The Story You're Not Hearing in the MSM: July 2014 SCOTUS Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

[PaintMyHouse]

....

This is big news. This is HUGE news. This is the US Supreme Court saying "we are letting the public know that we at least are considering the heavy weight of voters' rights to define marriage for themselves in each state".

Considering? That has largely been the SCOTUS position toward marriage from 1789. I don't really care one way or the other, but I think all the folks of the left who think this is a done deal for gay marriage are going to be sadly mistaken.

Why? It's already legal for half the US population, or more now, and we have Inter-faith and Inter-racial marriages, that last of which the court tossed out laws against. The People have no say here, and the court knows it. It's just trying to not be ahead of public opinion, which it is now behind, and that clears their way.

 

[Skylar]

....

This is big news. This is HUGE news. This is the US Supreme Court saying "we are letting the public know that we at least are considering the heavy weight of voters' rights to define marriage for themselves in each state".

Considering? That has largely been the SCOTUS position toward marriage from 1789. I don't really care one way or the other, but I think all the folks of the left who think this is a done deal for gay marriage are going to be sadly mistaken.

The SCOTUS granting a petition to stay a particular court ruling hasn't applied beyond the petition in 1789 or today. Such a stay applies only to the petition granted. Not to all petitions in all 50 states.

And this simple fact pops silloette's entire argument like a little zit.

 

[Inevitable]

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with the argument. It's morals that are up for grabs.

Morality is subjective.

As I have continually said, homosexuality is a choice, people are not born that way, like a child is born with downs syndrome. They choose to act in a way that is perverse and immoral.

First, prove people choose to be homosexual (since you claimed it the burden of proof is on you).
Second, if they choose to act on their sexuality, your opinion. on The morality of it is irrelevant.

If a person wants to be immoral in the privacy of their own bedroom, who is anyone to tell them not to? Problem is, homosexuals want to shove their immorality in people's faces and then try to claim that they were born this way or that way and it's not their fault.

Shove it in your face? No, you are shoving your face in their sexuality. If two people of the same sex got married, it wouldn't involve you in the least.

They have every right to say they are born that way, you can believe what you want but it isn't relevant. As with your opinion on what it's immoral.

Some people may fall for that, but not every person is that gullible.

Believe what you wish.

 

[sameech]

....

This is big news. This is HUGE news. This is the US Supreme Court saying "we are letting the public know that we at least are considering the heavy weight of voters' rights to define marriage for themselves in each state".

Considering? That has largely been the SCOTUS position toward marriage from 1789. I don't really care one way or the other, but I think all the folks of the left who think this is a done deal for gay marriage are going to be sadly mistaken.

The SCOTUS granting a petition to stay a particular court ruling hasn't applied beyond the petition in 1789 or today. Such a stay applies only to the petition granted. Not to all petitions in all 50 states.

And this simple fact pops silloette's entire argument like a little zit.

Yeah you missed that target by about a mile as I was not referencing granting stays, but that they have had to grant it twice in the same case in Utah should tell you something.

 

[sameech]

....

This is big news. This is HUGE news. This is the US Supreme Court saying "we are letting the public know that we at least are considering the heavy weight of voters' rights to define marriage for themselves in each state".

Considering? That has largely been the SCOTUS position toward marriage from 1789. I don't really care one way or the other, but I think all the folks of the left who think this is a done deal for gay marriage are going to be sadly mistaken.

Why? It's already legal for half the US population, or more now, and we have Inter-faith and Inter-racial marriages, that last of which the court tossed out laws against. The People have no say here, and the court knows it. It's just trying to not be ahead of public opinion, which it is now behind, and that clears their way.

