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

[JakeStarkey]

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race

Read the opinion. It was far more than race. If you tried that in SCOTUS arguments, they would turn you out into the alley.

Im not going to read it, it is irrelevant. If the Court thought so it it was simply wrong.

and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

So it is your feelings and opinions you are using as facts. OK.

Tell me how marriage equality would affect your civil and religious liberties.

 

[dcraelin]

I think it is very dangerous, even if you think it is a correct and just cause, To ignore the will of the people. 5 people should not be able to decide such questions.

Everybody in America should be concerned with a court that has the arrogance to think that it should be able decide this rather than leaving the question to the will of the people which is the defining ideal of Our Republic/Democracy.

 

[Jughead]

Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.

The problem with that approach is that Gays can never win a Free election in the Mormon State -- their moral standards are too high. They only way they can achieve their goals is to utilize the Liberal Mob to force it on the people of Utah against their will.

I'll bet some states will indeed have gay marriage ballots at the midterms. Will be interesting to see which states vote for or against. If Utah does have a ballot, it would be just a formality since we would all know the outcome ahead of time.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.

The problem with that approach is that Gays can never win a Free election in the Mormon State -- their moral standards are too high. They only way they can achieve their goals is to utilize the Liberal Mob to force it on the people of Utah against their will.

I'll bet some states will indeed have gay marriage ballots at the midterms. Will be interesting to see which states vote for or against. If Utah does have a ballot, it would be just a formality since we would all know the outcome ahead of time.

The only two possibilities are Indiana and Ohio that I know about.

Indiana social conservatives are trying to get a ban on the ballot, however it must be passed by two consecutive legislatures. The ban to Civil Marriages and Civil Unions was passed in 2011 and so had to be passed this year by the legislature to be on the ballot. The problem is this years legislature has changed the amendment to drop the ban on Civil Unions. That change, if it holds, means it has to be passed by the next legislature and so it won't be on the ballot this year. However retraining the Civil Union ban means many more people won't vote in favor.

In Ohio, the state voted to ban SSCM in 2004, pro-equality groups are possibly mounting a challenge to be on the ballot in 2014 but more likely 2016.

Utah won't have a ballot on the issue this year, they already were one of the States that banned equal treatment for same-sex couple in 2004 denying them Civil Marriage and bans Civil Unions.



>>>>

 

[GreenBean]

Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.

The problem with that approach is that Gays can never win a Free election in the Mormon State -- their moral standards are too high. They only way they can achieve their goals is to utilize the Liberal Mob to force it on the people of Utah against their will.

The will of the citizens of a state cannot take away civil liberties, GreenBean, of a minority.

Can't argue with you on that one Jake - However I was just stating that IMO they'll never get Gay Marriage in Utah via general election.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem with that approach is that Gays can never win a Free election in the Mormon State -- their moral standards are too high. They only way they can achieve their goals is to utilize the Liberal Mob to force it on the people of Utah against their will.

The will of the citizens of a state cannot take away civil liberties, GreenBean, of a minority.

Can't argue with you on that one Jake - However I was just stating that IMO they'll never get Gay Marriage in Utah via general election.

As a new Amendment on the ballot, the nays would win, but it would be much, much closer this time. I do not believe the Utah legislature would ever pass such legislation.

 

[Seawytch]

Except the mandates in Jude I, Romans I of the Bible and Poets 26 of the Koran which discuss how anyone who even enables a culture to be overtaken by homosexuality [Sodom] will be destroyed along with the culture itself. Sent to hell to burn in the eternal Pit of Fire.

Has absolutely no relevance to the laws of the United States. Try again, Silly!

So yeah, gay marriage does infringe on 1st Amendment rights. And it also infringes on the welfare of adoptable orphans. [See my signature]. A cult that worships a messiah who stood for buggering orphaned teen boys on drugs has no business gaining access to adoptable orphans through marriage. For as soon as you grant them marriage, they immediately "cannot be discriminated against" when going to adopt.



Read about their messiah. Read well. Remember: these are the values advancing at our nation's most vulnerable children. Imagine being an orphaned child today, the dangers that are right on your doorstep with only the thinnest of legal lines between you and that danger..

And more of the same tired old bullshit, as always.

So, the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion is "tired old bullshit"?


It's up to the Constitution, child welfare laws and 9 people in black robes that we've charged to be custodians to those documents and their final interpretation.

Neither religion nor child welfare laws have anything to do with marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

 

[Seawytch]

marriage isnt a civil liberty

Take that up with SCOTUS, and look up Loving.

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race

and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Wisconsin v Zabloski all have everything to do with this.

Where does the 14th Amendment mention race?

 

[Silhouette]

As a new Amendment on the ballot, the nays would win, but it would be much, much closer this time. I do not believe the Utah legislature would ever pass such legislation.

That all depends on how much air time a Harvey Milk/church of LGBT TV commercial pointing out the messiah's "sexual orientation" gets in Utah just prior to the vote.

