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

[ERayR]

Does it not register that the US Supreme Court has put a stay on this judges ruling?

[Daniel2]

Does it not register that the US Supreme Court has put a stay on this judges ruling?

Do you believe anyone is overlooking the fact that SCOTUS has issued a stay until the court of appeals weighs in?

[Daniel2]

Suit to get gay marriages recognized moves to Utah’s federal court

Hearing on Amendment 3 also gets April date.

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57467438-219/court-utah-case-state.html.csp

First Published Jan 29 2014 02:46 pm • Last Updated Jan 29 2014 10:37 pm

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Utah on behalf of four same-sex couples who are contesting the state’s refusal to recognize their marriages has been moved from state court to federal court.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office filed a notice on Tuesday, moving the case from the 3rd District Court in West Jordan to the U.S. District Court for Utah. The case has been assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball.

The ACLU and the law firm of Strindberg & Scholnick filed the case on Jan. 21 on behalf of JoNell Evans and Stacia Ireland; Marina Gomberg and Elenor Heyborne; Matthew Barraza and Tony Milner; and Donald Johnson and Carl Fritz Shultz.

The plaintiffs all married after U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Dec. 20 ruling that Utah’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Defendants in the case are the state, Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes.

The couples allege that the state’s decision to place a hold on the marriages while it appeals Shelby’s ruling has created a "legal limbo" that prevents them from pursuing critical protections for themselves and their families.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals announced oral arguments in the state’s appeal will take place April 10. The case will be decided by a panel of three judges, who will be randomly assigned about 10 days before the hearing.

The 10th Circuit has agreed to let the same panel handle an appeal from Oklahoma, where a lower court struck down a similar ban on same-sex marriage. The court also will allow amicus briefs to be filed jointly in the Utah and Oklahoma cases. The appellate court has set an expedited briefing schedule for Oklahoma, with the last filings due April 7. The last filings in the Utah case are due March 4.

In the ACLU lawsuit, the plaintiffs want the court to declare valid any marriages that took place between Dec. 20 and Jan. 6, when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision, even if Amendment 3 is eventually found to be constitutional.

County clerks in Utah issued more than 1,300 marriage licenses during that 17-day period and the outcome of the lawsuit could affect all of those who married.

The Attorney General’s Office said the lawsuit alleges federal civil rights violations, which are more appropriately addressed in federal court.

John Mejia, legal director for the ACLU of Utah, said, "No matter what the forum, we will continue to advance the litigation."

brooke@sltrib.com

[Daniel2]

Another ruling, this time refusing to overturn marriage equality in Hawaii:

Hawaii Same-Sex Marriage Law Constitutional, Judge Rules

http://bigislandnow.com/2014/01/30/hawaii-same-sex-marriage-law-constitutional-judge-rules/

By Dave Smith

An Oahu judge has ruled against a lawsuit challenging the law passed last year legalizing same-sex marriages.

First Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled Wednesday that the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 is constitutional under both the state and federal constitutions.

Hawaii Attorney General David M. Louie issued a statement saying the ruling “unequivocally affirmed the right of people to marry the person they love without regard to gender.”

“This is a very good day for the people of Hawaii,” Louie said.

Following lengthy sessions, the bill was passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Neil Abercrombie in November.

A lawsuit challenging the move was filed by Rep. Bob McDermott, a Republican from Oahu, before the bill was even approved.

Sakamoto twice previously declined to issue injunctions requested by McDermott, the first to block the governor from signing the billand the second stopping the state from issuing same-gender marriage licenses.

Sakamoto’s ruling Wednesday was in response to a motion filed by Louie for a summary judgment.

Since the law went into effect on Dec. 2, more than 670 same-sex couples have been married and another 230 have requested licenses.

McDermott has said he intends to appeal the ruling.

[Stargazer]

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

 

Yeah, sure.  I tried that.  Gave up.  Too many people are trying to make apple pies out of mud and proclaiming the results delicious and full of minerals.  

 

Golly, my four week vacation from this place proves it: nothing changes.  Especially perversity.

[Stargazer]

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.

 

The logic of this escapes me.  Blacks were once forbidden to marry someone of the opposite sex who were White.  Now this ridiculous law has been overturned.  Therefore, men may now marry men.  Same thing about blacks of opposite sex forbidden to marry each other.  Because at one time slaves of the opposite sex were not allowed to marry each other, but now there is no more black chattel slavery (in this country), so therefore men may now marry men.