Because they are two separate issues. A state having to recognize a same sex marriage legally performed elsewhere under full faith and credit and the same state having to actually allow the marriages to take place there are not the same issue. Think common law marriage. Your comparison to the other marriage cases relates to explicit Constitutional dogma--Freedom of religion, and protection against state-sponsored racial discrimination. There is no specific language in the Constitution regarding homosexuality or marriage. I voted against the ban that was passed in my state because it was legally unnecessary and was an effort to codify hatred, but I think people are getting it wrong and the SCOTUS will reign them in on the Utah case--striking down the amendments does not necessarily mean that gays can be married in those states.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The stay ONLY applies to UTAH's unconstitutional denial of equal rights.

Conflating federal law with state law merely exposes your confusion and ignorance.

Nope.

Let me put it to you this way....

The 10th district federal court of appeals denied Utah's request for a stay upon their recent Decision. They cited that "the civil rights of gays no longer can be denied"...or words to that effect when they ruled.

Then the Utah AG appealed that finding on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights outweighed that decision: citing Windsor 2013 as his reference.

Then reading that, SCOTUS OVERTURNED the 10th's denial of a stay....

...with me so far?....

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

With me so far?

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...! Everywhere....in all 50 states because you cannot have just one state having civil rights protected while the citizens of the other 49 languish without that protection.. The civil right to have one's vote counted is easily, hands down THE most important civil right an American has. And it should only be removed on a particular question only upon the final Decision of the Highest Court in our nation. And then only after unbelievable scrutiny. So sacred is this civil right. The Default must ALWAYS be to protect the power of a citizen's vote.

You are making a leap in the dark by trying to conflate what a single SCOTUS Justice ruled regarding a Federal CIRCUIT Court which has LIMITED JURISDICTION.

A Ruling in the 10th Circuit does not automatically apply to states in the 9th Circuit jurisdiction which is where California and Prop 8 occurred.

A single SCOTUS Justice making a ruling within a Circuit Court does not automatically override every other court in the nation which is what you are egregiously attempting to claim.

Your assumption is fallacious.

 

[Silhouette]

The stay ONLY applies to UTAH's unconstitutional denial of equal rights.

Conflating federal law with state law merely exposes your confusion and ignorance.

Nope.

Let me put it to you this way....

The 10th district federal court of appeals denied Utah's request for a stay upon their recent Decision. They cited that "the civil rights of gays no longer can be denied"...or words to that effect when they ruled.

Then the Utah AG appealed that finding on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights outweighed that decision: citing Windsor 2013 as his reference.

Then reading that, SCOTUS OVERTURNED the 10th's denial of a stay....

...with me so far?....

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

With me so far?

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...! Everywhere....in all 50 states because you cannot have just one state having civil rights protected while the citizens of the other 49 languish without that protection.. The civil right to have one's vote counted is easily, hands down THE most important civil right an American has. And it should only be removed on a particular question only upon the final Decision of the Highest Court in our nation. And then only after unbelievable scrutiny. So sacred is this civil right. The Default must ALWAYS be to protect the power of a citizen's vote.

You are making a leap in the dark by trying to conflate what a single SCOTUS Justice ruled regarding a Federal CIRCUIT Court which has LIMITED JURISDICTION.

A Ruling in the 10th Circuit does not automatically apply to states in the 9th Circuit jurisdiction which is where California and Prop 8 occurred.

A single SCOTUS Justice making a ruling within a Circuit Court does not automatically override every other court in the nation which is what you are egregiously attempting to claim.

Your assumption is fallacious.

What doesn't have limited jurisdiction is SCOTUS. And what also doesn't have limited jurisdiction is the most sacred civil right of any that Americans have: the power of their vote to count and equality.

Since the conditions of that power are now effectively inequal, civil rights of 7 million in California are actively being suppressed. Not even passively, they are actively being suppressed because rogue officials there are gutting Their Law without their permission based on this arbitrary treatment of their civil rights on this gay marriage question. Utah cannot essentially be "the Supreme Court's Pet" in the big classroom of the 50 states.

