Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[JakeStarkey]

Who cares? This threatens no one's civil or religious liberties.

 

[Silhouette]

Who cares? This threatens no one's civil or religious liberties.

On the contrary, it threatens the civil liberties of those voters who were just told they have a right to consensus on gay marriage. To strip away that constitutional right is a violation of their civil liberties to set social parameters in BEHAVIORS that quialfy for marriage:

DOMA 2013:

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other...

There's the Utah case's appeal hurdles.

And good luck with that and convincing people that the incomplete sexual-behavioral groups of 'LGBT' represent all the people SCOTUS must consider when rendering a decision. Will this SCOTUS be the one that forces polygamy upon all Americans without their consent? Maybe. Maybe not.

Get some good attorneys LGBT activists. You're going to need them...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ruling "threatens the civil liberties of those voters who were just told they have a right to [did you mean to put a "no" here] consensus on gay marriage. To strip away that constitutional right is a violation of their civil liberties to set social parameters in BEHAVIORS that quialfy for marriage."

No one can institute "social parameters" that invalidates others 14th Amendment rights.

Your civil and religious liberty is not invalidated, but the same-sex community's liberty has been trampeled.

Sil, let me know if anyone forces your pastor to marry a same sex union or forces you into a same sex marriage.

I will put on my super hero cape and fly (at my own expense) to rescue you.

 

[Silhouette]

The ruling "threatens the civil liberties of those voters who were just told they have a right to [did you mean to put a "no" here] consensus on gay marriage. To strip away that constitutional right is a violation of their civil liberties to set social parameters in BEHAVIORS that quialfy for marriage."

No one can institute "social parameters" that invalidates others 14th Amendment rights.

Your civil and religious liberty is not invalidated, but the same-sex community's liberty has been trampeled.

Sil, let me know if anyone forces your pastor to marry a same sex union or forces you into a same sex marriage.

I will put on my super hero cape and fly (at my own expense) to rescue you.

It hasn't slipped past my attention that you aren't talking much about today's gay hero Harvey Milk and went onto another tangent...lol..

I get why you wouldn't want to talk about him. It's hard to defend that which has no defense other than "yeah, we know he buggered teens openly and was a perv, but he's the standard we go by"...

...lol...

 

[WorldWatcher]

On the contrary, it threatens the civil liberties of those voters who were just told they have a right to consensus on gay marriage.

No they weren't. If you read the decision the core question was if a State says "Yes" to SSCM, can the Federal government say "No". That is the question the court addressed, they did not address whether States could say "No".

From the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of United States v. Windsor (DOMA Decision):

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"​

You are the only one I've seen imply that United States v. Windsor (DOMA Decision) establishes as stare decisis that States can discriminate against same-sex couples as a function of Civil Marriage. You are incorrect as Chief Justice Roberts points out, the decision does no such thing. The government of the State of California does not accept your interpretation. The California Supreme Court does not accept your interpretation, as a matter of fact no State that currently has SSCM accepts your interpretation as they all recognize legal Civil Marriages entered into in California. The Federal government does not recognize your interpretation as they recognize as legally valid both the 2008 Civil Marriages and those since the DOMA decision. The Supreme Court rejects your interpretation (as noted by Chief Justice Roberts) and in addition the SCOTUS rejected an appeal to halt SSCM from resuming.

Sorry, you are a lone voice repeating an untruth hopping to use the liberal credo of "repeat a lie often enough and make it big enough and someone, somewhere might believe you"


CITE: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

No one knows what's going to happen with this kind of law in a state like Utah. Those who bend and perform same sex marriages could find themselves subject to a whole other set of ostracism. Just because a judge said this is the law doesn't mean that people aren't going to find their own ways of following or avoiding it.

Not even a judge can compel someone to make nice.

No one has to make nice. Some people still don't make nice with interracial couples. Some people still don't make nice with interfaith couples.

True acceptance isn't as easy to get as you thought it was is it? The civil rights act didn't end racism. Some would say there's more racism today than there was in 1965. The best gays can hope for is the same result, a superficial and nominal legal acceptance and an underlying social rejection. It might be somewhat worse for gays since being black is not sinful, being gay is.

Never said it would be easy. Never said I expected 100% acceptance. Why did you think I said those things? And being gay isn't a sin.....being a liar is...being a hateful person probably is too.

