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

[Truthmatters]

your trash heaps get nothing

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When you, as a homosexual, demand that the FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF MY CULTURE BE LOWERED TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF, YOU INJURE MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT, to the extent possible discourages abnormality from being promoted…

This failed reasoning has been rejected by the courts when the states have attempted to use it to justify denying gay Americans their civil liberties:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice…

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as ‘abnormal,’ is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the state’s desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Yeah I've read Lawrence and the court was then, as it has been for some time, off their nut.

But such is the nature of the relativist. They say stupid stuff, because they eschew objectivity.

In truth, a society has every right to judge what is acceptable behavior and what is not, because this is the right of the individual, within their own respective lives and the society is merely the summing of the individual.

I say in truth, on the basis that this is what nature provides and, given any alternative to nature, in terms of supremacy in the standard setting department, its design stands supreme.

In effect, the court in Lawrence declares that Standards themselves are discriminatory, thus are invalid.

The Court was wrong. Standards are designed specifically for the purpose of sustaining the values and other cogent elements which the entity establishing such seeks to preserve, with the natural standard of marriage being no exception.

Homosexuality is sexual deviancy and as such, is to be DISCOURAGED. The Biological design, along with the intellectual extension of such, in the Marriage Standard is part and parcel of our culture recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering TO, nature's law in discouraging the normalization of that which is otherwise: abnormal.

As I said, without regard to the SCOTUS and their addled, subjective opinion, the United States will not provide for the fundamental core of the American citizenry to be bastardized to the point where it literally promotes abnormality to cultural normality. As to do so is to kill all potential viability.

It's not going to happen.

There's a curious rumor going around that the citizenry of the US is helpless to do anything about what the US Government does. Those who hold to that feeble, hapless nature common to the sentiment of that rumor, have no kinship with Americans present in the United States, or the principled origins from which America was fired.

Allow me to remind you and the Court from where we come, by revisiting the Charter of American Principles, declared when our ForeFather determined that we, the Americans, are individually, free and sovereign unto ourselves.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"

I'd like to thank you for your response and in taking your time to consider what I advanced.

I think if we had more opportunity to investigate our respective understandings, that we would find that we agree on more than we disagree.

I hope to read more of your thoughts as time passes.

Best regards.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huh.

Is it me, or is the member representing the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality standing upon Popularity, with seemingly NO CONCERN for a sound sustainable Morality?

Sure looks like it.

What she appears to be doing there is applauding: 'The Subjective Ruling by the judiciary, dismissing the objective 'will of the Peoples'.

That always tickles me.

A collectivist, who likely has spread throughout her record on this board, innumerable instances touting "DEMOCRACY", is standing today, upon judicial tyranny; an outright proponent AGAINST the representatives of "the Peoples', voting for that which the MAJORITY OF 'THE PEOPLES' WANT.

See how that works?

It's a subjective desire which could NOT CARE LESS about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and ONLY WHAT IS LEGAL.

Notice the trend. See this 'movement' for what it is.

And ask yourself, does the subjective 'RULING', over a case brought to court by a subjective advocacy, which contests an OBJECTIVE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

Does it serve that which is GOOD? Does it promote a viable healthy, sustainable culture or does it serve divisiveness, dividing the culture?

Does it undermine the objective 'rule of law'?

Does it promote or subvert sound governance?

Does it HELP or HARM your means to reasonably expect that your government represents you? Does it help or harm your means to raise your children in a safe and morally sound, sustainable environment?

Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).

Like here in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia. I agree with the court's decision in that case despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary.

See where public opinion was in 1967? Do you see where "the will of the people" would have allowed blacks to marry whites?

When the "will of the people" violates the US Constitution, it is the job of the judicial to rule. See Heller if you're curious how it works.

Ok, but then does every issue work as if they have the same connections, or the same premise and/or the same case studies somehow being connected like they are attempted to be connected ? I think not, but the joining of these cases together over the past years has been a tactic (IMHO), and it is being done or it has been done for unsavory reasoning in many respects.

