Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope, there is no paradox. I don't need it either way. You can look up Reynolds and the challenges to it all you want and find nothing to support your case. The defense's argument is "the best interests of the children". The Church of LGBT?The Church of Hetero-fascism with you as priestess.
Nope, there is no paradox. I don't need it either way. You can look up Reynolds and the challenges to it all you want and find nothing to support your case. The defense's argument is "the best interests of the children". The Church of LGBT?
So if you had to assign a chance of the church of LGBT winning the Utah case, what percentage of certainty do you have Jake? 20%, 45%, 88%? Just curious.
Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
Is it slam dunk. We both know that in litigation almost nothing is ever a given. I doubt your Church of LGBT and Harvey Milk will even be addressed. The state is not going to attack homosexual marriages as inferior (which is a big mistake, in my opinion), but rely on the argument that a traditional man/and/woman marriage is by far the best way to raise children. That allows the opportunity for the LGBT side to bring up parenting of any all types: hetero, LGBT, one parent, and so forth.
75%? I think that is conservative but . . . nothing is a given.
Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
Is it slam dunk. We both know that in litigation almost nothing is ever a given. I doubt your Church of LGBT and Harvey Milk will even be addressed. The state is not going to attack homosexual marriages as inferior (which is a big mistake, in my opinion), but rely on the argument that a traditional man/and/woman marriage is by far the best way to raise children. That allows the opportunity for the LGBT side to bring up parenting of any all types: hetero, LGBT, one parent, and so forth.
75%? I think that is conservative but . . . nothing is a given.
You think the Harvey Milk issue won't be a problem for LGBTers when the question of the state of Utah's orphans are in question? Marriage, as you know, elevates people to a privelege of getting first-choice access to adoptable orphans. What will adoption agents say to gay couples? "Sorry, we know you're married but the icon of LGBT is a man who routinely sodomized orphans.." ?? I think that would be setting adoption agencies up for lawsuits while merely exercising their mandate to err on the side of caution to protect the welfare of their wards.
I think that's going to be very much a topic of discussion. It is the elephant in the living room and if you're going to talk about that elephant, the Supreme Court case is the time to do it when all perks of marriage are on the table up for discussion...
Nah.
The appellants have already said that they are not going to address homosexual vs heterosexual, because they know the justices will say both have predators, that that is a criminal matter. Utah will make the traditional argument for man/women marriage.
Give me a %
Cliff Rosky, board chairman for Equality Utah, called the states arguments a "disappointing" rehash of stereotypes and disproved studies about gay people and same-sex parents.
"The arguments in the states brief are the same arguments that the Supreme Court rejected last summer," Rosky said. In striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court found that the statute "actually harmed children, instead of protecting them."
"Amendment 3 has the same affect," Rosky said.
Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
Is it slam dunk. We both know that in litigation almost nothing is ever a given. I doubt your Church of LGBT and Harvey Milk will even be addressed. The state is not going to attack homosexual marriages as inferior (which is a big mistake, in my opinion), but rely on the argument that a traditional man/and/woman marriage is by far the best way to raise children. That allows the opportunity for the LGBT side to bring up parenting of any all types: hetero, LGBT, one parent, and so forth.
75%? I think that is conservative but . . . nothing is a given.
You think the Harvey Milk issue won't be a problem for LGBTers when the question of the state of Utah's orphans are in question? Marriage, as you know, elevates people to a privelege of getting first-choice access to adoptable orphans. What will adoption agents say to gay couples? "Sorry, we know you're married but the icon of LGBT is a man who routinely sodomized orphans.." ?? I think that would be setting adoption agencies up for lawsuits while merely exercising their mandate to err on the side of caution to protect the welfare of their wards.
I think that's going to be very much a topic of discussion. It is the elephant in the living room and if you're going to talk about that elephant, the Supreme Court case is the time to do it when all perks of marriage are on the table up for discussion...
