Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[JakeStarkey]

Very good, Jarlaxle.

Piss off, human spambot.

Says the bot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

YOUR own link says there is a subsidy, at least in certain situations

By that same logic I could say to you get married to someone of the opposite sex to get your tax break.

That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?

ITS YOUR LOGIC!!!!

The 14th amendment was never meant to apply to gender issues or it would have legalized womens' suffrage.

That's your opinion, but SCOTUS won't note it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?

Still on about that Loving v Virginia angle eh Seawytch?

SCOTUS brought it up in DOMA and then went on to affirm that gay marriage as of their Decision, was "only allowed" "in some states", not all of them. So I guess they could completely change their minds within one year's time about the applicability of Loving to LGBT/Harvey Milk cult, but don't hold your breath..

And that it cannot supersede the 14th. Tough that.

 

[Kondor3]

Civil rights are based on the government treating all law-abiding tax paying citizens equally under the law. It's really that simple.

Exactly...

All law-abiding tax-paying men are free to marry law-abiding tax-paying women.

All law-abiding tax-paying women are free to marry law-abiding tax-paying men.

So you admit to gender discrimination.

I admit nothing.

How is the above discrimination?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep.
And they are not based on one's sexual practices either.

Civil rights are based on the government treating all law-abiding tax paying citizens equally under the law. It's really that simple.

if its really that simple than no person on the basis of their relationship status should get favorable tax treatment.

False argument because the legislature cannot deny civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep.

And they are not based on one's sexual practices either.

Civil rights are based on the government treating all law-abiding tax paying citizens equally under the law. It's really that simple.

Not according to SCOTUS.

States can define marriage.

It is really that simple.

The will of the people of those states is paramount.

Why can't you respect that ?

The will of the people subordinate to the Constitution. Why can't you respect that?

 

[Seawytch]

YOUR own link says there is a subsidy, at least in certain situations

By that same logic I could say to you get married to someone of the opposite sex to get your tax break.

That's pretty dern close to what they said to interracial couples. How'd that argument turn out in court?

ITS YOUR LOGIC!!!!

The 14th amendment was never meant to apply to gender issues or it would have legalized womens' suffrage.

Because Section II of the 14th Amendment addressed, specifically, the right to vote.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Civil rights are based on the government treating all law-abiding tax paying citizens equally under the law. It's really that simple.

Not according to SCOTUS.

States can define marriage.

It is really that simple.

The will of the people of those states is paramount.

Why can't you respect that ?

The will of the people subordinate to the Constitution. Why can't you respect that?

Marriage is the purview of the States per the Constitution.

See Windsor for the affirmation.

 

[Seawytch]

Not according to SCOTUS.



States can define marriage.



It is really that simple.



The will of the people of those states is paramount.



Why can't you respect that ?

The will of the people subordinate to the Constitution. Why can't you respect that?

Marriage is the purview of the States per the Constitution.



See Windsor for the affirmation.

Only the states that have chosen to correctly apply the 14th Ammendment. They haven't ruled on states like yours yet, but they will have to soon. The lawsuits are piling up!

 

[OODA_Loop]

The will of the people subordinate to the Constitution. Why can't you respect that?

Marriage is the purview of the States per the Constitution.



See Windsor for the affirmation.

Only the states that have chosen to correctly apply the 14th Ammendment. They haven't ruled on states like yours yet, but they will have to soon. The lawsuits are piling up!

They had a chance to affirm Windsor based on the 14th but they chose the 10th ????

State's right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage is the purview of the States per the Constitution.

See Windsor for the affirmation.

In United States v. Windsor the SCOTUS did not state that Civil Marriage was totally in the purview of the States. We know that isn't true because the SCOTUS found in Loving that the States had exceeded their powers. Loving overturned State Civil Marriage laws.

What they said in Windsor was "Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,”.

It's pretty important to note that the SCOTUS does not feel that Windsor settled the issue in terms of States ability to say "No" to Same-sex Civil Marriage (as the case had nothing to do with States that said "No". It was only about Federal recognition for States that said "Yes". From Chief Justice Roberts in the Windsor documentation:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and he
logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether
the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority
to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage."​

I think the Chief Justice pointing out that Windsor has no bearing on whether the States have the power to say "No" is pretty important in determining the scope of Windsor.

They had a chance to affirm Windsor based on the 14th but they chose the 10th ????

State's right.

United States v. Windsor was not decided based on either 14th or 10th Amendments which apply to the States, Windsor was decided based on 5th Amendment principals which apply to the Federal government.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose
overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure
those whom the State, by its marage laws, sought to protect
in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection
and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected
than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to
those lawful marriages."​

The last sentence in the above from the court also points out what Chief Justice Roberts said, "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages." The scope of the Windsor decision concerns only Federal recognition of lawful marriages entered into under State law. It does not address the question about whether States have the power to discriminate for no compelling reason against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage. That will be a different case and (IMHO) it looks like the SCOTUS won't be able to dodge the Utah case.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

>>>>

 

[Jarlaxle]

Very good, Jarlaxle.