 

[Silhouette]

You are the only one I've seen imply that United States v. Windsor (DOMA Decision) establishes as stare decisis that States can discriminate against same-sex couples as a function of Civil Marriage. You are incorrect as Chief Justice Roberts points out, the decision does no such thing. The government of the State of California does not accept your interpretation. The California Supreme Court does not accept your interpretation, as a matter of fact no State that currently has SSCM accepts your interpretation as they all recognize legal Civil Marriages entered into in California. The Federal government does not recognize your interpretation as they recognize as legally valid both the 2008 Civil Marriages and those since the DOMA decision. The Supreme Court rejects your interpretation (as noted by Chief Justice Roberts) and in addition the SCOTUS rejected an appeal to halt SSCM from resuming. >>>>

In the foregoing, when you say "the government of.." who exactly are you talking about? Because a majority voted out gay marriage in Prop 8. Who is dominant, one judge or a handful of them or a majority of the consensus in the various states on the question of this limited group of non: hetero-monogamous groupings?

That is what will be weighed and determined using the language and rationale of Windsor/DOMA as the Utah case moves upward.

A 7 million majority would disagree with your conclusions in California, for example. As would a 2/3rds majority in Utah. The name of this case at the SCOTUS level will be unofficially, if not officially dubbed as "judicial activists vs the People of each state". Another name for it might be "is LGBT" a complete inclusion for the purposes of deciding this case"...

 

[Silhouette]

OK... *crickets*

I'll ask it again:

In the foregoing, when you say "the government of.." who exactly are you talking about? Because a majority voted out gay marriage in Prop 8. Who is dominant, one judge, or a handful of them, or a majority of the consensus in the various states?

 

[WorldWatcher]

In the foregoing, when you say "the government of.." who exactly are you talking about?

The Executive Branch, The Judaical Branch, and the Legislative Branch.

The Governor, AG, and all Executive Departments understand the ruling as they have implemented it within their respective departments. The Judaical Branch understands the ruling, they have denied petitions to maintain the ban on SSCM rejecting court filings and requests for stays. I don't live in California but I would bet even money that the Legislature has had to pass some new laws governing the administration of marriage in light of Marriage Equality from a property, parentage, Child Custody, tax law, estate law, private medical insurance, state employee benefits etc... which have taken in to account that spouses can be male/female, male/male, or female/female.

A 7 million majority would disagree with your conclusions in California...

I highly doubt it. Just because 7 million people voted for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 7 million people don't understand that Prop 8 was determined to be unconstitutional in a court of Law and that the SCOTUS allowed that decision to be the final ruling on the matter.

But hey, knock yourself out. Collect your signatures (I think it's like 5% or 6%) of the last Gubernatorial election in California to get a referendum on the ballot. So so and you can ask those 7 million voters if Silhouette is right and the California Government, California Supreme Court, other State governments, the federal judiciary, and the Federal government are all wrong or if Silhouette is wrong and the California Government, California Supreme Court, other State governments, the federal judiciary, and the Federal government are all understand the law better than you.

Good luck.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK... *crickets*

I'll ask it again:

In the foregoing, when you say "the government of.." who exactly are you talking about? Because a majority voted out gay marriage in Prop 8. Who is dominant, one judge, or a handful of them, or a majority of the consensus in the various states?

Psst - Look at the time stamps of *crickets* post and my reply. I wouldn't get your panties in a twist, I don't live on these boards and I post under my schedule not yours.

A majority also voted out Interracial Marriage decades ago.

Just because majority votes for an unconstitutional law, doesn't automatically make it Constitutional.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Race and odd sex behaviors [some, but not all in LGBT] are not the same. And anyone of race should be offended at the comparison.

I highly doubt it. Just because 7 million people voted for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 7 million people don't understand that Prop 8 was determined to be unconstitutional in a court of Law and that the SCOTUS allowed that decision to be the final ruling on the matter.

But hey, knock yourself out. Collect your signatures (I think it's like 5% or 6%) of the last Gubernatorial election in California to get a referendum on the ballot. So so and you can ask those 7 million voters if Silhouette is right and the California Government, California Supreme Court, other State governments, the federal judiciary, and the Federal government are all wrong or if Silhouette is wrong and the California Government, California Supreme Court, other State governments, the federal judiciary, and the Federal government are all understand the law better than you.

Good luck.


>>>>

I don't need to collect signatures. See, that's the thing. According to DOMA Prop 8 is still law. Just because they vacated the lower decision does not mean they approved of it. They are waiting for the challenges that will come. And that will be Utah, to show that if a state has had a legitimate consensus on gay marriage, that's IT. That's the law. Just because the prop 8 promoters didn't come at this thing from a position of a voter having their right to have their consensus vote count, doesn't mean this won't happen with the Utah case. And when SCOTUS determines once again that a state's voters have the "unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage, it will sweep across and nullify judicial activist "legal gay marriage states" and default them back to the consensus results on the question instead.