The SCOTUS has already mentioned the "kids". You won't like it though...You think the Harvey Milk issue won't be a problem for LGBTers when the question of the state of Utah's orphans are in question? Marriage, as you know, elevates people to a privelege of getting first-choice access to adoptable orphans. What will adoption agents say to gay couples? "Sorry, we know you're married but the icon of LGBT is a man who routinely sodomized orphans.." ?? I think that would be setting adoption agencies up for lawsuits while merely exercising their mandate to err on the side of caution to protect the welfare of their wards.Good question and I want you to give a % as well.
Is it slam dunk. We both know that in litigation almost nothing is ever a given. I doubt your Church of LGBT and Harvey Milk will even be addressed. The state is not going to attack homosexual marriages as inferior (which is a big mistake, in my opinion), but rely on the argument that a traditional man/and/woman marriage is by far the best way to raise children. That allows the opportunity for the LGBT side to bring up parenting of any all types: hetero, LGBT, one parent, and so forth.
75%? I think that is conservative but . . . nothing is a given.
I think that's going to be very much a topic of discussion. It is the elephant in the living room and if you're going to talk about that elephant, the Supreme Court case is the time to do it when all perks of marriage are on the table up for discussion...
Justice Kennedy: DOMA Had to Go Because It "Humiliates Tens of Thousands of Children"
Utah’s ‘strategy’ of defending its un-Constitutional amendment in the context of ‘child welfare’ will fail. Not only is there no evidence that same-sex couples pose a ‘threat’ to children, but the fact that opposite-sex couples who are unable to have children are allowed to marry completely destroys the state’s ‘argument.’
Amendment 3 is predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans, it has neither a rational basis nor a proper legislative end, and is un-Constitutional accordingly.
The SCOTUS has already mentioned the "kids". You won't like it though...You think the Harvey Milk issue won't be a problem for LGBTers when the question of the state of Utah's orphans are in question? Marriage, as you know, elevates people to a privelege of getting first-choice access to adoptable orphans. What will adoption agents say to gay couples? "Sorry, we know you're married but the icon of LGBT is a man who routinely sodomized orphans.." ?? I think that would be setting adoption agencies up for lawsuits while merely exercising their mandate to err on the side of caution to protect the welfare of their wards.
I think that's going to be very much a topic of discussion. It is the elephant in the living room and if you're going to talk about that elephant, the Supreme Court case is the time to do it when all perks of marriage are on the table up for discussion...
Justice Kennedy: DOMA Had to Go Because It "Humiliates Tens of Thousands of Children"
that same argument could be used in regard to children of polygamist unions, of single people with children, of unmarried couples with children. That was a specious argument by Kennedy. Children couldn't care less about the governmental status of thier parent's union. What they may care about is the cultural attitude of society in regard to their parents union, but no change in the law will change that.
Sigh. Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
Utahs strategy of defending its un-Constitutional amendment in the context of child welfare will fail. Not only is there no evidence that same-sex couples pose a threat to children, but the fact that opposite-sex couples who are unable to have children are allowed to marry completely destroys the states argument.
Amendment 3 is predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans, it has neither a rational basis nor a proper legislative end, and is un-Constitutional accordingly.
Not animus friend, common sense:
"Your Honors, I give you Exhibit A" *pulls curtain off large portrait sized exhibit*
"...and your Honors... please accept each a copy of Exhibit B..." *walks a copy of The Mayor of Castro Street, The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" with key earmarks to each Justice*
"...Your Honors, please turn to page...and page...and page...and page...and page..."
then.
"Your Honors, please examine Exhibit C, which is a law in California, becoming a common tradition in LGBT culture across the nation and the world, which is a requirment for public school children to celebrate the man's political/sexual achievements that you just read in his biography."...
then
"Please now look at Exhibit D..." *unveils second large portrait*...
"...Oops...sorry...I meant this one.." *reveals next portrait*..
then..
Roll out the child protection laws of Utah, the fed and various other states that, if gay marriage is forced upon the states, would also be facing the same legal catch-22.. Agreed DCraelin, what the Justices should be paying attention to with regards to "whats best for the kids" is their parents belonging to a cult that venerate pedophilia by venerating their messiah who was a pedophile and apologizing for his crimes against kids. What the Justices should be paying attention to is allowing this cult, inadvertently maybe but potently nevertheless, access to each state's orphans in adoption once they elevate to the top-tier status of being able to adopt via marriage.