People are seeing this by what has transpired over time in this nation now. Many issues don't even connect at all in the ways that they are being connected in these cases or case studies like they are, but they are being connected in an attempt to use the power of one specific case, to then push through something else even if it isn't connected or shouldn't be connected in that way at all.

Those who think that the people in this nation don't see what is going on in these things, well they are wrong, because in fact they very much do see how this is working out, and how it has been working now, and they don't like it because they feel they are losing ground instead of sharing ground.

I guess in some of these cases, it needs to return to what the people want as a majority on some of the issues, and this I think they want for their families, their children, and their beliefs as a majority on some of the specific issues in which do affect them in their life or lives.

I think if they don't get what they (the majority) might want in some of these cases soon, then they may turn on the rulers who ruled against their will as a majority people on some specific issues, and so they may be looking for a job sooner than later if it swings against them to much more in some of these cases that are being looked at or reviewed by the majority now.

Well said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_'s natural law crap does not cut it.

Tis what tis.

Since I know the justices' 'judicial heritages', I think the split will be 7-2 or no less than 6-3 to uphold the 14th on the federal findings on these marriages. If they do, and it is likely, marriage will be for two consenting adults.

 

[Silhouette]

That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as ‘abnormal,’ is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the state’s desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

The 14th Amendment does not guarantee people the "right" to access the privelege of the legal state of having a driver's license if they are blind.

It's too bad they are blind. But they just don't make the cut. And yes, it's discrimination.

Likewise, most states have said "the qualifications of marrying mean you have one penis and one vagina, both adults, both consenting and not related too closely by blood" who can marry.

It's too bad people like to be gay. But they just don't make the cut. Only with gayness vs blindness, blindness is a state many are born with and if afflicted later, can never reverse. However, we see gays often flowing fluidly from hetero, to gay, back to hetero again. Anne Heche comes to mind here...

The Utah case is going to be more about these two things which at their root are ultimately about secular law.

1. The 1st Amendment rights of the majority of Utahans who voted traditional marriage only in their state. The Bible forbids by punishment of eternal damnation, the propping up or enabling of homosexual cultures within the boundaries that the faithful live.

2. That the church of LGBT has as their messiah, a man who sodomized an orphaned teen boy on drugs while officiating as his "father figure" and many others like him as representative of the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world". And, that marriage immediately elevates these faithful defenders and followers of Harvey Milk's sexual example and identity to top-tier status to ....*drum roll*...... be able to adopt orphaned kids within Utah's boundaries.

So propertly, Utah must not just assert its rights to decide on marriage within its boundaries outside race, but it is mandated by federal law to act to do so to bar the faithful of the church of LGBT to access the orphans currenly under Utah's protection. Ironically, Harvey Milk himself once said in one his speeches that you can tell a lot about a movement by who they choose as their leader. So, Houston, there's a problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS will not take into consideration LDS heritage or the Bible, only the Constitution.

SCOTUS will not consider LGBT as a "cult", for that is not what is being challenged.

SCOTUS will not consider hetero or homo marriage in terms of access to adopting children.

SCOTUS will not consider a "natural law" challenge to marriage equality for consenting adults.

SCOTUS will evaluate the State's challenge only as to whether Amendment 3 violates the civil liberties of Americans.

 

[BlackSand]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times


glad to see some of you at least accept SOME scotus decisions.

but only the ones you seem to like huh assholes

Who are you (Truthmatters) referring to when you (Truthmatters) use the term "you" (?) in your (Truthmatter's) statements?
Please explain who is not accepting what decision ... And give us proof of the grounds on which you base that assumption ... Then how it may apply to anyone here (at USMB).

In reflection to what you seem to have posted repeatedly ... It would suggest that you are the only one that desires to favor one decision (Dismissing the Consent Decree case) ... And quite possibly not another (Decision against Utah's gay marriage law).
If that is the case ... You are the only person demonstrating any duplicity in regards to an offense surrounding accepting one decision and rejecting another in this thread.
Please try harder to comprehend the assertions you make ... And any type of valid accusation minus overt hypocrisy would be appreciated.