 

Can you say "non sequitor"?  I didn't think so.

 

We have abandoned logic for madness.  Like Saruman.

 

Why are first cousins generally forbidden to marry?  How about brothers and sisters?  Mothers and sons?  And so on?  So now you're going to argue that they ought to be allowed to do so?  After all, if men may marry men, then toss all the rules out, they make people sad?

[Stone holm]

The logic of this escapes me.  Blacks were once forbidden to marry someone of the opposite sex who were White.  Now this ridiculous law has been overturned.  Therefore, men may now marry men.  Same thing about blacks of opposite sex forbidden to marry each other.  Because at one time slaves of the opposite sex were not allowed to marry each other, but now there is no more black chattel slavery (in this country), so therefore men may now marry men.

 

Can you say "non sequitor"?  I didn't think so.

 

We have abandoned logic for madness.  Like Saruman.

 

Why are first cousins generally forbidden to marry?  How about brothers and sisters?  Mothers and sons?  And so on?  So now you're going to argue that they ought to be allowed to do so?  After all, if men may marry men, then toss all the rules out, they make people sad?

Actually having trouble understanding your explanation. You are saying race discrimination is different from gender orientation discrimination, because of slavery? Closely related marriages are banned for birth defect reasons, and in the case of parent child for consensual reasons, what does this have to do with SSM?

[Daniel2]

Utah files its brief...

State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57491436-219/marriage-state-utah-sex.html.csp

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Feb 04 2014 03:07 am

The state of Utah offered a tailored defense of its ban on same-sex marriage in a brief filed late Monday evening with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing its laws are all about the long-term interests of children.

Utah has chosen a definition of marriage that is "principally a child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults," the state said. "And by reinforcing that understanding, the state gently encourages parents to routinely sacrifice their own interests to the legitimate needs and interests of their children."

That definition is not designed to demean other family structures "any more than giving an ‘A’ to some students demeans others," the state said.

But redefining marriage in "genderless" terms likely would result in lower reproductive rates and fewer children being raised in the ideal environment provided by biological, opposite-sex parents, the state said.

The state filed the 120-page brief at approximately 11:30 p.m. Monday, beating its deadline by 30 minutes.

Seven attorneys, led by newly hired outside counsel Gene C. Schaerr, crafted the brief.

Attorneys for the three same-sex couples who are challenging Utah’s ban have until Feb. 25 to file a response, and the state’s final filing must be submitted by March 4.

Oral arguments are scheduled for April 10 in Denver. The three-judge panel that will hear the case — as well as an appeal from the state of Oklahoma involving a similar ban — will be picked 10 days before the hearing.

The state argued that U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby’s Dec. 20 decision overturning Amendment 3 misinterpreted legal precedents in two prevailing cases — one that upheld the right of states to define marriage and, in the United States v. Windsor case, that the federal government cannot interfere with that state decision-making authority.

Together, those opinions allow for a "diversity of outcomes" rather than a "uniform national answer" on marriage rights, the state said.

The state also said Shelby erred in finding same-sex couples sought access to a fundamental right; that that right is implicit in notions of liberty and autonomy; that history and tradition were "insufficient reasons" for a ban on gay marriage; and in comparing Utah’s marriage laws to anti-miscegenation laws.

"Anti-miscegenation laws were odious measures that rested on invidious racial discrimination," the state said. "Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman may be controversial in today’s political climate, but it is hardly invidious."

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman, as Utah and 32 other states do, fulfills a compelling governmental interest rooted in tradition, social science and religion, the state said.

The attorneys said that while the state endorses no religious beliefs about marriage, its laws are supported by approximately 20 of the 25 largest faith communities in Utah who "understand marriage and sexuality as gifts from God" and primarily designed to bear and raise children.

"These beliefs are tied not only to theology but also to religious and family practices, deeply and sincerely held personal beliefs, and entire ways of life," the state said. "They are not less integral to the dignity and identities of millions of Utah citizens than plaintiffs’ sexual orientation is to them."

Upending that understanding of marriage would create the potential for "religion-related strife," it said, impacting rights of religious organizations or members to carry out faith-based or business activities.

Governments face a "perennial challenge" to formally link mothers and fathers to maximize the welfare of children, it said.

"Marriage between the man and woman who create a child provides that essential link," the state said, and encourages those parents to set aside their own personal desires for the benefit of their children.

"The district court’s ruling rests on a very different understanding of the principal public purpose and meaning of marriage — one centered on accommodating adult relationship choices," the state said.