I'd say the vote would be in direct proportion in the "nays" to how many minutes of air time that commercial got there...

 

[dcraelin]

Take that up with SCOTUS, and look up Loving.

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race
and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Wisconsin v Zabloski all have everything to do with this.
Where does the 14th Amendment mention race?

historical context....and common sense

 

[jillian]

marriage isnt a civil liberty

Take that up with SCOTUS, and look up Loving.

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race

and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

supreme court precedents are not so narrow.

the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional.

the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.

 

[dcraelin]

Take that up with SCOTUS, and look up Loving.

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race
and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

supreme court precedents are not so narrow.
the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional.
the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.

It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.

 

[beagle9]

Newsflash: The People decided in Utah in 2/3rds majority to not allow gay marriage in their state's boundaries. Glad to see you agree with the "We the People" decision Jake.. Or is it that "We the People" can only apply to advancing the interests of the cult of LGBT but not the interests of an organized religion like christianity?



There is no "misinterpretation" in scripture. In Jude I, Romans I of the Bible, you are damned to hell for eternity for even not earnestly contending for the common salvation when it comes to staving off homosexual takeover of the culture you find yourself in. Sodom was given as an example in the Jude I passage as representative to what will happen to other cultures if they follow suit. Eternal damnation is the punishment for failing to earnestly contend for the faith in this regard. Read Jude I. Read it. All of you reading here, read it.



To ask a christian to defy Jude I or Romans I is to ask them to submit to the eternal fires in the Pit of Hell. You cannot ask that of a christian. It is tantamount to banning religion officially in the US. For if the faithful are forced to commit mortal sin, they are forced to abandon their faith, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Very good points and valid ones, so it should be determined state by state, and not by a Federal Tyrannical rule in which has been the case so far in all of this I think.

Actual only six out of the 16 or 17 was by judicial ruling. Do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia, that interracial marriage should not have been by "a Federal Tyrannical rule"?

Do you think that all matters are the same, and that they can always be linked in the ways that you try and link them the way that you do ? Yes matters and/or issues have been linked together in order to accommodate another at times, but is that right when this happens in some cases that are brought ? No it's not right, because in some cases it overrides common decency and the will of the people upon such matters where the peoples will sometimes should matter (especially where children are involved), and especially in some cases that are being brought as new into the arena these days.

Many times issues or matters can't be linked, and they shouldn't be linked, but if you get some devious and demented fast mouth lawyers, to then go and reside upon a case or cases, then hey anything is liable to take place. Sadly enough, and upon many rulings that were ruled upon within certain cases in the past, and in which we all now know about, that is exactly what has happened in those cases.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except the mandates in Jude I, Romans I of the Bible and Poets 26 of the Koran which discuss how anyone who even enables a culture to be overtaken by homosexuality [Sodom] will be destroyed along with the culture itself. Sent to hell to burn in the eternal Pit of Fire.

Has absolutely no relevance to the laws of the United States. Try again, Silly!

So yeah, gay marriage does infringe on 1st Amendment rights. And it also infringes on the welfare of adoptable orphans. [See my signature]. A cult that worships a messiah who stood for buggering orphaned teen boys on drugs has no business gaining access to adoptable orphans through marriage. For as soon as you grant them marriage, they immediately "cannot be discriminated against" when going to adopt.

Read about their messiah. Read well. Remember: these are the values advancing at our nation's most vulnerable children. Imagine being an orphaned child today, the dangers that are right on your doorstep with only the thinnest of legal lines between you and that danger..

And more of the same tired old bullshit, as always.

So, the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion is "tired old bullshit"?

Of course not.

But equal protection rights for same-sex couples have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Acknowledging the fact that same-sex couples have the right to access marriage law in no way interferes with the practice of any faith.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not to private persons or entities, such as religious organizations.

If you believe same-sex marriage is ‘wrong’ as dictated by your religion’s dogma, then that means you shouldn’t enter into a same-sex marriage, it doesn’t mean you have the authority to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

What’s tiresome is you and others on the social right seeking to deny Americans their civil rights predicated solely on your subjective religious dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Very good points and valid ones, so it should be determined state by state, and not by a Federal Tyrannical rule in which has been the case so far in all of this I think.

Actual only six out of the 16 or 17 was by judicial ruling. Do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia, that interracial marriage should not have been by "a Federal Tyrannical rule"?

Do you think that all matters are the same, and that they can always be linked in the ways that you try and link them the way that you do ? Yes matters and/or issues have been linked together in order to accommodate another at times, but is that right when this happens in some cases that are brought ? No it's not right, because in some cases it overrides common decency and the will of the people upon such matters where the peoples will sometimes should matter (especially where children are involved), and especially in some cases that are being brought as new into the arena these days.

Many times issues or matters can't be linked, and they shouldn't be linked, but if you get some devious and demented fast mouth lawyers, to then go and reside upon a case or cases, then hey anything is liable to take place. Sadly enough, and upon many rulings that were ruled upon within certain cases in the past, and in which we all now know about, that is exactly what has happened in those cases.