.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That society has historically, traditionally, or culturally sought to disadvantage gay Americans, or to perceive homosexuality as ‘abnormal,’ is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – it has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to access marriage law, and in no way supports the state’s desire to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

The 14th Amendment does not guarantee people the "right" to access the privelege of the legal state of having a driver's license if they are blind.

It's too bad they are blind. But they just don't make the cut. And yes, it's discrimination.

Likewise, most states have said "the qualifications of marrying mean you have one penis and one vagina, both adults, both consenting and not related too closely by blood" who can marry.

It's too bad people like to be gay. But they just don't make the cut. Only with gayness vs blindness, blindness is a state many are born with and if afflicted later, can never reverse. However, we see gays often flowing fluidly from hetero, to gay, back to hetero again. Anne Heche comes to mind here...

The Utah case is going to be more about these two things which at their root are ultimately about secular law.

1. The 1st Amendment rights of the majority of Utahans who voted traditional marriage only in their state. The Bible forbids by punishment of eternal damnation, the propping up or enabling of homosexual cultures within the boundaries that the faithful live.

2. That the church of LGBT has as their messiah, a man who sodomized an orphaned teen boy on drugs while officiating as his "father figure" and many others like him as representative of the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world". And, that marriage immediately elevates these faithful defenders and followers of Harvey Milk's sexual example and identity to top-tier status to ....*drum roll*...... be able to adopt orphaned kids within Utah's boundaries.

So propertly, Utah must not just assert its rights to decide on marriage within its boundaries outside race, but it is mandated by federal law to act to do so to bar the faithful of the church of LGBT to access the orphans currenly under Utah's protection. Ironically, Harvey Milk himself once said in one his speeches that you can tell a lot about a movement by who they choose as their leader. So, Houston, there's a problem.

Yep.

I would LOVE to be a starting running back for the Dolphins.

Sadly, I lack the speed, the strength, the knowledge and the motivation to so much as try.

As a result I am assured that I will NOT be starting for the Dolphins in the linebacker slot.

Is that fair?

Dam' straight it is.

Are the Dolphins violating my 'right to be a linebacker'? Nope.

I am forfeiting my right to be a linebacker for the Dolphins, by failing to bear the sustaining responsibilities, to rise to the standard required for consideration.

Such is precisely the same for the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and their twisted desire to turn the culture on its ear, just so they can feel better about their sad selves. And it's as simple as that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gibberish from Mr. Natural Law.

 

[Barb]

Gay marriage? We can't have weird shit going on in Utah, now, can we?

Every state has weird shit going on according to other states. State autonomy is huge in our democratic system. If Utah wants to be mormon in majority, then they are mormon in majority. They have to pitch their line to the voters and if the voters like what they hear, then they vote the way they vote and the laws of that state become the laws of that state according to what the people want to hang over their own heads.

If gays want to change Utah to make their church of LGBT replace the mormon church, then they'd better hit the pavement and start wooing voters there. Because, and mark my words on this, this SCOTUS is not going to go down in history as the SCOTUS that forced Utah to abandon their 1st Amendment rights to accomodate/enable a homosexual culture to flourish there in direct violation of and in mortal sin of the faith of mormonism.

The issue may very well be the 1st Amendment vs the 14th. And if you're in the gay camp, you may win, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you...

In the US, everyone is equal. Maybe Utah should secede and form its own communist state.

communist? Polygamist...

 

[beagle9]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times


glad to see some of you at least accept SOME scotus decisions.

but only the ones you seem to like huh assholes

Why do people have to be A-holes when you speak ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...

...

Lot’s of typing…

Lot’s of subjective, irrelevant personal opinions…

But no citations of objective, factual case law in support.

This is why you and others hostile to gay Americans’ civil liberties will continue to lose in the courts, and be relegated to the wrong side of history.

 

[Barb]

In the US, everyone is equal. Maybe Utah should secede and form its own communist state.

So you're saying polygamy should be allowed in Utah? Like I said, don't hold your breath on this SCOTUS making that happen..

True conservatives and libertarians would think so.