But Utah has "steadfastly" reserved social recognition of marriage for man-woman marriage "so as to guide as many procreative couples as possible into the optimal, conjugal childrearing model."

"While other jurisdictions may choose to elevate adult-centric relationships, Utah has chosen a different course," the state said.

Utah’s marriage laws signal "all would-be parents that the state want them to do their best to ensure that any children they conceive are raised by their biological mother and father within a stable marital union."

And that model is working, the state said, as reflected by Utah having the lowest percentage of unwed births in the nation, the highest percentage of children being raised by both parents and low child-poverty rates.

"Such real-world benefits to children are exactly what Utah’s marriage policies are intended to produce, and what the district court’s decision both ignores and imperils," the state said.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would "tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent." The state lists six other possible negative outcomes of such a move, including more out-of-wedlock births; increased divorce rates; increased nonmarital sexual activity; more children being raised by same-sex parents; make it difficult to bar other "innovations" such as group marriage; and decreased interest in marriage.

Utah also has a high birthrate, slightly above the replacement rate. In comparison, fertility and birthrates are "markedly lower" in nations and states that have embraced same-sex marriage, it said.

Utah "has good reason to fear that a judge-imposed redefinition — and the changes to the public meaning of marriage such a redefinition would entail — would over time weaken its marriage tradition enough to reduce its fertility rate, perhaps even below the replacement rate," the state said.

The laws governing marriage do not interfere with the ability of same-sex couples to enter committed, loving relationships or to raise children together, the state argues.

Instead, they "encourage a familial structure that has served society for thousands of years as the ideal setting for raising children. Nothing in the federal Constitution prevents Utah’s citizens from making that choice."

I believe these "straight marriage is all about kids, so we can't allow gays to marry," "marriage can mean different things in different states," and "marriage is religiously meaningful so allowing gays to civilly marry may cause problems" approaches are both inaccurate and legally indefensible. This appeal seems doomed to fail.

[Daniel2]

Oral arguments ended in Virginia today. The article below references the Utah and Oklahoma decisions.

Virginia is considered significant because it was the case of Loving vs Virginia that went to SCOTUS and caused interracial marriage bans to be overturned nationwide:

Federal judge pledges quick ruling on Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-pledges-quick-ruling-on-virginias-same-sex-marriage-ban/2014/02/04/a8fa90c2-8dc8-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html

By Robert Barnes 

♧Published: FEBRUARY 04, 6:16 PM

NORFOLK — One of Virginia’s top legal officers recounted the commonwealth’s history of discrimination Tuesday in asking a federal judge to strike down the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages.

Virginia Solicitor General Stuart A. Raphael compared the state constitutional amendment banning such unions to the commonwealth’s previous defense of segregation, a ban on interracial marriage and resistance to admitting women to VMI — all decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

“We are not going to make the mistakes our predecessors made,” Raphael told U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.

Wright Allen did not ask a question of any of the five lawyers who addressed her during the nearly two hours of arguments but said she will rule quickly on an issue that all agreed will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

“You’ll be hearing from me soon,” she said, emphasizing the last word.

At issue is a question the Supreme Court justices left unanswered in June in their first consideration of same-sex marriage: Does a state’s traditional role in defining marriage mean it may ban same-sex unions without violating the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians?

The case in Wright Allen’s courtroom marked the first time such a challenge has advanced so far in a state that was part of the Old South.

New Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) infuriated Republicans and conservatives in the state when he decided soon after taking office last month that he would not defend the ban.

Republicans in the legislature — and some sign-carrying critics outside the courthouse Tuesday — accuse him of abandoning his duty to defend state laws. The House of Delegates has passed a bill that would allow it to hire its own lawyer to participate in future legal proceedings, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond and possibly the Supreme Court.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the law was defended by lawyers for the circuit court clerks in Norfolk and Prince William County, who issue marriage licenses.

One of the lawyers, Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, told Wright Allen that Virginia had an interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman because of the unique “procreative dynamic” shared by heterosexual couples.

“We have marriage laws in society because we have children, not because we have adults,” said Nimocks, who is representing Prince William Clerk Michele McQuigg. She asked to intervene in the case because she was afraid Herring would take the action he did.

Nimocks said there was no reason to believe that the legislature, and then 1.3 million Virginians, voted for the constitutional amendment in order to discriminate against gays.

Virginia’s law, he said, “celebrates the diversity of the sexes.” It should not be surprising that officials and voters want to protect a traditional view of marriage that has “animated Virginia law for 400 years,” he said.

David Oakley, representing Norfolk Clerk George E. Schaefer, said it might be true that public opinion has changed since 2006, when 57 percent of voters approved the constitutional amendment.

“If there truly has been a shift in public opinion, it is more appropriate to allow the General Assembly and voters to make that decision,” Oakley said.

But lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies, who have led the legal movement on same-sex marriage, told Wright Allen that courts must step in when there is discrimination.

“Virginia erects a wall around its gay and lesbian citizens, excluding them from the most important relation in life,” Olson said, adding that marriage was a fundamental right that is about “freedom” and “liberty.”

Boies said the state is harming children being raised in same-sex households by “denying recognition and legitimacy” to their parents’ relationships.

And Olson told the judge that she must be suspicious of decisions by the majority that single out groups that have historically been the victims of discrimination.

“Sometimes the voters and the legislature get it wrong,” and the result violates the constitution, he told Wright Allen. “So, we have you.”

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of two Virginia couples. Timothy Bostic and Tony London have lived together for more than 20 years and were denied a marriage license last summer by Schaefer, the Norfolk Circuit Court clerk. Mary Townley and Carol Schall of Chesterfield County were married in California and have a teenage daughter. They want Virginia to recognize their marriage.

It will be the most important decision in the young judicial career of Wright Allen, who was confirmed to the bench in 2011. She is a Navy veteran who has served as both a prosecutor and federal public defender. She was nominated by President Obama on the recommendation of Sen. Mark R. Warner (D) and then-Sen. James Webb (D).

She will need to interpret the Supreme Court's decision in June in U.S. v. Windsorstriking down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

On the one hand, the Windsor decision noted the state role in defining marriage. On the other, it dismissed as discrimination many of the arguments used to justify bans on same-sex marriages.

Federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma have said that the reasoning used by the court majority meant that marriage bans in those states cannot stand. Same-sex marriages took place in Utah, but both decisions are now stayed pending appeal.

The highest courts in New Jersey and New Mexico have held that same-sex couples have the right to be married there. Seventeen states, including Maryland but not counting Utah and Oklahoma, now allow such unions.

In addition to the Norfolk suit, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Virginia ban in a federal suit in Harrisonburg. Last week, U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski certified that as a class action on behalf of the estimated 15,000 same-sex couples in Virginia who might want to marry.

[california boy]

Utah files its brief...

I believe these "straight marriage is all about kids, so we can't allow gays to marry," "marriage can mean different things in different states," and "marriage is religiously meaningful so allowing gays to civilly marry may cause problems" approaches are both inaccurate and legally indefensible. This appeal seems doomed to fail.

Thank you Utah.  Their arguments have already been addressed by the Supreme Court and ruled against.  They bring no legitimate argument to justify not allowing gays to marry.  But of course, we expected that.  There are no legal arguments to justify discrimination against gays.  Whether Virginia or Utah become the case that goes before the Supreme Court, few have doubts of the outcome.  In the end, the United States has always sided for equality.  

[Stargazer]

Actually having trouble understanding your explanation. You are saying race discrimination is different from gender orientation discrimination, because of slavery? Closely related marriages are banned for birth defect reasons, and in the case of parent child for consensual reasons, what does this have to do with SSM?

 

I am not talking about discrimination.  I am talking about equating the nutty practice of justifying SSM using the striking down of miscegenation statutes.  

[Stargazer]

Thank you Utah.  Their arguments have already been addressed by the Supreme Court and ruled against.  They bring no legitimate argument to justify not allowing gays to marry.  But of course, we expected that.  There are no legal arguments to justify discrimination against gays.  Whether Virginia or Utah become the case that goes before the Supreme Court, few have doubts of the outcome.  In the end, the United States has always sided for equality.  

 

Marriage has always been about the generation of children.  If no children are possible, meaning that a sexual union does not hold the potentiality of producing children, then marriage is superfluous.  And it is not about the right to have homosexual relations, which society has finally conceded, it is about the propriety of equating gay sex with heterosexual sex by way of calling a non-hetero relationship a "marriage".  It is about redefining the word.  I do understand that you are interested in having homosexual relationships "dignified" by being called "marriages".  You're entitled to your feelings on the matter.  

 

But calling a gay relationship a "marriage" does nothing to change the nature of the relationship, simply because, in itself it is fruitless (in that it will never bear fruit, and never could bear fruit)  And calling it a marriage gives it nothing but a false dignity, in the same way that calling a rose a gladiola would do.