And about that middle picture with Sotomayor doing the can can in public on New Year's Eve Bacchanal party in Times Square...televised around the world no less to potentially 100s of millions of viewers.. When your nation's moral foundation and "unbiased justice' degrades to such a degree, your country isn't far behind [see other pictures and my signature]. It's that picture of Sotomayor that caused me to back my 95% certainty Utah will prevail back down to 85%.. cults have a funny way of clouding common sense...
Since a news talk show host outed Elena Kagan as a lesbian, I know with 100% certainty how she will vote. I'll have to back my percentage down for a Utah victory even further, perhaps under 50% if I see Kennedy doing the Miley Cyrus dance with a shaved down muscle-boy on the Tonight Show's new host debut or something..
The SCOTUS has already mentioned the "kids". You won't like it though...You think the Harvey Milk issue won't be a problem for LGBTers when the question of the state of Utah's orphans are in question? Marriage, as you know, elevates people to a privelege of getting first-choice access to adoptable orphans. What will adoption agents say to gay couples? "Sorry, we know you're married but the icon of LGBT is a man who routinely sodomized orphans.." ?? I think that would be setting adoption agencies up for lawsuits while merely exercising their mandate to err on the side of caution to protect the welfare of their wards.
I think that's going to be very much a topic of discussion. It is the elephant in the living room and if you're going to talk about that elephant, the Supreme Court case is the time to do it when all perks of marriage are on the table up for discussion...
Justice Kennedy: DOMA Had to Go Because It "Humiliates Tens of Thousands of Children"
that same argument could be used in regard to children of polygamist unions, of single people with children, of unmarried couples with children. That was a specious argument by Kennedy. Children couldn't care less about the governmental status of thier parent's union. What they may care about is the cultural attitude of society in regard to their parents union, but no change in the law will change that.
Sigh. Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
Sigh. Sil, SCOTUS won't consider Harvey Milk at all, won't be mentioned.
Correct.
It's irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
The SCOTUS has already mentioned the "kids". You won't like it though...
Justice Kennedy: DOMA Had to Go Because It "Humiliates Tens of Thousands of Children"
that same argument could be used in regard to children of polygamist unions, of single people with children, of unmarried couples with children. That was a specious argument by Kennedy. Children couldn't care less about the governmental status of thier parent's union. What they may care about is the cultural attitude of society in regard to their parents union, but no change in the law will change that.
Really? You don't think it matters to kids if their parents are married?
>
Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?
>>>>
Page 16:
Utah adoption law similarly allows adoption only to "adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state," and does not permit adoption by a "single adult," id. 78B-6-117(2), if that person "is cohabitating in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state." Id. 78B-6-117(3); see also id. 78B-6-102(4). For adoptions of children in the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services, preference is given to "a man and woman who are married to each other." Id. 78B-6-117(4); see also id. 62A-4a-607(1)(b)...
Even if the Court were to apply heightened scrutiny--as the district court suggested in dicta, Utah's chosen definition is still well within its constitutional authority. Besides avoiding risks to religious freedom and civic peace, Utah's decision to retain that definition substantially advances at least three distinct State interests that are not only legitimate, but important and compelling.
First, maintaining the man-woman definition helps prevent further erosion of the traditional concept of marriage as being principally a child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting) (discussing distinction between "conjugal" and "consent-based" views of marriage). A society can have but one understanding of marriage: It is either a uniquely man-woman institution, or it is not. Because man-woman unions are unique in their ability to produce children, maintaining the man-woman definition reinforces the child-centric view of marriage. 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. Given its enormous benefits to children generally, the State has an important and compelling interest in encouraging selfless parenting.
Second, and more specifically, maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers--or at least a mother and father --in intact families. Common sense and a wealth of social-science data teach that children to best emotionally, socially, intellectually and even economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents. Such arrangements benefit children by (a) harnessing the strong biological connections that parents and children naturally feel for each other, and (b) providing what experts have called "gender complimentarity"--i.e., diversity--in parenting. Common sense and social science also teach that the second-best arrangement for children is to be raised by a biological parent and an adoptive parent of the opposite sex.