I'm neither conservative nor libertarian, and I think so! High time those men with one legal wife and several others only blessed by the church should be legally responsible for ALL their wives and the children they get welfare and food stamps through (rather than FOR).

 

[Silhouette]

...

Lot’s of typing…

Lot’s of subjective, irrelevant personal opinions…

But no citations of objective, factual case law in support.

This is why you and others hostile to gay Americans’ civil liberties will continue to lose in the courts, and be relegated to the wrong side of history.

I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state.

You might want to read that case law yourself, since being less than a year old it's highly unlikely the Court will reverse its own decision that quickly.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, when civil rights are violated I support the judicial over-ruling the "will of the people" (see also tyranny of the majority).

Like here in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia. I agree with the court's decision in that case despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary.

See where public opinion was in 1967? Do you see where "the will of the people" would have allowed blacks to marry whites?

When the "will of the people" violates the US Constitution, it is the job of the judicial to rule. See Heller if you're curious how it works.

Ok, but then does every issue work as if they have the same connections, or the same premise and/or the same case studies somehow being connected like they are attempted to be connected ? I think not, but the joining of these cases together over the past years has been a tactic (IMHO), and it is being done or it has been done for unsavory reasoning in many respects.

People are seeing this by what has transpired over time in this nation now. Many issues don't even connect at all in the ways that they are being connected in these cases or case studies like they are, but they are being connected in an attempt to use the power of one specific case, to then push through something else even if it isn't connected or shouldn't be connected in that way at all.

Those who think that the people in this nation don't see what is going on in these things, well they are wrong, because in fact they very much do see how this is working out, and how it has been working now, and they don't like it because they feel they are losing ground instead of sharing ground.

I guess in some of these cases, it needs to return to what the people want as a majority on some of the issues, and this I think they want for their families, their children, and their beliefs as a majority on some of the specific issues in which do affect them in their life or lives.

I think if they don't get what they (the majority) might want in some of these cases soon, then they may turn on the rulers who ruled against their will as a majority people on some specific issues, and so they may be looking for a job sooner than later if it swings against them to much more in some of these cases that are being looked at or reviewed by the majority now.

If the SCOTUS strikes down anti gay marriage laws like they did anti miscegenation ones, the majority actually approves this time.

 

[Seawytch]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

 

[dcraelin]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

actually the burden of proof should be on you. It is a testament to the backwardness of the modern federal court system that some judges may think your right on that.

The gay-marriage movement is not about equal rights under the law or they would be demanding that no tax breaks result from relationship status.

 

[Seawytch]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

actually the burden of proof should be on you. It is a testament to the backwardness of the modern federal court system that some judges may think your right on that.

The gay-marriage movement is not about equal rights under the law or they would be demanding that no tax breaks result from relationship status.

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

 

[dcraelin]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

actually the burden of proof should be on you. It is a testament to the backwardness of the modern federal court system that some judges may think your right on that.

The gay-marriage movement is not about equal rights under the law or they would be demanding that no tax breaks result from relationship status.

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've cited DOMA where they mentioned Loving v Virginia and then went on to affirm that the correct place where the decision of gay marriage or no gay marriage lies in the "unquestioned authority" "since the founding of the country" is in consensus of the broad-swath of the voters in each state.

And above strategic blunder is to fail to add SCOTUS' clear meaning "no state can deny the civil liberties of citizens." As well, George Pyle in the Salt Lake Tribune today, page O1 ,O4 devastates any religious underpinning for Amendment 3 as well.

"Reminiscent of when Bishop Wilberforce, in a debate over Darwin's recently public "Origin of Species, made a strategic blunder and his rival, T. H. Huxley, was reportedly heard to mutter, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands," before demolishing the good bishop's anti-evolution argument."

"Amendment 3's only hope of withstanding this flood of judicial scrutiny is if it can be defended as having a secular practicality . . . . Because creationism, creation science and intelligent design do not exist outside a mindset," and as for many, defense of Amendment 3 rests within a religious mindset, SCOTUS justifiably precludes their presence "from public school science classes. Opposition to same-sex marriage may soon find itself in that bin."