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.
I read the judge's opinion in this matter. And I've read all of the DOMA decision which he cites to justify his decision.
heh...
All I can say is that all of you reading this should very carefully read the DOMA decision first, which will decide this case as it goes to the US Supreme Court soon. Then read the judge's decision here on the Utah question: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
I found the narrative very odd in the Utah decision. The judge goes into great detail about how each plaintiff found themselves to be "gay". Weird, right? Very odd to include such detail and then wrap up each vignette with a very brief "and then they decided to get married".
..lol..
...Prop 8 would have remained in effect because the California Supreme Court upheld it's case. However, Prop 8 lost in Federal court and was ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS did not vacate that ruling and allowed the District Court Judges ruling to stand.
>
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
The State of Utah contends that what is at stake in this lawsuit is the State’s right to
define marriage free from federal interference. The Plaintiffs counter that what is really at issue is an individual’s ability to protect his or her fundamental rights from unreasonable interference by the state government. As discussed above, the parties have defined the two important principles that are in tension in this matter. While Utah exercise the “unquestioned authority” to regulate and define marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, it must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of its citizens. See id. at 2692 (noting that the “incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage” may vary from state to state but are still “subject to constitutional guarantees”. As a result, the court’s role is not to define marriage, an exercise that would be improper given the states’ primary authority in this realm. Instead, the court’s analysis is restricted to a determination of what individual rights are protected by the Constitution. The court must then decide whether the State’s definition and regulation of marriage impermissibly infringes those rights....
...After the nation’s wrenching experience in the Civil War, the people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to “matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal constitution from invasion by the States.”...
... [then quoting the Hon. judge Harlan II]
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This “liberty” is not a series of isolated points
pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and
religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking,
includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgement."
I wonder if SCOTUS is going to hear Brown v Utah and this case at the same time? It's interesting to me how gay activists hear a case like this, of extreme legal gravity like striking down a constitutional provision of a state without the governed's permission, and automatically assume it's a done deal at the SCOTUS level. I wonder if these same activists have sat down and considered what would happen if SCOTUS consults its own decision in DOMA/Windsor and concludes that yes, it agrees with itself in that each state has a constitutional right to consensus to decide gay marriage and that no one, including a lower federal court judge, can remove that right from them?
Guess what that means? That means that in each state that has a ban on gay marriage brought about by a consensus, including Prop 8, gay marriage is retroactively illegal back to the founding of the country; as was stated in DOMA/Windsor is the span of time each state's citizenry has possessed this right.
Don't want to really burst any bubbles too hard here but this is the stone wall I predicted and gays need to be cushioned for the blow that is coming.
Utah having gay marriage is great, but it really is quite hilarious with all the Mormons out there doing all their hate-talk toward gays. I mean....really....Utah??? I think one of the LAST states to accept gay marriage in my book would've been Utah, right before Alabama and Mississippi. It really shows how much momentum this movement has gained, which is fantastic!!
This is what I meant when I said that liberals would pretend that the people accepted same sex marriage.
Of course they didn't. It was imposed by one judge. There is a legal right to marry and a social price that must be paid.
Maybe that's why so many same sex marriages are ending after a short time. One poor woman killed herself. They experience a whole new set of circumstances most of them unpleasant.
Are you saying Straight Marriages don't end in divorce or suicide?
I am. It is none of your business or the governments business..
Judge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional | Fox News New Link provided by Intense.
A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the states ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitutions guarantees of equal protection and due process.
"The states current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional." [...]
<snip>
.
This will open the door to bigamy and plural-marriage! You OK with that?
I am. It is none of your business or the governments business.Next could be siblings marrying. You OK with that?
It is already decided that minors cannot make that decision, give up that strawman argument. We are talking legal adults here.Lastly if could be an adult to a minor. Where do you draw the line? One uniqueness opens the door to more uniqueness.
You are knowledgeable, but unfortunately, you funnel all the info to twist a pre-set philosophy, the which empirical data does not support.
Here's what was said about the Utah case in reference to Windsor & Prop 8's Opinions last Summer. It's straight from the horse's mouth: the federal judge who just wrote the Utah opinion
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
The State of Utah contends that what is at stake in this lawsuit is the State’s right to
define marriage free from federal interference. The Plaintiffs counter that what is really at issue is an individual’s ability to protect his or her fundamental rights from unreasonable interference by the state government. As discussed above, the parties have defined the two important principles that are in tension in this matter. While Utah exercise the “unquestioned authority” to regulate and define marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, it must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of its citizens. See id. at 2692 (noting that the “incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage” may vary from state to state but are still “subject to constitutional guarantees”
...After the nation’s wrenching experience in the Civil War, the people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to “matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal constitution from invasion by the States.”...
... [then quoting the Hon. judge Harlan II]
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This “liberty” is not a series of isolated points
pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and
religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking,
includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgement."
About that last bit in bold...lol...lawyers are so clever. Hmm..what could I give as an example of "a series of isolated points" that might infringe upon the the "rational continuum" which "broadly speaking" includes a freedom from "all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints"?
About that I will say just two things. 1. "LGBT" is a "series of isolated points pricked out" of a much broader continuum and 2. The Supreme Court may elect to hear this case and Brown v Utah at the same time.
Democrats, be very afraid for your results in 2014, as I've been warning you for years.
Lawyers...lol... You either love their clever word play or you hate it, depending on which side of the decision you find yourself on. "LGBT" [but "arbitrarily" not other non-monogamous hetero sexual orientations of which there are literally hundreds] people had better not count their chickens before they hatch.
Oh please.
Not that pile of dog crap again.
Read the judge's decision and say exactly what part of the US Constitution you want repealed.
Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.
It would be criminal for the judge to find for the State, as there is no case law in support of such a ruling.
Oh please.
Not that pile of dog crap again.
Read the judge's decision and say exactly what part of the US Constitution you want repealed.
Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.
If they were gay, why the hell would they?
Can't blame the regular people when fags start getting bashed now can we? Just more polluting of society. The jew's ultimate plan. They have integrated our schools,taught women they are just like men and should work and not have babies,now pushing for marriage for faggots. A nation destroyed is easier to take over and control.
Both Kaz and Silhouette need to reread about the 14th Amendment and how it applies to SCOTUS decision making today.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This “liberty” is not a series of isolated points
pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and
religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking,
includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgement."
You are knowledgeable, but unfortunately, you funnel all the info to twist a pre-set philosophy, the which empirical data does not support.
It is an empirical fact that "LGBT" is not a complete set of non: "monogamous-hetero-adult" sexual orientations. Why are they arbitrarily "pricked out"? The Supreme Court will address that very question...
We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
I am. It is none of your business or the governments business..
Judge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional | Fox News New Link provided by Intense.
A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the states ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitutions guarantees of equal protection and due process.
"The states current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional." [...]
<snip>
.
This will open the door to bigamy and plural-marriage! You OK with that?
I am. It is none of your business or the governments business.Next could be siblings marrying. You OK with that?
It is already decided that minors cannot make that decision, give up that strawman argument. We are talking legal adults here.Lastly if could be an adult to a minor. Where do you draw the line? One uniqueness opens the door to more uniqueness.
Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.
It would be criminal for the judge to find for the State, as there is no case law in support of such a ruling.
Yes, of course it's right in the Constitution that it's illegal to not be leftist. I hear ya man, I think that's like in the Bill of Rights, isn't it? The right to be liberal and have government make life fair for you?
The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
You have every right to hate liberals, or homosexuals, or whomever you wish; you have every right to exhibit your ignorant of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and the courts that administer that law.
But you are not at liberty to attempt to codify that hate and ignorance.
Of course there will be plural marriages, animal brothels and with a small change in the age of consent laws, marriages to minors.
Once a country starts accepting depravity it doesn't stop. It takes it all the way to the end of the line.
Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.
If they were gay, why the hell would they?
Can you show me in the Constitution the part about where if you want something different then the law is applied to you differently?