In a variety of ways explained in detail below, the traditional definition of marriage encourages parents and would-be parents to raise their children in one of these preferred arrangements. And in a variety of ways, redefining marriage in genderless terms would likely reduce, over time, the proportion of children being raised in one of those arrangements--thus placing at serious risk the welfare of children who will be raised in other arrangements as a result.
Third, maintaining the man-woman definition helps to ensure adequte reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. By providing special priveleges and recognition to sexual unions that, as a class, are uniquely capable of procreation, the State gently encourages that vital activity. Indeed, that is why the Supreme Court has often called man-woman marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Loving, at 12. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring adequte reproduction and conversely, in avoiding a definition change that (over time) could help send its birthrate below replacement levels--as has already happened in a number of nations and U.S. States that have adopted a genderless definition.
For all these reasons, Utah has ample authority under the Constitution to retain its man-woman definition of marriage.
First, lower federal courts do not have the option of departure from binding precedent simply because they believe it has been undercut by later "doctrinal developments." Although that possibility had been suggested in later decisions, the Supreme Court eliminated that option in Rodriquez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989). That decistion held in no uncertain terms: "If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions," lower courts "should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." Id. at 484. There is no doubt that Baker "directly controls" here.
Second, and more fundamentally, Windsor did not undercut Baker. Indeed, the Windsor majority expressly disclaimed any intention to reach the issue decided in Baker, stating that its "opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages" already authorized by state law. 133 S. Ct. at 2696. That is why the majority did not even address Baker--much less criticize it--, which the Court surely would have done had it intended to overrule it. Similarly, neither Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), nor Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), addressed the constitutionality of state marriage laws, and neither mentions Baker.
Nor is there any inconsistency between the Baker and Windsor legal analysis. Windsor invalidated DOMA 3 because New York conferred an "equal dignity" on same-sex couples that the federal statute "displace[d]" by "treating those persons as living in marriage less respected than others." 133 S. Ct. at 2696. In concluding that DOMA "injure[d] those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity," id. (emphasis added), the Court did not create a free-standing substantive due process right for same-sex couples to marry.
Indeed, Windsor reinforced and complemented Baker by emphasizing the need to safeguard the States' "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation" free from "federal intrusion." 133 S. Ct. at 2692. The majority stressed that , "y history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." Id. at 2689-90. Most significantly, the Court reaffirmed that "'[t]he definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the '[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and teh enforcement of marital responsibilities." Id. at 2601 (quoting Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942)) (alteration in original). And precisely because of its understanding of the marital relation as "a virtually exclusive province of the States," id. at 2680 (quoting Sosna, 419 U.S. at 404), that the Court concluded that DOMA's refusal to respect New York's decision to permit same-sexed marriage represented an impermissable "federal intrusion on state power." Id. at 2692.
When read together, Baker and Windsor establish a principle federalism-based resolution to the difficult question of same-sex marriage: Baker leaves the definition of marriage for every State to decide for itself, while Windsor prohibits the federal government from interfering in the decision to allow same-sex marriage. As stated by a group of federalism scholars cited by the Windsor majority, such "diversity of outcomes enables the democratic process to accommodate a higher proportion of our citizens' views on [same-sex marriage] than would a uniform national answer. And it prevents the majority of States from impressing their policy preferences on the minority who want to recognize gay marriage." Brief of Amici Curiae Federalism Scholars, United States v Windsor, No. 12-307, at 9 (2012). Respecting that federalism-mandated diversity is also essential to individual freedom--or what Justice Kennedy has called "liberty in the fundamental political sense of the term." See Clinton v City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 450 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (the Framers "used the principles of separation of powers and federalism to secure liberty in the fundamental political sense of the term").
The district court should have respected the principled compromise that the Supreme Court reached in Baker and Windsor that permist a "diversity of outcomes" on the question of marriage rather than mandating a "uniform national answer." The district court's failure to respect that compromise--and its consequent refusal to follow Baker--requires reversal.
>
Here is the Utah State brief to the Court of Appeals -->> State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief
Anyone find Harvey Milk mentioned?
>>>>
Yes, in a manner of speaking:
