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

[GreenBean]

The entire problem is a Federal tax code that rewards marriage

TODAY : Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law."

The move affects how millions of Americans interact with their federal government, including bankruptcy cases, prison visitation rights, survivor benefits for police officers and firefighters killed on the job, and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse.

I'm not certain about its implications regarding IRS Issues - have to wait till Monday I guess

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

I say no too. Civil unions would be great...if they weren't just for the gays. Now, if anyone who wanted a civil marriage had to get a civil union, that would be just fine but having one thing for straights and one thing for gays...well, that violates the Constitution.

Says you in your interpretation of, but is that the consensus interpretation among the people, and as well the government looking back over time, or is it just something that is new and thought of now, wherefore if it is said enough, then maybe it will stick, and that is the hopes of those who are engaged in such re-intrepting of the constitution in order to fit their needs and wants these days.

No.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘re-interrupting’ the Constitution or ‘fitting’ anyone’s ‘needs.’

The fact is that same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts; in California, for example, same-sex couples access the very same marriage law as opposite-sex couples, thus proving that fact.

Since its ratification the 14th Amendment has always required states to afford their residents – citizens of the United States – equal protection of (access to) the law; by disallowing same-sex couples access to a law they’re eligible to participate in, states that do so are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The issue, therefore, concerns states not obeying the Constitution, having nothing to do with ‘re-interrupting’ the Founding Document, nor ‘fitting’ anyone’s ‘needs.’

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your casuistry undermines your filibabble.

(1) Your LBGT meme has no merit.

(2) I have answered your question about Sotomayor, so, no, Sil, you don't get "just once more."

(3) The Bible, which gives you no authority, has no standing in front of SCOTUS.

(4) You are entitled to your opinion, which has no standing before SCOTUS.

(5) Only speak here on the terms of the case, understand?

Understand, Sil, your sophistry had better not include any insinuation.

1. It isn't *my* LGBT meme. Are you suggesting I created the term LGBT and sustained it all the decades it's been in popular use by its members? Try not to insult people's intelligence here Jake.

2. I'm sorry, I missed where you gave a percentage of likelihood that Sotomayor would uphold Utah's rights to determine marriage. Could you repost just the percentage number for just her?

3. I'm not sure it's the Bible that would be in question to have standing, but rather the 1st Amendment to adhere to the Bible, which does have constitutional standing at the Supreme Court. The state or the fed cannot require christians to commit mortal sin [Jude 1, Romans 1 for failing to earnestly contend to not enable homosexual cultures] as a matter of law.

4. My opinions may or may not have standing depending on their merit, not that they came from little ole' me... Your ad hominem is noted. The substance of what I say and not that it came from me is at question here.

5. I mentioned that because you are constantly siderailing the topics you engage in with insults at other posters. Which is against the rules.

Almost all continued filibabbling, Sil..

If you do not want to commit want you consider 'mortal sin', don't marry someone who is your own sex, and (2) do not vote for marriage equality.

Your insinuated ad hom is your mere projection for what you cannot say without the consequences. That's your problem, so be nice.

I neither insulted you, nor have I derailed the OP. I have clearly answered your arguments, as have others, over and over again. So, Sil, I have every right to let you know that "no, not once more, Sil, it's been answered."

 

[Silhouette]

TODAY : Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages "to the greatest extent possible under the law."

Hmm... "to the greatest extent possible under the law." eh?

*flips back through DOMA/Windsor again, puts on spectacles, reads all the print more closely*

OK. There may be a couple of ways to interpret that...

I wonder if this is in response to Utah's brief that mentions how nothing below the US Supreme Court may defy its order, including lower court rulings or more recently [defiantly] enacted policy? I mean, technically, if Holder pushes federal [all 50 states mandated to comply] IRS recognition for gay marriage, say in California where gay marriage is and always has been illegal according to DOMA/Windsor, then he is actually in contempt of the US Supreme Court by creating a loophole by which state's determination doesn't count... as scholars understand DOMA and the Court's reach and power. Holder was attempting to override the US Supreme Court's determination that gay marraige is up to each state to ratify via consensus.

If the IRS gives marital breaks to illegally "married" gay couples from California, will they be ripping off the People? The US Attorney General cannot be operating in contempt of any state government's duly enacted laws, nor the US Supreme Court determination. He could lose his job.

Jake, percentage that Sotomayor will vote to uphold Utah's right to determine marriage? Still haven't seen that number from you. Closer to 20%, 40% 60% maybe?

 

[Silhouette]

If you do not want to commit want you consider 'mortal sin', don't marry someone who is your own sex, and (2) do not vote for marriage equality.

It's not all as easy as that Jake. Enabling gay marriage goes well beyond the vote. Think of gay wedding cakes, gays demanding christian photographers do their event.. gays demanding equal access to adoptable children from christian orphanages [of which most of them are]...[see my signature]

Hey, wait a minute, you APPROVE of the vote or state consensus in gay marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a quote from the Holder Speech:

"In every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said in excerpts of the speech released in advance.

A written memo to department employees will follow on Monday. It will "formally instruct all department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law," according to the excerpts.. U.S. Justice Department to expand rights of gay married couples | Reuters

If I was interviewing Holder, my first question would be if he means to extend these priveleges to couples that were "gay married' in California after the first proposition effectively banning gay marriage passed way back when [the one before Prop 8].

Because if he means to extend those priveleges to those particular people, he would be in contempt of the US Supreme Court's Windsor/DOMA Decision: [same reuters' link]

Perkins noted that while the Supreme Court last year required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them, the justices were "conspicuously silent on the status of such couples when they reside in a state which considers them unmarried."

"The Obama administration's haste to nevertheless recognize such unions in every state actually runs counter to the Windsor decision's emphasis on the federal government's obligation to defer to state definitions of marriage," he added, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Windsor case.

Essentially, gays and gay allies in high places want their cake and to eat it too. ie: gays are perfectly fine with the fed being involved in marriage determination and recognition as long as it favors gay marriage. But if the fed wants to put restrictions on that [DOMA] then suddenly gays have a problem with the fed meddling in the definition of marriage. Either the US Supreme Court Found last Summer that gay marriage is up to the States; or it found that gay marriage is up to Eric Holder.

Which do you suppose it is?

 

[Seawytch]

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

I say no too. Civil unions would be great...if they weren't just for the gays. Now, if anyone who wanted a civil marriage had to get a civil union, that would be just fine but having one thing for straights and one thing for gays...well, that violates the Constitution.

Says you in your interpretation of, but is that the consensus interpretation among the people, and as well the government looking back over time, or is it just something that is new and thought of now, wherefore if it is said enough, then maybe it will stick, and that is the hopes of those who are engaged in such re-intrepting of the constitution in order to fit their needs and wants these days.

Says the SCOTUS when they ruled separate but equal unconstitutional. Look it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

“Jake, percentage that Sotomayor will vote to uphold Utah's right to determine marriage?”

I gave it when you first asked; go look it up.

“It's not all as easy as that Jake. Enabling gay marriage goes well beyond the vote.”

That will be up to legislation and subsequent judicial review.

“Hey, wait a minute, you APPROVE of the vote or state consensus in gay marriage?”

I approve of any federal or state legislative action that meets 14th Amendment parameters.

And, by the by, Holder is not on review; the State of Utah’s Amendment 3 is on review.

 

[Silhouette]

I approve of any federal or state legislative action that meets 14th Amendment parameters.

And, by the by, Holder is not on review; the State of Utah’s Amendment 3 is on review.

There is not one guarantee for marriage priveleges or driving priveleges or any other state-interest privelege in the 14th Amendment. There is no sweeping mandate for 13 year olds to be able to marry in all 50 states, nor polygamists, nor members of the church of LGBT.

Sorry.

Eric Holder may very well be "on review" if he keeps up his defiant, tyrannical and contemptuous disregard for States' rights and the binding Decisions of the US Supreme Court...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only your opinion, Sil, on how the 14th is to be interpreted.

Sorry.

Holder "on review" has nothing to do with Amendment 3 in the 10th Circuit Court or SCOTUS.

 

[beagle9]

I say no too. Civil unions would be great...if they weren't just for the gays. Now, if anyone who wanted a civil marriage had to get a civil union, that would be just fine but having one thing for straights and one thing for gays...well, that violates the Constitution.

Says you in your interpretation of, but is that the consensus interpretation among the people, and as well the government looking back over time, or is it just something that is new and thought of now, wherefore if it is said enough, then maybe it will stick, and that is the hopes of those who are engaged in such re-intrepting of the constitution in order to fit their needs and wants these days.

Says the SCOTUS when they ruled separate but equal unconstitutional. Look it up.

Is not being separate, and all being equal as with all things pertaining to man and his ways upon the earth ((right)) or the ((right)) way to look at all things in this way ? Maybe each case should still be judged upon it's own separate merits and/or unique circumstances, and lets just stop with this blanketing of everything in order to fit everything whether it be evil and/or good together up under one and/or the same roof. We are not yet beyond this world where the lion shall lay down with man in peace, and evil is still in this world as we all know it to be, so we should always consider that evil as bad, and we should separate from it instead of embrace it. PERIOD!

 

[beagle9]

The Scotus has made some huge mistakes over time, and now this nation, and it's people are paying for it badly.