You know that and are dodging that fact. A single voter in California could bring suit on suppression of their civil right to have their vote count equal to the citizens of Utah on the same legal question and that citizen would have standing [because it is THEIR vote being suppressed individually as well as collectively] and the people doing the suppressing are the very people that voter only had redress through to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

A violation of an existing and unquestioned civil right such as the right to have one's vote count would be a fast-track to SCOTUS. I would appeal straight to them because you have to. The normal channels would shut you off. And that, friend, is tyranny at the most insidious level. Americans cannot tolerate that. Our government was set up to have redress, not to return to the days of King George.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nope.

Let me put it to you this way....

The 10th district federal court of appeals denied Utah's request for a stay upon their recent Decision. They cited that "the civil rights of gays no longer can be denied"...or words to that effect when they ruled.

Then the Utah AG appealed that finding on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights outweighed that decision: citing Windsor 2013 as his reference.

Then reading that, SCOTUS OVERTURNED the 10th's denial of a stay....

...with me so far?....

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

With me so far?

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...! Everywhere....in all 50 states because you cannot have just one state having civil rights protected while the citizens of the other 49 languish without that protection.. The civil right to have one's vote counted is easily, hands down THE most important civil right an American has. And it should only be removed on a particular question only upon the final Decision of the Highest Court in our nation. And then only after unbelievable scrutiny. So sacred is this civil right. The Default must ALWAYS be to protect the power of a citizen's vote.

You are making a leap in the dark by trying to conflate what a single SCOTUS Justice ruled regarding a Federal CIRCUIT Court which has LIMITED JURISDICTION.

A Ruling in the 10th Circuit does not automatically apply to states in the 9th Circuit jurisdiction which is where California and Prop 8 occurred.

A single SCOTUS Justice making a ruling within a Circuit Court does not automatically override every other court in the nation which is what you are egregiously attempting to claim.

Your assumption is fallacious.

What doesn't have limited jurisdiction is SCOTUS. And what also doesn't have limited jurisdiction is the most sacred civil right of any that Americans have: the power of their vote to count and equality.

Since the conditions of that power are now effectively inequal, civil rights of 7 million in California are actively being suppressed. Not even passively, they are actively being suppressed because rogue officials there are gutting Their Law without their permission based on this arbitrary treatment of their civil rights on this gay marriage question. Utah cannot essentially be "the Supreme Court's Pet" in the big classroom of the 50 states.

You know that and are dodging that fact. A single voter in California could bring suit on suppression of their civil right to have their vote count equal to the citizens of Utah on the same legal question and that citizen would have standing [because it is THEIR vote being suppressed individually as well as collectively] and the people doing the suppressing are the very people that voter only had redress through to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

A violation of an existing and unquestioned civil right such as the right to have one's vote count would be a fast-track to SCOTUS. I would appeal straight to them because you have to. The normal channels would shut you off. And that, friend, is tyranny at the most insidious level. Americans cannot tolerate that. Our government was set up to have redress, not to return to the days of King George.

Inane hyperbolic rhetoric on your part does not hide the fact that you have zero substantive rebuttal.

Your position is null and void.

Case dismissed!

 

[Silhouette]

What doesn't have limited jurisdiction is SCOTUS. And what also doesn't have limited jurisdiction is the most sacred civil right of any that Americans have: the power of their vote to count and equality.

Since the conditions of that power are now effectively inequal, civil rights of 7 million in California are actively being suppressed. Not even passively, they are actively being suppressed because rogue officials there are gutting Their Law without their permission based on this arbitrary treatment of their civil rights on this gay marriage question. Utah cannot essentially be "the Supreme Court's Pet" in the big classroom of the 50 states.

You know that and are dodging that fact. A single voter in California could bring suit on suppression of their civil right to have their vote count equal to the citizens of Utah on the same legal question and that citizen would have standing [because it is THEIR vote being suppressed individually as well as collectively] and the people doing the suppressing are the very people that voter only had redress through to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

A violation of an existing and unquestioned civil right such as the right to have one's vote count would be a fast-track to SCOTUS. I would appeal straight to them because you have to. The normal channels would shut you off. And that, friend, is tyranny at the most insidious level. Americans cannot tolerate that. Our government was set up to have redress, not to return to the days of King George.