Piss off, human spambot.

Says the bot.

Projection is not healthy, boy! Back to your padded room, now.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are we to assume then that you would prefer a "smarter" approach? Maybe an approach that appeals to bigots and fear mongers? An approach that erodes personal rights and freedoms? An approach that alienates not only young voters, but educated voters and homosexuals all in one fell swoop?

What was it you were saying about a "Dumb Party"?

The 1st Amendment rights and the rights reaffirmed in DOMA in Utah are superior to the pleas of the Harvey Milk-worshipping LGBTers. Sorry. Sexual fetish cults don't take precedence over state's consensus' rights in marriage qualifiers. If they did, polygamy would have to be affirmed in Utah as well.

Don't look for that to happen with this SCOTUS. I guarantee they are not going down in US history as "the Court that ushered polygamy back in Utah as a mandate"..lol...no way Jose'. Not in a million years.

First amendment rights?!? If marriage equality is denied in Utah, wouldn't that run counter to the First amendment? Such denial would, in effect, establish religous dogma as law.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Are we to assume then that you would prefer a "smarter" approach? Maybe an approach that appeals to bigots and fear mongers? An approach that erodes personal rights and freedoms? An approach that alienates not only young voters, but educated voters and homosexuals all in one fell swoop?

What was it you were saying about a "Dumb Party"?

The 1st Amendment rights and the rights reaffirmed in DOMA in Utah are superior to the pleas of the Harvey Milk-worshipping LGBTers. Sorry. Sexual fetish cults don't take precedence over state's consensus' rights in marriage qualifiers. If they did, polygamy would have to be affirmed in Utah as well.

Don't look for that to happen with this SCOTUS. I guarantee they are not going down in US history as "the Court that ushered polygamy back in Utah as a mandate"..lol...no way Jose'. Not in a million years.

First amendment rights?!? If marriage equality is denied in Utah, wouldn't that run counter to the First amendment? Such denial would, in effect, establish religous dogma as law.

Bullshit. Our laws against murder are reflected in religious dogma but I don't see you yapping that's wrong. laws against stealing, laws against adultery, on and on. No yapping from you though. Laws against sexual deviance can be reflected in law and religion too.

The issue is what defines deviance.

The perverts and queers want it defined such that their particular deviance is excluded from laws preventing what THEY want to do.

Conservative religious people want law to reflect their beliefs and the queers want the laws to reflect theirs.

Religion reflected in our laws isn't the issue.

 

[Nosmo King]

The 1st Amendment rights and the rights reaffirmed in DOMA in Utah are superior to the pleas of the Harvey Milk-worshipping LGBTers. Sorry. Sexual fetish cults don't take precedence over state's consensus' rights in marriage qualifiers. If they did, polygamy would have to be affirmed in Utah as well.

Don't look for that to happen with this SCOTUS. I guarantee they are not going down in US history as "the Court that ushered polygamy back in Utah as a mandate"..lol...no way Jose'. Not in a million years.

First amendment rights?!? If marriage equality is denied in Utah, wouldn't that run counter to the First amendment? Such denial would, in effect, establish religous dogma as law.

Bullshit. Our laws against murder are reflected in religious dogma but I don't see you yapping that's wrong. laws against stealing, laws against adultery, on and on. No yapping from you though. Laws against sexual deviance can be reflected in law and religion too.

The issue is what defines deviance.

The perverts and queers want it defined such that their particular deviance is excluded from laws preventing what THEY want to do.

Conservative religious people want law to reflect their beliefs and the queers want the laws to reflect theirs.

Religion reflected in our laws isn't the issue.

Is homosexuality a criminal offense? Are people incarcerated for simply being who they are?

Deviance is in the eye of the beholder. If two consenting adults find love with each other are they committing a crime like murder? Or robbery?

This issue is like all other issues concerning personal rights and freedoms. It is being opposed by Conservatives who hate expanding freedoms and rights. And that opposition stems from nothing but bigotry. Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

First amendment rights?!? If marriage equality is denied in Utah, wouldn't that run counter to the First amendment? Such denial would, in effect, establish religous dogma as law.

Bullshit. Our laws against murder are reflected in religious dogma but I don't see you yapping that's wrong. laws against stealing, laws against adultery, on and on. No yapping from you though. Laws against sexual deviance can be reflected in law and religion too.

The issue is what defines deviance.

The perverts and queers want it defined such that their particular deviance is excluded from laws preventing what THEY want to do.

Conservative religious people want law to reflect their beliefs and the queers want the laws to reflect theirs.

Religion reflected in our laws isn't the issue.

Is homosexuality a criminal offense? Are people incarcerated for simply being who they are?

Deviance is in the eye of the beholder. If two consenting adults find love with each other are they committing a crime like murder? Or robbery?

This issue is like all other issues concerning personal rights and freedoms. It is being opposed by Conservatives who hate expanding freedoms and rights. And that opposition stems from nothing but bigotry. Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.

Homosexuality is a sin as defined in God's Word. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament lay clear guidelines against that kind of sexual deviance.