 

This is not a legal argument.  It's a logical argument.  Which I expect you and others to reject.  And so be it.

[Stone holm]

Marriage has always been about the generation of children.  If no children are possible, meaning that a sexual union does not hold the potentiality of producing children, then marriage is superfluous.  And it is not about the right to have homosexual relations, which society has finally conceded, it is about the propriety of equating gay sex with heterosexual sex by way of calling a non-hetero relationship a "marriage".  It is about redefining the word.  I do understand that you are interested in having homosexual relationships "dignified" by being called "marriages".  You're entitled to your feelings on the matter.  

 

But calling a gay relationship a "marriage" does nothing to change the nature of the relationship, simply because, in itself it is fruitless (in that it will never bear fruit, and never could bear fruit)  And calling it a marriage gives it nothing but a false dignity, in the same way that calling a rose a gladiola would do.

 

This is not a legal argument.  It's a logical argument.  Which I expect you and others to reject.  And so be it.

I don't think the Church would agree with you that if a sexual relationship does not have the possibility of creating children that marriage is superfluous . If you have sex outside of marriage and both of you are over 60 , you are in danger of Church discipline. The idea that marriage is solely about having children is completely bogus. Even we teach that the most important relationship between mortals is between the husband and wife, not the parent and child.

[california boy]

Marriage has always been about the generation of children.  If no children are possible, meaning that a sexual union does not hold the potentiality of producing children, then marriage is superfluous.  And it is not about the right to have homosexual relations, which society has finally conceded, it is about the propriety of equating gay sex with heterosexual sex by way of calling a non-hetero relationship a "marriage".  It is about redefining the word.  I do understand that you are interested in having homosexual relationships "dignified" by being called "marriages".  You're entitled to your feelings on the matter.  

 

But calling a gay relationship a "marriage" does nothing to change the nature of the relationship, simply because, in itself it is fruitless (in that it will never bear fruit, and never could bear fruit)  And calling it a marriage gives it nothing but a false dignity, in the same way that calling a rose a gladiola would do.

 

This is not a legal argument.  It's a logical argument.  Which I expect you and others to reject.  And so be it.

You suspect right.  Perhaps even for you it is not a logical argument.  It sounds more like someone desperately trying to justify a position of denying someone equal protection under the laws of this country.  If marriage is only about having children, then why bother looking for someone you want to spent your life with.  Just find someone who is fertile and marry them so you can have children.  Do you really think that is how marriage works?  Do you really think that the sole reason someone marries is to have children?  Your position is absurd and simply the way you have figured out to justify your prejudice against gays marrying.

 

I want to add something more personal here.  While I deeply love my boyfriend and have been with him for over 5 years in California, and even though it is legal to get married in this state, we have no real desire to do so.  For me there are several reasons why it is not important to me to marry.  

 

First, we have no intentions of passing on property to each other and feel it will complicate things in the way we pass on property to our children.  

 

Second, because my religious beliefs don't think marriage is important.  (The church has done a good job in telling me that marriage is not important.)  

 

Third, we don't intend to have any more children. 

 

So my "fight" for gay marriage has nothing to do with any justification of the dignity of our relationship.  It has everything to do with infringing on the rights of others.  I simply believe that we live in a country that does not discriminate.  Period.  You want to live in a different kind of America and for you it is ok to discriminate against particular minority groups.

 

Welcome back from your vacation btw.  I have missed your crazy posts.  

[Buckeye]

I finished reading the State of Utah's appellate brief (http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1294036.pdf).  I won't get into how weak the arguments are, the gross distortion of Loving, or the fact that these arguments have been proven failures.  No, what I find most intriguing is the State's claim that marriage is "child-centric," which directly conflicts with fundamental LDS teachings.  In every church lesson I've participated, and in the example my own parents showed, marriage centers around the couple and Christ, not around the children. 

 

My father told me and my siblings that he loved us deeply, but he loved mom more.  The church's Gospel Topic for "marriage" (http://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng&query=marriage) includes no discussion about children.  The entire discussion revolves around the relationship between spouses and God.  For instance: "Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22)."  (emphasis supplied).

 

So if LDS teachings do not place children at the center of the marriage relationship, why does the State of Utah's brief do so?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

But calling a gay relationship a "marriage" does nothing to change the nature of the relationship, simply because, in itself it is fruitless (in that it will never bear fruit, and never could bear fruit)  And calling it a marriage gives it nothing but a false dignity, in the same way that calling a rose a gladiola would do.