Inane hyperbolic rhetoric on your part does not hide the fact that you have zero substantive rebuttal.

Your position is null and void.

Case dismissed!

You just posted an inane reply with hyperbolic rhetoric without substantive rebuttal saying that my in-depth lucid logical argument is "inane hyperbolic rhetoric" with "zero substantive rebuttal" And thus doing you declared its stunning-validity "null and void" and "case dismissed!"...

I think you can see who we're dealing with here folks. Can you say 'projection'? Hostile irrational, diversionary defense systems?

Seems like the DSM should've kept LGBTs on the couch instead of running the top eschelons of the judicial system...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil has lost every case and vote in recent memory but for the stay in Utah, which the SC will probably toss back, meaning she'll lose that one as well, and yet she believes the horses can still be found and put back into the barn, which no longer exists.

 

[Skylar]

Since the conditions of that power are now effectively inequal, civil rights of 7 million in California are actively being suppressed. Not even passively, they are actively being suppressed because rogue officials there are gutting Their Law without their permission based on this arbitrary treatment of their civil rights on this gay marriage question. Utah cannot essentially be "the Supreme Court's Pet" in the big classroom of the 50 states.

The people do not have, nor have ever had the authority to vote to abrogate the rights of minorities. The federal judiciary has found that Prop 8 does exactly that. And thus ruled it was unconstitutional.

The issue has been fully adjudicated in the federal courts, with an explicit finding by those courts that Prop 8 was an illegal abrogation of rights. THe USSC allowed this ruling to stand.You simply ignore the ruling. And then ignoring it, pretend that it doesn't exist.

California doesn't have the luxury of your imagination. They are bound to the federal judiciary's ruling on Prop 8. Its illegal to implement any portion of Prop 8 in CA. That's not a 'suppression of civil rights'. That's the people passing a law that suppressed civil rights and being checked by the Federal Judiciary.

A single voter in California could bring suit on suppression of their civil right to have their vote count equal to the citizens of Utah on the same legal question and that citizen would have standing [because it is THEIR vote being suppressed individually as well as collectively] and the people doing the suppressing are the very people that voter only had redress through to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The USSC has already ruled that individuals do not have standing on Prop 8 unless they are parties to a gay marriage being challenged by Prop 8. The votes of the people of California weren't 'suppressed'. The law they voted for was found to be unconstitutional by the federal judiciary in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

That's due process.

Your entire basis of reasoning completely ignores the authoritative ruling of Prop 8's unconstitutional status. And just because you ignore the ruling doesn't mean it suddenly lacks authority or magically disappears. The Walker ruling is still in effect. And Prop 8 is still illegal in any part of California.

Any legal argument you make must assimilate these facts. As ignoring them doesn't make them disappear.

A violation of an existing and unquestioned civil right such as the right to have one's vote count would be a fast-track to SCOTUS. I would appeal straight to them because you have to. The normal channels would shut you off. And that, friend, is tyranny at the most insidious level. Americans cannot tolerate that. Our government was set up to have redress, not to return to the days of King George.

There is no right to violate the rights of minorities. Prop 8 was found by the federal judiciary to do exactly that: violate the rights of gays and lesbians who sought to be married. As for the right to vote to violate rights of minorities.....there is no such right. Making violation of it impossible.

Again, you ignore the Walker decision. Again, it remains authoritative even if you ignore it.

 

[Skylar]

You just posted an inane reply with hyperbolic rhetoric without substantive rebuttal saying that my in-depth lucid logical argument is "inane hyperbolic rhetoric" with "zero substantive rebuttal" And thus doing you declared its stunning-validity "null and void" and "case dismissed!"...

I think you can see who we're dealing with here folks. Can you say 'projection'? Hostile irrational, diversionary defense systems?

