to be granted this month to be reviewed before the Court is expected to finish this Term in late June.

With the postponement in Utah, the total of states where gays and lesbians are now allowed to marry stands at seventeen.  A variety of lawsuits are proceeding across the country, attempting to advance that cause in other states.  There will also be efforts in some state legislatures to clear the way for such marriages.

[Danzo]

Finally a Victory for the 10th amendment! (It seems like that amendment has been overlooked a lot lately)

[thesometimesaint]

Really so all the bird brains if have encountered over the years are not actually of avian descent, oh my. Actually consent with regards to marriage is something of a modern conception.

 

True. However I can't imagine what it would like to marry a 14-15 year old girl. Maybe I should ask Mr. Robertson of "Duck Dynasty" fame(infamy).

[Daniel2]

Finally a Victory for the 10th amendment! (It seems like that amendment has been overlooked a lot lately)

How do you see the stay as being related to the 10th ammendment?

D

[webbles]

Then why were blacks of opposite sex not allowed to be legally married in this country? Then why was it illegal for a white and black person of opposite sex to be legally married until Loving V Virginia?

 

Probably because those states that disallowed were going against traditional marriage.  Intermarriage of races has been going on far longer than the existence of this country and was perfectly acceptable many of the states.

 

And just to point out, but the marriage in the Loving vs Virginia trial was a legal marriage from Washington D.C.  One of the main problems with the Virginia law was that it actively punished white/non-white relationships.  That's quite a bit different from the current laws.

[california boy]

Probably because those states that disallowed were going against traditional marriage.  Intermarriage of races has been going on far longer than the existence of this country and was perfectly acceptable many of the states.

 

And just to point out, but the marriage in the Loving vs Virginia trial was a legal marriage from Washington D.C.  One of the main problems with the Virginia law was that it actively punished white/non-white relationships.  That's quite a bit different from the current laws.

Your current definition of traditional marriage is far different than other peoples definition of traditional marriage. 

 

And just to point out, that EXACT same situation is true today.  A gay couple legally married in Washington D.C. is not recognized in Virginia.  There is not one bit of difference in the situation.  The only difference is that looking back now, we find the illegalities of that marriage laughable.  You are looking at gay marriage the exact same way as the people of Virginia looked at interracial marriage in their day.  

[Danzo]

How do you see the stay as being related to the 10th ammendment?

D

 

It is (a temporary at least) recognition of a states rights to control its own affairs (especially since marriage is not part of the federal constitution).

[Stone holm]

It is (a temporary at least) recognition of a states rights to control its own affairs (especially since marriage is not part of the federal constitution).

Yeah ever since Madison said it was merely a tautology lacking any independent substance it has been neglected