Whether you believe The Bible or not doesn't change the fact that God's law against sexual deviance is just as compelling as His laws against murder, theft and other sins.

Queers want to redefine what the Bible says or ignore it. That's fine by me. If queers want to bunghole each other do it. But don't expect all normal people to accept it into a protection for changing the foundation of marriage into some kind of legal, even acceptable, even DESIRED new laws defining behavior.

Get back into the closet ye queers and homos.

 

[Nosmo King]

Bullshit. Our laws against murder are reflected in religious dogma but I don't see you yapping that's wrong. laws against stealing, laws against adultery, on and on. No yapping from you though. Laws against sexual deviance can be reflected in law and religion too.

The issue is what defines deviance.

The perverts and queers want it defined such that their particular deviance is excluded from laws preventing what THEY want to do.

Conservative religious people want law to reflect their beliefs and the queers want the laws to reflect theirs.

Religion reflected in our laws isn't the issue.

Is homosexuality a criminal offense? Are people incarcerated for simply being who they are?

Deviance is in the eye of the beholder. If two consenting adults find love with each other are they committing a crime like murder? Or robbery?

This issue is like all other issues concerning personal rights and freedoms. It is being opposed by Conservatives who hate expanding freedoms and rights. And that opposition stems from nothing but bigotry. Please cite a legitimate legal reason for opposing marriage equality.

Homosexuality is a sin as defined in God's Word. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament lay clear guidelines against that kind of sexual deviance.

Whether you believe The Bible or not doesn't change the fact that God's law against sexual deviance is just as compelling as His laws against murder, theft and other sins.

Queers want to redefine what the Bible says or ignore it. That's fine by me. If queers want to bunghole each other do it. But don't expect all normal people to accept it into a protection for changing the foundation of marriage into some kind of legal, even acceptable, even DESIRED new laws defining behavior.

Get back into the closet ye queers and homos.

so if your personal disdain for homosexuals stems from your personal religious beliefs (which makes no sense if your faith is based on Christian values), wouldn't it then follow that denying marriage equality is a violation of the first amendment? By denying basic rights to a group on religion is, in effect, the establishment of a religion by the state.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Why would being against homosexuality not be following the tenets of Christianity? I told you the New Testament clearly describes what's acceptable regarding sexual relationships. You can stand there and say all day that it doesn't reflect Christian's values and ANY Christian knows that's just wrong. Saying what you're saying over and over and over doesn't suddenly make you correct.

You simply fall into the category of somebody that wants to change or ignore what The Bible says.

You don't get to do that. Christians follow the New Testament.

Nobody forces you to go to church, to pray or to abide by The Bible's more nuanced laws concerning sinful behavior. Obviously you WILL obey the Bible's laws against major sins recognized by government as something good for both personal freedom and societal norms.

Like I said, you want to base the argument for queers on separation of church and State and that argument doesn't fly.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why would being against homosexuality not be following the tenets of Christianity? I told you the New Testament clearly describes what's acceptable regarding sexual relationships. You can stand there and say all day that it doesn't reflect Christian's values and ANY Christian knows that's just wrong. Saying what you're saying over and over and over doesn't suddenly make you correct.

You simply fall into the category of somebody that wants to change or ignore what The Bible says.

You don't get to do that. Christians follow the New Testament.

Nobody forces you to go to church, to pray or to abide by The Bible's more nuanced laws concerning sinful behavior. Obviously you WILL obey the Bible's laws against major sins recognized by government as something good for both personal freedom and societal norms.

Like I said, you want to base the argument for queers on separation of church and State and that argument doesn't fly.

You are using a warped interpretation of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" to rationalize and cover your personal bigotry with a flimsy veil of religios belief. You are asking Americans to create laws based on those warped interpretations. You are asking the system of jurisprudence to act as an arm of your mis-guided and incredulously irrational 'faith'.

I'm a Christian and I cannot endorse the denial of rights because homosexuals are not committing crimes against the state. I recognize that opposition to marriage equality is based on nothing criminal, but fear, suspicion and bigotry.

If you acted as a Christian, you would respect the teachings of Jesus as well as the constitution of the United States. Opposing marriage equality, and a homophobic attitude runs counter to the dictums of the first amendment, the Golden Rule and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What is it about America that you love? It certainly isn't the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. It certainly isn't our national motto, e pluribus unum. It certainly isn't your fellow Americans for whom you show so much disdain. So what do you love about America?

 

[freedombecki]

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

Thanks for good news for States' Rights!

That was the intentnion of the Founders--a loose union of unique state countries for the purpose of standing up to world bullies interested in inflicting disintegration on new world people uncooperative with their bullying. Certain agreements were made to ensure that each state would have certain rights and governances.

One-worlders are seeking to abolish our roots. Down with them and their divers inanities. I'm tired of them throwing states' rights under the bus. The purpose of the fed is to protect Americans from outside inflluences, not beat up the sovereignity of the people in a state whose forbears were given rights of governance that were never to be exploited by a strong fed.