Says the soul that has insisted that the ruling of the federal judicary are 'fascist' and the judges 'whores' who are taking 'bribes' if you don't like the ruling. And that's just name calling nonsense. And exhibits an irrational degree of rage and hostility.

You're basing judicial authority on whether or not the ruling agrees with you. The problem with that process is, you're nobody. Judicial authority isn't based on your agreement with a given ruling. And a ruling is still authoritative, even when you disagree with it.

Your logic is founded on you being able to discard any ruling you don't like. But the law doens't dismiss a ruling just because you do. That's the disconnect. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the rules of law.

And your refusal to acknowledge the authority of the ruling has exactly zero impact on the authority of that ruling.

 

[Skylar]

And to elaborate on the point above:

A single voter in California could bring suit on suppression of their civil right to have their vote count equal to the citizens of Utah on the same legal question and that citizen would have standing [because it is THEIR vote being suppressed individually as well as collectively] and the people doing the suppressing are the very people that voter only had redress through to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Wrong again. The USSC has already ruled that proponents of Prop 8 have no role in its enforcement. That their role ends when the voting is done;

Petitioners claim that the California Constitution and election laws give them a “ ‘unique,’ ‘special,’
and ‘distinct’ role in the initiative process,” Reply Brief 5, but that is only true during the process of en
acting the law. Once Proposition 8 was approved, it became a duly enacted constitutional amendment.
Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in its enforcement. They therefore have no “personal st
ake” in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every California
citizen. No matter how deeply committed petitioners may be to upholding Proposition 8, that is not
a particularized interest sufficient to create a case or controversy under Article III.

HOLLINGSWORTH V PERRY
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

Yet you've insisted that their role in enforcement continues after the vote. The supreme court contradicts you. The 'special' status of the voter in this process doesn't exist. There's virtually no part of your claim that isn't imagined and contradicted explicitly by the USSC.

 

[Silhouette]

You just posted an inane reply with hyperbolic rhetoric without substantive rebuttal saying that my in-depth lucid logical argument is "inane hyperbolic rhetoric" with "zero substantive rebuttal" And thus doing you declared its stunning-validity "null and void" and "case dismissed!"...

I think you can see who we're dealing with here folks. Can you say 'projection'? Hostile irrational, diversionary defense systems?

Says the soul that has insisted that the ruling of the federal judicary are 'fascist' and the judges 'whores' who are taking 'bribes' if you don't like the ruling. And that's just name calling nonsense. And exhibits an irrational degree of rage and hostility.

You're basing judicial authority on whether or not the ruling agrees with you. The problem with that process is, you're nobody. Judicial authority isn't based on your agreement with a given ruling. And a ruling is still authoritative, even when you disagree with it.

Your logic is founded on you being able to discard any ruling you don't like. But the law doens't dismiss a ruling just because you do. That's the disconnect. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the rules of law.

And your refusal to acknowledge the authority of the ruling has exactly zero impact on the authority of that ruling.

No, I'm knowing the constitution and the difference between behaviors and race. And I'm also knowing about how the civil right to have one's vote counted, even just in the interim, is not exclusive to just one state like SCOTUS found for Utah a couple weeks ago.

I know that makes you mad and when defensive people are mad they lash out and call names. But that's not going to change the legal reality of the situation.

You're pissing in the wind on this one.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm knowing the constitution and the difference between behaviors and race. And I'm also knowing about how the civil right to have one's vote counted, even just in the interim, is not exclusive to just one state like SCOTUS found for Utah a couple weeks ago.

You're mistaking your personal opinion for knowledge. The USSC has said, with no ambiguity:

Petitioners claim that the California Constitution and election laws give them a “ ‘unique,’ ‘special,’
and ‘distinct’ role in the initiative process,” Reply Brief 5, but that is only true during the process of en
acting the law. Once Proposition 8 was approved, it became a duly enacted constitutional amendment.
Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in its enforcement.