You don’t understand.

When the state seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties, in this case same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the burden rests most heavily on the state to prove what it seeks is legitimate – and appropriately so.

In order for a measure denying a citizen his civil rights to pass Constitutional muster, it must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.

This is why laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights continue to be invalidated, because they fail to survive these basic Constitutional tests when subjected to judicial review.

And these measures are appropriately invalidated having nothing to do with “devious and demented fast mouth lawyers,” and everything to do with settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence requiring the states to afford all American citizens equal protection of the law.

 

[jillian]

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race
and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

supreme court precedents are not so narrow.
the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional.
the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.

It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.

see, that's the beauty about constitutional rights. no one cares if we are offended by them.

marriage is a fundamental right and your particular biases don't govern who those rights pertain to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

loving has nothing to do with this, that was about race
and like I said below part of the problem is that it shouldn't be up to 9 or maybe even 5 people. Even if you think it should be a matter of Court edict. The court has not grown to match growth in US population.

supreme court precedents are not so narrow.
the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional.
the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.

It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.

Actually not.

They correctly cite Loving because it’s relevant to the issue at hand.

From Kitchen v. Herbert, invalidating Utah’s Amendment 3:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s
power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

 

[beagle9]

Has absolutely no relevance to the laws of the United States. Try again, Silly!



And more of the same tired old bullshit, as always.

So, the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion is "tired old bullshit"?

Of course not.

But equal protection rights for same-sex couples have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Acknowledging the fact that same-sex couples have the right to access marriage law in no way interferes with the practice of any faith.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not to private persons or entities, such as religious organizations.

If you believe same-sex marriage is ‘wrong’ as dictated by your religion’s dogma, then that means you shouldn’t enter into a same-sex marriage, it doesn’t mean you have the authority to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

What’s tiresome is you and others on the social right seeking to deny Americans their civil rights predicated solely on your subjective religious dogma.

I see, so it's pull together the many cases and such, where as they might be joined together somehow, and this in order to strengthen ones position upon an issue, even if it is not related to the other cases, but even so it is attempted to be joined together by those who do this far stretched out joining like they love to do in which they do for that very purpose.

It is a hoped for thing, and yet not a cut and dry sort of thing, but they go there anyway with it. Then it's hurry up and separate quickly from other things in which one can figure out how to re-configure or re-interpret such things, and all in order for it not to tear one's case apart, and that is what you seem to be doing here in response to. I see how the game is always played on these things (Go this way/Go that way-Go that way/Go this way). Carry on.

 

[dcraelin]

supreme court precedents are not so narrow.
the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional.
the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.

It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.

Actually not.
They correctly cite Loving because it’s relevant to the issue at hand.
From Kitchen v. Herbert, invalidating Utah’s Amendment 3:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Well the Utah judge said that shortly after another Utah Federal Judge set the ball rolling on coloring polygamy as a right also. .....They are both poor rulings, certainly not based on the intent or plain meaning of the 14th amendment.

see, that's the beauty about constitutional rights. no one cares if we are offended by them. marriage is a fundamental right and your particular biases don't govern who those rights pertain to.

Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, it is a relic from the church-state of England.

 

[beagle9]

supreme court precedents are not so narrow.
the holding of loving was that anti-misceganation laws are unconstitutional.
the BASIS for the holding was that marriage is a fundamental right and the right to equal protection in the furtherance of that right can't be impaired.

It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.

Actually not.

They correctly cite Loving because it’s relevant to the issue at hand.

From Kitchen v. Herbert, invalidating Utah’s Amendment 3:

[T]he Supreme Court has considered analogous questions that involve the tension between these two values in other cases. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (balancing the state’s right to regulate marriage against the individual’s right to equal protection and due process under the law). In these cases, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict. See id. at 7 (holding that a state’s
power to regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment).

The very purpose of applying or interpreting the Bill of rights in this way, is for those to basically make the judges themselves ((("god's"))), who will then move to over rule the good will of the majority on such issues almost always now, and they do this even though the issues still should be considered by the courts in respect for the majority as well, and to be done as a careful balancing upon the impact in which should be viewed or thought about also upon the issues, and this before they are ruled upon in a one sided way.

The majority are sure to be always affected the most by it's decision making upon so many cases that are being brought, so the courts should consider this very fact as a huge factor to consider, especially if those decisions are in conflict with the majority who are directly affected, and their understanding of things the way they understand them as a majority, along with their well wishes on such matters that are being considered or not being considered.

No matter how you look at it, we have tyranny by the federal courts upon this land now, and upon many things or issues we all have understood over time for them to be, and these are issues that many still hold dear as Americans in this nation. The good people are suffering greatly for it all, and the government is under siege by those who seek to over throw by way of the government, and it's un-equal power that it now serves, and is wielding against the majority out of fear of an intellectual minority that it serves more so than the moral majority now.