So that will leave about 3 states with legal gay marriage, according to the consensus definition...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ruling "threatens the civil liberties of those voters who were just told they have a right to [did you mean to put a "no" here] consensus on gay marriage. To strip away that constitutional right is a violation of their civil liberties to set social parameters in BEHAVIORS that quialfy for marriage."

No one can institute "social parameters" that invalidates others 14th Amendment rights.

Your civil and religious liberty is not invalidated, but the same-sex community's liberty has been trampeled.

Sil, let me know if anyone forces your pastor to marry a same sex union or forces you into a same sex marriage.

I will put on my super hero cape and fly (at my own expense) to rescue you.

It hasn't slipped past my attention that you aren't talking much about today's gay hero Harvey Milk and went onto another tangent...lol.. I get why you wouldn't want to talk about him. It's hard to defend that which has no defense other than "yeah, we know he buggered teens openly and was a perv, but he's the standard we go by"... ...lol...

The attempts by a religious or political majority to defraud citizens of their rights is what we are discussing, not a red herring. We all understand why you don't want to discuss the real parameters of your heinous attempts to act like the segregationists.

Sil, no one cares that you think you are right. The judges and the legislatures and SCOTUS have told you are wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

According to DOMA Prop 8 is still law.

No it's not. Even the Supreme Court Chief Justice said the DOMA case had nothing to do with states that said "No".

That will be addressed in a separate case and then the court will address that core question, but so far they haven't. It might even be an appeal based on Utah, I don't know. But seeing as how they ruled DOMA unconstitutional because it targeted a specific group without a compelling government interest, then you might not want to county your chickens yet.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

According to DOMA Prop 8 is still law.

No it's not. Even the Supreme Court Chief Justice said the DOMA case had nothing to do with states that said "No".

That will be addressed in a separate case and then the court will address that core question, but so far they haven't.


>>>>

They addressed a consensus. Yes, they did already. A consensus is a "yes" or "no" vote on a given issue. A consensus is not a "yes-only" definition. This Utah case will be a case of very close attention to definitions of specific words carefully and purposefully chosen in the Windsor case.

That's why I keep urging people following this closely to read each and every word of Windsor/DOMA 2013. The words in the Opinion and how they were arranged were not chosen arbitrarily. And their precise meanings will be parsed out in the Utah challenge...

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Race and odd sex behaviors [some, but not all in LGBT] are not the same. And anyone of race should be offended at the comparison.

Right. I can just imagine telling a straight black man that his morals and issues are the same as a transgender's.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Polygamy isn't sick, historically speaking, polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. Homosexual Marriage is an invention of modern society.

No reason to oppose polygamy at this point. If you can marry someone of the same sex, why shouldn't you be able to marry and commit to multiple partners?

Polygamy isn’t marriage, it’s co-habilitation, and has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples’ equal protection rights, where marriage can accommodate couples of the same sex, but cannot accommodate more than two persons.

 

[WillReadmore]

That's why I keep urging people following this closely to read each and every word of Windsor/DOMA 2013. The words in the Opinion and how they were arranged were not chosen arbitrarily. And their precise meanings will be parsed out in the Utah challenge...

DOMA Opinion, Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”... In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality.

You missed the paragraph previous to the one you quoted in which the opinion of the court states:
"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967);"

Loving v. Virginia isn't irrelevant.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I guess that, after all these years of sending two male Mormon "Elders" out together for a year or two to preach all day, most days, has finally opened the door to true love among these kids that is bonded by service to the church, and maybe a little too much togetherness. Maybe they will start sending out male and female "elders" together, and get things back on track, according to the Mormon gospel!

 

[Iceman]

Polygamy isn't sick, historically speaking, polygamy has been around since the dawn of time. Homosexual Marriage is an invention of modern society.

No reason to oppose polygamy at this point. If you can marry someone of the same sex, why shouldn't you be able to marry and commit to multiple partners?

Polygamy isn’t marriage, it’s co-habilitation, and has no bearing on the issue of same-sex couples’ equal protection rights, where marriage can accommodate couples of the same sex, but cannot accommodate more than two persons.

The definition of polygamy is marriage to multiple partners.

It is very easy to accommodate, just issue another license. Come one, where is your can do attitude on this one?

 

[Mr. H.]

Gay divorce, American style.

Gotta love it.