 

This is not a legal argument.  It's a logical argument.  Which I expect you and others to reject.  And so be it.

Been there done that it just falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

[california boy]

Been there done that it just falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

Meaning of course that others disagree with you and feel marriage is extremely important whether the couple has children or not.  Certainly the church feels that way about everyone elses marriage.  Otherwise why encourage anyone to marry?  My daughter has been married for about 7 years and still doesn't have children.  Do you really think that I should have told her not to bother to marry until she and her husband decide to have children??  It is no wonder that this just falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.  I doubt many Mormons would even agree with this silly idea.

[Daniel2]

Been there done that it just falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

"I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see."

The Grace we find in and receive from love truly is Amazing.

[Stone holm]

Read the brief. Decided to read the portion about the decline of the birth rate being due to SSM to my wife who is much more conservative than I on such issues. She broke out laughing. We have in our office a rule about all arguments to be made before a judge have to pass the straight face test, I don't think I could make that one with a straight face. The argument that you consider the degree of potential for religious strife when determining the status of a minority's rights would also be a tough one to deliver. Their Federalism argument was their best shot, I don't think all of the procreation and ideal parenting arguments are going to fly well, but its possible they might persuade Kennedy, if he doesn't get turned off by the clear Establishment Clause taint they interjected with the religious strife argument and the speech the counsel made about his religious moral duty.

[Daniel2]

Nevada AG ends fight to uphold gay marriage ban

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57525430-78/state-nevada-ban-marriage.html.csp

The Associated Press

First Published 1 hour ago • Updated 1 hour ago

Carson City, Nev. • Nevada is withdrawing its efforts to uphold the state’s gay marriage ban.

Attorney General Catherine Corte Masto filed a motion Monday to withdraw the state’s legal arguments in a case pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval says he agrees with the move, saying it’s clear the state’s arguments supporting the ban are no longer defensible in court.

The decision means Nevada will not argue to uphold the state’s constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage that voters passed in 2002.

Eight same sex couple sued the state, arguing the law is unconstitutional.

Nevada lawmakers last year took the first step toward repealing that law. If legislators approve Senate Joint Resolution 13 again next year, it would go to voters on the 2016 ballot.

[california boy]

When you get a Republican Governor saying this"

 

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval says he agrees with the move, saying it’s clear the state’s arguments supporting the ban are no longer defensible in court.

 

 

You know that people are finally realizing that there has never been a legal reason to prevent gay marriage.  Now it is just going through the steps to get the Supreme Court to make a ruling.  

 

And maybe more important is that gay marriage will no longer be a nightly news issue.  No more Grammy mass weddings, Rose Bowl float weddings, and hopefully big hullabaloo over gay football players.  

[Stone holm]

When you get a Republican Governor saying this"

 

 

You know that people are finally realizing that there has never been a legal reason to prevent gay marriage.  Now it is just going through the steps to get the Supreme Court to make a ruling.  

 

And maybe more important is that gay marriage will no longer be a nightly news issue.  No more Grammy mass weddings, Rose Bowl float weddings, and hopefully big hullabaloo over gay football players.  

 

Apparently the Church does not agree, since it filed a brief in the Utah case.  Does anyone have a link to the brief that the Church filed?

[thesometimesaint]

Apparently the Church does not agree, since it filed a brief in the Utah case.  Does anyone have a link to the brief that the Church filed?

 

Can't seem to bring up a direct link. But here is a pretty good summary of the arguments.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57491436-78/state-marriage-utah-sex.html.csp

 

The Church is using a religious argument. I'm pretty sure that religious based arguments shouldn't hold much sway when it comes to legality.

[Daniel2]

Apparently the Church does not agree, since it filed a brief in the Utah case.  Does anyone have a link to the brief that the Church filed?

You can find a link here: http://fox13now.com/2014/02/10/lds-church-other-churches-file-friend-of-the-court-brief-in-amendment-3-case/

[Stone holm]

Can't seem to bring up a direct link. But here is a pretty good summary of the arguments.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57491436-78/state-marriage-utah-sex.html.csp

 

The Church is using a religious argument. I'm pretty sure that religious based arguments shouldn't hold much sway when it comes to legality.

It sounded like it, but I don't trust articles which synopsis the brief, I can't imagine the Church signing onto a blatantly establishment brief, the dangers we as Mormons face from establishment proponents are just too great.