 

[Seawytch]

Says you in your interpretation of, but is that the consensus interpretation among the people, and as well the government looking back over time, or is it just something that is new and thought of now, wherefore if it is said enough, then maybe it will stick, and that is the hopes of those who are engaged in such re-intrepting of the constitution in order to fit their needs and wants these days.

Says the SCOTUS when they ruled separate but equal unconstitutional. Look it up.

Is not being separate, and all being equal as with all things pertaining to man and his ways upon the earth ((right)) or the ((right)) way to look at all things in this way ? Maybe each case should still be judged upon it's own separate merits and/or unique circumstances, and lets just stop with this blanketing of everything in order to fit everything whether it be evil and/or good together up under one and/or the same roof. We are not yet beyond this world where the lion shall lay down with man in peace, and evil is still in this world as we all know it to be, so we should always consider that evil as bad, and we should separate from it instead of embrace it. PERIOD!

Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is a textbook definition of separate but equal. The "right" way would be civil unions for all. Then the "marriage is sacred" people will STFU 'cause nobody but churches will use "marriage".

 

[Seawytch]

The Scotus has made some huge mistakes over time, and now this nation, and it's people are paying for it badly.

While that might be the case in some instances, this isn't one of them. Nobody will have to "pay" now that gays are legally marrying. Gays have been marrying in MA for a decade now. Any flash floods?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is a textbook definition of separate but equal. The "right" way would be civil unions for all. Then the "marriage is sacred" people will STFU 'cause nobody but churches will use "marriage".

Getting your toe in the door to break the law is not the way you win your case. Marriage is different from civil unions. In Utah, people in civil unions are considered single. Only married people in Utah can adopt children and this is perhaps the one aspect between civil unions and marriage that set them apart.

I know the church of LGBT thinks you're inching closer and closer to orphaned children. [see my signature] but you may just have that door slammed shut in your face in Utah. And for good reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such a church of LGBT exists only in your head, Sil.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Getting your toe in the door to break the law is not the way you win your case. Marriage is different from civil unions. In Utah, people in civil unions are considered single. Only married people in Utah can adopt children and this is perhaps the one aspect between civil unions and marriage that set them apart.

Actually according to Utah Code 78B-6-117 single people can adopt.


It may not be as easy, but yes single people can be an adoptive parent in Utah.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Such a church of LGBT exists only in your head, Sil.

LGBT has:

1. A messiah, enshrined in law no less: Harvey Milk

2. They evangelize: CONSTANTLY [gay pride parades, gay days at Disney], innuendo in nearly every comment they make.

3. They punish heretics [they have derogatory term for heretic: Anne Heche]

4. They seek to abolish other religions insisting their own is paramount: [requiring christians to enable their lifestyle when christians doing so is a mortal sin].

5. They seem unnaturally keen on bending the minds of very young children to their ilk: California law requiring kids to celebrate their messiah's sexual/political accomplishments [see my signature].

6. There has been a sharp rise in boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV just since the heavy duty evangelizing has been given the green light in media and law. ie: it appears the numbers of their ranks are expanding..

How are they not a cult again?

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe Seawytch will answer the question about Sotomayor then. Seawytch, what do you think the likelihood of Sotomayor voting against Utah's right to determine marriage in their state?

50% likely? 70%?

 

[Silhouette]

While I'm waiting for Seawytch's answer to the Sotomayor question, here's the LA Times rendition of what the latest is on the appeal from Utah:

Late Monday night, Utah filed its opening argument with the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It argued that Shelby had erred by not giving enough weight to the Supreme Court’s decision that states had a right to define marriage, and Utah contended that the federal government cannot interfere with its decision-making authority.

Utah’s arguments call for a permitted “diversity of outcomes” rather than a “uniform national answer” on marriage practices, the 120-page brief says.

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman fulfills “a compelling governmental interest” rooted in tradition and religion, the state said, using some of the same arguments it had during the earlier stages of the case. It also stressed the importance of the ban in promoting its interpretation of child welfare. The ban is supported by approximately 20 of the 25 largest faith communities in Utah that “understand marriage and sexuality as gifts from God” and primarily designed to bear and raise children, the state maintained.

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

Gay-marriage battle unfolds in Virginia, Utah courts - latimes.com

That right there is the religion vs religion angle. And it's a good one. When two religions square off, the one with the majority vote rules in the secular world. It is up to each religion to sell itself to the general public to win a majority rule.

That's how democracy works. Gays can put a measure on the ballot in Utah trying to legalize LGBT marriage. But parties in Utah can also do things like run ads of Harvey Milk's bio just prior to that vote. Then gays can run ads touting the defense of Harvey Milk and their cultural values. Then, an informed public can cast the best vote possible to govern themselves with.