Explicitly contradicting you. The voters have no special status in enforcement. And Prop 8 was fully adjudicated.....going all the way to the Supreme court with the finding that it was unconstitutional remaining intact.

That you ignore the federal judiciary's ruling is meaningless. As you pretending the ruling doesn't exist doesn't effect its authority or applicability in anyway. Agreement with you is not a legal or constitutional standard, no matter how hard you imagine otherwise.

I know that makes you mad and when defensive people are mad they lash out and call names. But that's not going to change the legal reality of the situation.

You don't 'know' that either. You're simply projecting your own rage onto me. The moment you started calling the judges that disagreed with you 'fascists' and 'whores', you demonstrated the emotion that drives your argument.

I prefer cool reason and rational assessment of the evidence. And the USSC contradicts you. They are authoritative. You're not. And the USSC has never ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional. While the federal judiciary has found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The federal judiciary is authoritative. You're not.

Rendering Prop 8 illegal in any part of California to this day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil thinks people get to vote, for what is unconstitutional, which even Congress isn't allowed to do...

 

[Silhouette]

Sil thinks people get to vote, for what is unconstitutional, which even Congress isn't allowed to do...

You speak as if SCOTUS has overturned its Windsor 2013 "state's choice" Decision on gay marriage.

When did that happen? Voters' right to have their votes power counted supercedes your hopeful outlook for the future for just some deviant sex behaviors getting coverage under Loving v Virginia [about race] or the 14th [about race, religion, country of origin or gender].

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil thinks people get to vote, for what is unconstitutional, which even Congress isn't allowed to do...

You speak as if SCOTUS has overturned its Windsor 2013 "state's choice" Decision on gay marriage.

When did that happen? Voters' right to have their votes power counted supercedes your hopeful outlook for the future for just some deviant sex behaviors getting coverage under Loving v Virginia [about race] or the 14th [about race, religion, country of origin or gender].

If what you vote for is unconstitutional, it matters not a damn what the vote was.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil thinks people get to vote, for what is unconstitutional, which even Congress isn't allowed to do...

You speak as if SCOTUS has overturned its Windsor 2013 "state's choice" Decision on gay marriage.

When did that happen? Voters' right to have their votes power counted supercedes your hopeful outlook for the future for just some deviant sex behaviors getting coverage under Loving v Virginia [about race] or the 14th [about race, religion, country of origin or gender].

If what you vote for is unconstitutional, it matters not a damn what the vote was.

If suppressing gay marriage is unconstitutional, why did SCOTUS just issue a stay on it in Utah under the argument that to not do so would suppress the vote [democracy] there? If the finding is already in stone, why the stay?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You speak as if SCOTUS has overturned its Windsor 2013 "state's choice" Decision on gay marriage.

When did that happen? Voters' right to have their votes power counted supercedes your hopeful outlook for the future for just some deviant sex behaviors getting coverage under Loving v Virginia [about race] or the 14th [about race, religion, country of origin or gender].

If what you vote for is unconstitutional, it matters not a damn what the vote was.

If suppressing gay marriage is unconstitutional, why did SCOTUS just issue a stay on it in Utah under the argument that to not do so would suppress the vote [democracy] there? If the finding is already in stone, why the stay?

Why are you having so much trouble understanding that what the Utah voters voted for is unconstitutional according to the circuit court but that the Utah AG has standing, unlike CA, to appeal that ruling to the SC?

That's all this is, and when the SC turns down the appeal, as they likely will, that is the end of that. They aren't protecting the rights of the voters, they are protecting the right of someone WITH STANDING to appeal to a higher court. That's all.

If they take the case, there are only two options. 1. Leave it up to the voters, which is very unlikely since most voters have changed their minds anyway. 2. Rule laws like this unconstitutional. As with Loving, they ruled against what the people voted for and that should also be the outcome in this case, if they take it which they do not have to.

They aren't protecting the rights of the voters, they are protecting the rights of the state to appeal. That's it, that's all.